PurrSuede

Did anybody happen to notice that the Op was a newbie? The poor thing came on here to get a little sympathy, advice, and encouragement. Instead the post was turned into an English Major cat fight. A appreciate your ability to write intellectual bullshit but the poor OP never came back. Shame on you. 3 pages of ####### and only a couple of real answers. Visa Journey has sunken to an all time low. You should be ashamed. This sort of sparring should be taken to PM's or perhaps a barroom brawl. People come here for advice, not to be impressed by your writing skill!!!!

If she never came back, then how would she have seen any sympathy, advice, encouragement, or the lack thereof for that matter??

It's the old "if the OP never comes back, did they miss any intelligent replies" question....

It's kind of amazing how the word "bullshit" makes it past the censors, but the word ###### (without the bull- prefix) doesn't, don't you think?? But I guess "#######" is a reasonable substitute, all things considered.

So how do you really feel about this, sjoefl01???

-- Dan

Furthermore, it's not sexist to say a man doesn't know what it's like to carry a baby inside of him for 9 months.

and it's still not....so get over it and go hump someone else's leg

PS: that is NOT what she said, so stop paraphrasing other people's posts if you've nothing better to do...

-- Dan

It might have been rude IYO, but it's not sexist, it's the truth. A man doesn't have a uterus. A man cannot know what it's like to carry a baby. A man made the flip comment that made it seem as if "giving up" a baby is simple. These are all facts and truths. I cannot be sexist toward you about you not having a uterus, it's biology.

That's not what you said... you said:

So typical. Spoken like someone who doesn't have a uterus

Saying someone doesn't have a uterus is biology and NOT sexist...

Saying "that's typical. And spoken LIKE someone who doesn't have a uterus" ~IS~ sexist

Huge difference. One is a statement of fact. The other is a sexist remark.

Fine, you want to accuse a man of making a "flip" comment. I'm accusing you of doing the same thing. It was a sh*tty sexist remark you said...

You didn't say "you don't have a uterus, so you don't know..."

you said so TYPICAL and SPOKEN like someone who... that is pure and blatant sexism speaking.

If I said, "these arguments are SO typical of a bunch of ESTROGEN-laden women who obviously must be having a bad-hormone day to be so damn picky about it...", you'd be screaming about it.

Good thing I didn't say anything of the sort. That would be sexist of me to do so.

In case you don't understand the difference I suggest you look up the definition.

One definition of "sexism" is:

Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

When you said "SO TYPICAL, and spoken like" that is exactly what you were doing... showing an attitude that promoted stereotyping of social roles based on gender (the fact he doesn't have a uterus only denotes his gender).

-- Dan

OMG this lesson is just what I've been waiting for.

p.s. You can say whatever you want about hormones, it's a lame come back that I overlook.

I didn't say a damn thing about hormones, I said "IF I SAID something like that, you'd be all over it". I was showing you an example of the difference between the two. Obviously you don't have seem to be able to fathom the difference between the two, or understand when someone is giving you an EXAMPLE vs. making a statement. Speaking of lame....

When you've figured out that difference, we can consider having a rational conversation or even debate. Minus your sexist remarks, hopefully.

At least LisaD knows which side of the sexist divide her remarks are coming from...

-- Dan

and it's still not....so get over it and go hump someone else's leg

I'm waaaaay over it. You, I expect those kinds of remarks from, so I'm used to them...

:heh:

-- Dan

But this post says the OP got divorced last year, while just last month he/she was asking for AOS interview advice. Something just doesn't add up. I suppose it's possible that the two are not mutually exclusive, but it seems rather fishy.

iam using my friend password and login name ,he is my friend and iam using his account thats all thanks i will have to ask a lawyer about this matter,do i have to ask a property lawyer or family lawyer?thanks.

A Family lawyer will have knowledge of property law as it relates to your divorce settlement.

Again... listen to what everyone here has told you... "See a Lawyer"....

-- Dan

It's one thing to detect possible fraudulent intent prior to a marriage. Once you've married someone, there's only one way out, when things start to head south on you, and that's the path of divorce.

...or, annulment, if deceptive practices were involved.

My lawyer(s) told me to try and PROVE deception in order to get an annulment would be a long, costly and drawn out process, and would eventually come down to my word against hers.

Both of them told me that it was far far simpler, cleaner and less expensive to just divorce her flat-out and let her worry about proving deception, or the lack thereof, to the USCIS.

For me to try and prove in court any deception on her part, basically would have taken a LOT more work (and money) on my part, and still might not even result in an annulment being granted.

Of course, if you have proof of deception... that's a different story, but rock-solid evidentiary proof of that can be very difficult to come by indeed.

-- Dan

Interesting, I just read the OP's history of posts and they do seem to be written from the immigrant's perspective. But I suppose the USC could hijack the ID and change the password, if both were accustomed to using it.

It is pretty interesting. But most people have told her/him to GET A LAWYER.

I don't know how they can make it any clearer.

The way it looks, I'm almost thinking ~she~ (the USC) didn't sign the quit claim deed, he went to re-fi, discovered that he couldn't, and he wants to know what to do about it, looking for some sort of quick answer, when the reality is, this is a complex legal issue that will require a lawyer.

Get a lawyer, get a lawyer, get a lawyer...

What's interesting is both posts seem to be written with the same kind of literary style and verbage and punctuation or the lack thereof... things that make you go hmmmmmmm...

-- Dan

It might have been rude IYO, but it's not sexist, it's the truth. A man doesn't have a uterus. A man cannot know what it's like to carry a baby. A man made the flip comment that made it seem as if "giving up" a baby is simple. These are all facts and truths. I cannot be sexist toward you about you not having a uterus, it's biology.

That's not what you said... you said:

So typical. Spoken like someone who doesn't have a uterus

Saying someone doesn't have a uterus is biology and NOT sexist...

Saying "that's typical. And spoken LIKE someone who doesn't have a uterus" ~IS~ sexist

Huge difference. One is a statement of fact. The other is a sexist remark.

Fine, you want to accuse a man of making a "flip" comment. I'm accusing you of doing the same thing. It was a sh*tty sexist remark you said...

You didn't say "you don't have a uterus, so you don't know..."

you said so TYPICAL and SPOKEN like someone who... that is pure and blatant sexism speaking.

If I said, "these arguments are SO typical of a bunch of ESTROGEN-laden women who obviously must be having a bad-hormone day to be so damn picky about it...", you'd be screaming about it.

Good thing I didn't say anything of the sort. That would be sexist of me to do so.

In case you don't understand the difference I suggest you look up the definition.

One definition of "sexism" is:

Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

When you said "SO TYPICAL, and spoken like" that is exactly what you were doing... showing an attitude that promoted stereotyping of social roles based on gender (the fact he doesn't have a uterus only denotes his gender).

-- Dan

Dan...

what she said was

Exactly, which is why a MAN can NEVER know what it's like to carry a baby, and should NEVER suggest a woman can give up a baby she's carried 9 months as if it's the simplest thing in the world.

which I completely agree with, btw.

I was not paraphrasing, I was repeating in case you missed it, because it seems you did.

You were paraphrasing.

You did not repeat exactly what was said. Therefore you paraphrased it.

So no, I didn't miss anything, only that you seemed to feel the need to explain someone else's post, and then criticized someone else for doing the same thing.

Sorry, but it seems my attention to detail is quite a bit more accurate than yours.

Definite

-- Dan

"The common thing I have figured out by reading these forums where a relationship has gone sour is that the petitioner chose to ignore signs." <---yes this say that I have experience this issue right?

You're forgetting one thing.. sometimes things go "sour" after a marriage occurs.

It's one thing to detect possible fraudulent intent prior to a marriage. Once you've married someone, there's only one way out, when things start to head south on you, and that's the path of divorce.

That usually involves legal representation, access to the legal system, financial cost and a host of other things (including an analysis of the I-864 support aspect).

Your advice is interesting "pre-" marriage, when the relationship is just taking place, but once you're married... ya know what???

It can turn as sour as hell and you still have to deal with the ramifications thereof.

-- Dan, that "been there, done that" kind of guy...

Furthermore, it's not sexist to say a man doesn't know what it's like to carry a baby inside of him for 9 months. Stop being so PC, Dan....it's stupid

If she had made exactly that statement, in such a manner as you described, it wouldn't have been sexist.

The way the statement was targeted, it certainly -was- a rather sexist remark. And in case you didn't get the drift of the "Holy Estrogen, Batgirl", it was meant rather T.I.C., but I guess you didn't catch that either, but as long as we're going to split some hairs....

So typical. Spoken like someone who doesn't have a uterus and will never carry a baby for 9 months.

There's a difference between saying "a man doesn't know what it's like to..." and "go figure, a MAN would say something like that", as an example, Lisa, along with the sarcastic "So Typical".

Stop being stupid, Lisa, it's sooooooooooo PC.... LOL

Furthermore, it's not sexist to say a man doesn't know what it's like to carry a baby inside of him for 9 months. Stop being so PC, Dan....it's stupid

And by the way, Lisa:

.... nor do I think you need to explain what she said. Surely you can have your own opinion & are free to express that, but why paraphrase for another poster? I don't get it.

I don't think you need to explain what she said. Surely you can have your own opinion and are free to express that, but why did you feel the need to paraphrase for another poster?? I just don't get that...

::::: smile :::::

-- Dan

If it would kill you that he met someone else I would suggest that you get therapy. If he cmes back I suggest you both get therapy. Remember if you signed the affadavit of support you are responsible

Statements like THAT ("you are responsible") are why I try to remind everyone that the I-485 I-865 I-864 *yeah that's it* is not some death sentence and there are ways around it, and not something that needs to be feared horrendously.

Statements such as those made by Rubyshoes, which are deliberately designed to be provocative are why I try to explain to people that this is not a sword hanging over their head, it is RARELY if ever used, and people should not be ascribing all the doom and gloom to this that they are.

Also, for such an idiotic statement, if they haven't gotten married yet, they haven't filed for AOS, and the form for "support" you send to the Embassy is NOT the same as the I-485 I-865 I-864 you file after marriage.

Stuff like this is just counter-productive and inflammatory, imho...

Click your heels together three times and go back to Kansas, Ruby...

DUH... that's I-865 I-864... I must have been thinking about Charlotte after watching the football game last night...

so make that I-865 I-864 please...

I quit.. that's I-864... I can't type today... and no I wasn't thinking of I-865 in Indianapolis either...

sheesh... never mind... y'all know the gawdfersaken form I mean....

-- Dan

If it would kill you that he met someone else I would suggest that you get therapy. If he cmes back I suggest you both get therapy. Remember if you signed the affadavit of support you are responsible

Statements like THAT ("you are responsible") are why I try to remind everyone that the I-864 is not some death sentence and there are ways around it, and not something that needs to be feared horrendously.

Statements such as those made by Rubyshoes, which are deliberately designed to be provocative are why I try to explain to people that this is not a sword hanging over their head, it is RARELY if ever used, and people should not be ascribing all the doom and gloom to this that they are.

Also, for such an idiotic statement, if they haven't gotten married yet, they haven't filed for AOS, and the form for "support" you send to the Embassy is NOT the same as the I-864 you file after marriage.

Stuff like this is just counter-productive and inflammatory, imho...

Click your heels together three times and go back to Kansas, Ruby...

DUH... that's I-864... I must have been thinking about Charlotte after watching the football game last night...

so make that I-864 please...

Doh lol try again

I-864

Bad fingers, bad fingers, BAD!!

:evil grin: and a

If it would kill you that he met someone else I would suggest that you get therapy. If he cmes back I suggest you both get therapy. Remember if you signed the affadavit of support you are responsible

Statements like THAT ("you are responsible") are why I try to remind everyone that the I-485 I-865 is not some death sentence and there are ways around it, and not something that needs to be feared horrendously.

Statements such as those made by Rubyshoes, which are deliberately designed to be provocative are why I try to explain to people that this is not a sword hanging over their head, it is RARELY if ever used, and people should not be ascribing all the doom and gloom to this that they are.

Also, for such an idiotic statement, if they haven't gotten married yet, they haven't filed for AOS, and the form for "support" you send to the Embassy is NOT the same as the I-485 I-865 you file after marriage.

Stuff like this is just counter-productive and inflammatory, imho...

Click your heels together three times and go back to Kansas, Ruby...

DUH... that's I-865... I must have been thinking about Charlotte after watching the football game last night...

so make that I-865 please...

Just a little tidbit since you didn't post all your facts, understandably.

It's possible that you could have signed a "divorce agreement" or property settlement that stated you wanted to give him the house...

HOWEVER.. assuming it's in both your names on the Property Deed, you would have had to file/sign a QUIT CLAIM deed in order to relinquish your property rights to the house.

And without that, he can't sell it, re-finance it, etc. without a great deal of hassle and difficulty, if at all.

But as everyone said, get yourself a LAWYER ASAP. And don't sign anything else without your lawyer THOROUGHLY explaining everything to you!!!

-- Dan

If it would kill you that he met someone else I would suggest that you get therapy. If he cmes back I suggest you both get therapy. Remember if you signed the affadavit of support you are responsible

Statements like THAT ("you are responsible") are why I try to remind everyone that the I-485 is not some death sentence and there are ways around it, and not something that needs to be feared horrendously.

Statements such as those made by Rubyshoes, which are deliberately designed to be provocative are why I try to explain to people that this is not a sword hanging over their head, it is RARELY if ever used, and people should not be ascribing all the doom and gloom to this that they are.

Also, for such an idiotic statement, if they haven't gotten married yet, they haven't filed for AOS, and the form for "support" you send to the Embassy is NOT the same as the I-485 you file after marriage.

Stuff like this is just counter-productive and inflammatory, imho...

Click your heels together three times and go back to Kansas, Ruby...

Was today the day he was going in for his cardio tests...???

Please don't forget to update us when you know anything about how they went... our thoughts and our prayers are with you during this difficult time...

-- Dan

WASHINGTON - U.S. companies will need to keep track of all the e-mails, instant messages and other electronic documents generated by their employees thanks to new federal rules that go into effect Friday, legal experts say.

You mean, you didn't realize MOST companies in the US are already doing this???

And if you are using a corporate computer, owned by your employer, they have every right to see, review, monitor, etc, all the emails, IM's, websites that you visit, etc.

You didn't know this???

hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

-- Dan

Again off topic. Read an article last week in the Washington Post. They broke up an illegal marriage ring that was taking place at the ArlingtonCourt house. Guess the admin people tipped off the police. They foundd it odd that these couples in "love" did not sit by each other and made silly spelling errors onthe application. Turns out this illegal operation had been going on for a very long time. Not sure whats going to happen to these people, but the article did say that deportation was a strong possibility. Was an interesting read.

Hi!

The situation you've described is an obvious Fraud as well as the couples seems even didnt know each other.

Maybe the INS is gonna go after these weardows too. ., but in the article i've read was clearly stated that the INS is only after the Multiple rings or another words More then One marriage at the same time.

They are not gonna go after those like for example if you;ve read the posts about Dmartmars story and Pursuede member story and others broken hurts .....posted in this forum...

So the INS is not gonna investigate the cases of their wifes as thats not a Fraud.

Best wishes.

Sincerely.

Sweetgirl, I appreciate your info, however, unfortunately I can't comment on an article I haven't seen, that you referenced...

I did get the sense however that this could mean they are ACTIVELY trying to track down these fraudulent marriage rings. The occasional case, such as mine, they don't have to go out using their resources chasing an individual... after all, the individual eventually has to come to them, hmmmmm??

And as I've mentioned in my situation, my ex- offered me cash payments in return for fraudulent documentation. I reported that to the USCIS. I would find it hard to believe that the USCIS would just not care, considering the warning that is at the bottom of every document you sign from them...

But they don't have to "go after" her with their limited resources, they can simply wait for her to come to them, after all, she doesn't have the permanent green card yet, as far as I know.

But as I've indicated before, that's between her and them.

And if you think about it, assuming someone has been a victim of a fraudulent tactic that eventually ends in divorce... under the IMBRA laws, under certain circumstances we, as the the US Citizen, have to ASK for a waiver to allow us to do this again...

That alone just kind of crisps my cookie, but hey... what can you do, I didn't write the laws as they are written...

-- dan

And when it comes to INS marriages, what the immigrant does after divorce really plays a huge part as well.

I find this statement very interesting, in this context....

can you be more explicit with why you feel this would be true??

-- Dan

I'm not conjecturing, necessarily, I'm suggesting that the opportunity exists for an alien to secure support, and the government entity to seek recompense for benefits drawn by the alien from the sponsor, should it choose to. Just because a handful of people have not heard of it being done, does not mean that it hasn't nor that it can't. The legal foundation for it to occur and culminate in a success currently exists. Now whether there has been any agency savvy or justly motivated to date, is another story. However, that being said, if your principle interest is to assuage all the frayed nerves that sponsors might have when agreeing to endorse the Affidavit of Support, all well and fine. Suffice it to say, that the potential is there, and one can hedge ones bets as to whether or not it will ever happen to him or her.

There should be no debate over whether your obligation to the I-864 could be used in court to secure support or recompense for benefits... Whether the likelihood of one is more than the other or if 'people have not heard of it being done' just shows how much one is either aware of it's reality or still in the dark.

It's all fine and dandy to read some lawyers opinion and research of cases.. but one must have common sense with about such research, which is always a subset of reality; no research can be aware of every possible case.

I am personally aware of three CURRENT cases of the I-864 being used against the petitioner in divorce preceedings, and I've done no research to find them. If you really want to see more if it, it is probably going to happen from those countries where fraud and scam is more suspected in the first place... Chinese beneficiary's are all the ones that I know of. I am realistic enough to accept that three cases simply means there are more out there.

In one case, there was recompense to the beneficiary for simply being married a year (state, CA).. even though she was not in the US for the time period the award was set for !! Although this is a little off-topic to the I-864, let's not be too naive in understanding how far a lawyer will go for their client and what means he can leverage in the end. Wake up and smell the I-864.

But again, being used against the petitioner in a divorce proceeding is EXACTLY what Wheeler is talking about, aka used by disgruntled spouses. And using it as "leverage" within a divorce is a far different cry from using it as the basis for a suit on the merits of the I-864 alone, indeed.

Of course, it all depends which side of the I-864 you fall on. I can see how a digruntled immigrant spouse ~could~ use it as leverage to try and -get- support (especially where none was given), but having gone through this myself on the other side, my lawyers and I did whatever was necessary to best insulate myself from the ramifications of this document.

Let's also not be so naive as to approach any divorce proceeding without legal representation, and for whatever one party can try to leverage, the opposing lawyer can diffuse and de-leverage if you will. This is why the legal profession is adversarial, indeed.

And I've never said it can't be used as leverage within a divorce proceeding. Even Wheeler pointed out that it HAS been used as ammunition by disgruntled spouses. My point was that it certainly can be defused, and that's exactly what we did within my divorce proceedings regarding this document.

And again, my immigration lawyer pointed out to me that NO TIME (to his knowlege) has ANY I-864 been used to seek redress (monetary damages) against a US Citizen by ANY gov't agency within his 20 years of practice as an INS staff attorney.

Look up the word "non-modifiable support" and see what that means, perhaps, while you're sniffing around and smelling things, zixuandavid...

-- Dan, who's been there, done that, and knows what I'm talking about...

Three or four times a week, sometimes five, I go work out at our local "HealthPlex"

First, I spend between 45-60 minutes on cardio-machines, the treadmill and elliptical trainers, usually doing about 4-5 miles combined total per session on those...

Then I hit the weights... I do 6 machines x 30 reps x 80 lbs for a total of 14,400 lbs

Then I come home and eat....

-- Dan

Except there's ONE small error..

The "Michigan" Tag will NOT let you apply it to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, only to the Lower part (the part that looks like a mitt that is just north of Indiana/Ohio

You cannot label the UP of Michigan with the Michigan label... so I'd call that a mistake... cuz both parts of the state are truly Michigan.. just ask a Yooper

-- Dan

I'm inclined to agree that collection by the government under the Affidavit of Support is less likely than other hazards inherent in a couples decision to divorce. Although Wheeler states that he is not aware of any attempts made by agencies to recover repayment for benefits from the sponsor, that alone does not necessarily mean that it a. ) has not been done, nor that it b. ) would not be done. The regulations preserve the right of the agency to "request" reimbursement and take further legal action if deemed necessary.

Regulations, Schmegulations... as I said, an attorney with 20 years practice as an INS-staff attorney told me that it had NEVER been done.

And I could not find any case law or context on the web where it had -ever- been done, either, my dear Mermaid... can you???

The author is not aware of any successful actions to obtain reimbursement for means-tested benefit programs obtained by the alien,

Actions, as in legal suits, perhaps, but is Wheeler aware of any requests made that the sponsor simply capitulated to and repaid without legal action?

Again, considering all the webcrawlers we have around here... are you or anyone else???

And again, my attorney informed me they would need to "file a suit" in order to get re-imbursement, and he said (to his best knowledge, of course) this had NEVER been done. I'm sure they don't just call someone up and say... "could you please send us $6,000 to cover so-and-so's welfare payments we made?" As the other Wheeler post iterated, many agencies have no actual method to even attempt reimbursement, much less through another agency (the USCIS) that they might not even be aware of or in contact with, should even the alien even try to get benefits...

I think you give too much credit to gov't bureaucracy... the left hand usually doesn't know what the left fingers are doing, much less the right hand, to fracture a cliche...

(1) sponsored aliens are barred from receiving these benefits for a five-year period in most jurisdictions; (2) after this five-year period, the income of the sponsor is deemed to the alien in determining financial eligibility

This doesn't necessarily render the Affidavit of Support obligation moot either. Contemplate a situation where an alien divorces the sponsor, and the sponsor falls on hard times as well (not so unusual in the context of divorce and avaricious family law attorneys ). If the sponsor's income is deemed to the alien in determining financial elgibility, and the sponsor has little to none, presto the alien can access benefits. What's more, although an agency might not be duly motivated to institute legal action to recover reimbursement, I note that nothing is said about the agency possibly denying future benefits to a sponsor that has an outstanding debt to the agency, as a result of a prior claim under the affidavit of Suport. I'm not sure if this would occur, but I wonder if it isn't out of the realm of possibility. Anyone know?

Again, I'm interested in this in the context of REALITY of if it has -ever- occured. And all my research tells me that it hasn't to the knowledge of several immigration attorneys who deal with this situation much more often on a real-basis than we do on a conjecture basis here on VJ.

-- Dan

And even still... as the Wheeler comment suggests "going on welfare" (a means-tested benefit) would be next to impossible for five years anyway...

The author is not aware of any successful actions to obtain reimbursement for means-tested benefit programs obtained by the alien, largely due to the following: (1) sponsored aliens are barred from receiving these benefits for a five-year period in most jurisdictions; (2) after this five-year period, the income of the sponsor is deemed to the alien in determining financial eligibility; and (3) most states have not implemented a system for seeking such reimbursement in cases where the alien does access benefits.

-- Dan

Dan, Dan, Dan....

don't let the truth get in the way of a good story!

Wanda sez: Hi Dan!

PS: agree with your last post totally. My comment was clarifying the intent of the doc WRT the comments I was posting on. IE: many people feel that this is their private business, their relationship etc. The issue is not 'you can't marry whomever you like' but 'you can't just import anyone you like without checking with the rest of us first'.

I like Wanda... and Coby (my cat...) ~might~ like Wanda, cuz they look a lot alike but then again, she might NOT like Wanda, because she -owns- me and -owns- my house and another cat, well, she might not be too darn sure about... but she says Hi anyway...

I agree with your comments though about it all being in the "public domain"... but having gone through the recent divorce, both my immigration attorney and my family-law attorney and I discussed the ramifications of the I-864 in great detail... so I'm aware of everyone saying how dire and deadly this is... but the reality of it, it is very very very unlikely to ever be actually used.

That being said, Wheeler has said for himself that:

This author has assisted several family law practitioners in their efforts to use the affidavit of support as a yardstick in establishing the appropriate level of spousal support for their clients in divorce proceedings. The argument is fairly straightforward: the federal government has set a floor of 125 percent of the poverty guidelines, which the sponsor is already obligated to provide to the alien spouse, and thus the sponsor should be required to provide at least that amount in regular spousal support payments. In states where the spousal maintenance/alimony laws or precedent holdings would not support such a finding, the author has encouraged sponsored aliens to file separate actions in state or federal court.

I did provide my ex-spouse with some level of support. That being said, my attorney said it was likely that under NM state law, I would likely have needed to do this anyway, as my income was much greater than hers. Regardless of if the marriage was "fraudulent" or not, in the view of the USCIS, it was still a legal marriage in the view of the state of New Mexico.

We also discussed ways to provide the amount of support she got so it was the most advantageous to me. (For those of you who don't understand this, alimony aka support paid to an ex-spouse IS a tax deduction under federal IRS guidelines, if done properly.)

And we also structured the wording of the settlement so she can NOT come back and seek additional support from me. So we felt this made the issue of the I-864 completely moot.

-- Dan

I was so scared last night thinking" my god his BP is so high, why did'nt the doc send him to the emrgency room!" I called the nurse at the doctor's office and told her how worried I was and that the doctor's comments had scared me. She apoligised for him, saying "He is pretty blunt and wanted John to know how serious it was in order to make sure John follows through with the tests needed. She did say the symptons John has have pointed to a heart condition and yes MAYBE surgery will be needed. I did get abit mad and said its not like he had been sent for them before and refused to go!!!! I told her I had been up half the night in tears and I thought his way with words was not the right way.

I do feel abit more positive than I did this morning, thinking that yes he is sick, but we can do something about it. I will say though that I will cart him off to the emergency room if he gets the slightest pain in his chest.

He has been suffering with cramps in his legs and twinges in his chest and also been falling asleep too easily and once when he was driving!!! I asked whether this was because of his BP and she said quite possibly!! So really no one knows for sure until the tests have been done and I am going to try and remain positive. I am still waiting to hear when the tests will be and yes Lou Lou really I am abit annoyed that they have scared the life out of us.It felt like a death sentence last night but I do feel more confident about it now and we will get through this.

Thank you so much again

Margy: first of all, I am sorry you and John are going through this.

However, that being said, be thankful that the MD pointed out how necessary these tests are, and no, they did not scare the life out of you... because John is still here and waiting for his tests. Be thankful indeed, because it could be a lot lot worse... you should be scared of what COULD have happened without medical intervention, should this be required.

I am not an MD, however I did have a heart attack followed by an angiogram and then CABG surgery (Cardiac Bypass Surgery) in 2004.

Since then, I've undergone cardiac rehabilitiation, lost weight, quit smoking, keep a heart healthy diet, and keep my lipids and cholesterol in check with medication. In learning what I've had to learn about cardio-medicine, I was basically a walking heart attack (blocked arteries) that was just waiting to happen. And I could have just as easily ~dropped dead~ instead of having warning symptoms, followed by tests which revealed the need for surgery. Currently about 47% of all heart attacks are fatal. Do not let John become a statistic, and that's why the MD didn't want to be overly "polite" but stressed the dire consequences of neglecting these symptoms that you've iterated.

As my cardiologist told me, the worst part of heart disease is that all too frequently the first symptom is sudden death. So yes, be glad he's been recommended for tests with the possibility that something is majorly wrong that can be diagnosed and corrected ~before~ this happened to John...

Yes, it was scary as hell for me to go through, but I survived and it was a major WAKE-UP call for me. And I survived it successfully and now I'm healthier than I was in 2004 or in many years previous to that because of it.

That being said, if you'd like to communicate with me offlist, having been through this kind of stuff personally, I'd be happy to talk with you.

-- Dan

I don't see the obligation as being Sponsor to Alien. It's Sponsor to Fellow American Taxpayers.

We don't want to foot the bill because your alien went on welfare.

(don't see how a prenup would kill it)

Meauxna, that's quite true. The principle obligation of the Affidavit of Support is one between the sponsor and the USCIS, but I believe that sweety pie may be referring to the exposure that a sponsor undertakes to the alien to support to the 125% poverty level. This brings about an interesting issue, in my eyes, because unless flagrant fraud is at hand wherein the alien should not be entitled to the benefits outlined by the sponsor in the Affidavit, to make any attempt to obviate any obligation to the alien, implied or otherwise, would be counter-productive in my mind. If the alien is indeed struggling on less than the national poverty income level, he or she might possibly try to draw benefits, and then the sponsor is on the hook to the government.

But wait a minute, let's have a ~reality check~ here, shall we??

There are NO known cases of the I-864 ever been used by any government agency to recover costs incurred on behalf of the alien immigrant against the sponsor.

That information comes first, directly from my immigration attorney who had 20 years as a staff attorney with the USCIS before going into private practice.

And second, from the well-discussed Wheeler article:

source: http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0110-wheeler.shtm

The author is not aware of any successful actions to obtain reimbursement for means-tested benefit programs obtained by the alien, largely due to the following: (1) sponsored aliens are barred from receiving these benefits for a five-year period in most jurisdictions; (2) after this five-year period, the income of the sponsor is deemed to the alien in determining financial eligibility; and (3) most states have not implemented a system for seeking such reimbursement in cases where the alien does access benefits. Over the course of the last nine years, only a handful of actions have been brought against sponsors by the sponsored alien, and all have been by disgruntled spouses.

The plain fact is, it's been used by disgruntled spouses (and we've discussed this) but it has not been used (to the knowlege of several immigration attorneys) by any government agency itself.

-- Dan

I was wondering if a prenuptial agreement can take away this obligation of the sponsor to the alien.Does anyone know?

and sweety_pie, from that same article by Wheeler:

...consider drafting a separate agreement where the sponsored alien renounces any claim against the sponsor for maintenance under the affidavit of support and agrees to indemnify the sponsor should the alien access any means-tested public benefits. This would resemble a pre-nuptial agreement, and would need to identify the consideration that both parties are receiving. Such separate agreements have not been enforced or challenged yet, and the main question is whether they will be found to violate public policy.

I don't see the obligation as being Sponsor to Alien. It's Sponsor to Fellow American Taxpayers.

We don't want to foot the bill because your alien went on welfare.

(don't see how a prenup would kill it)

And Meauxna...???

I do like your new photo.... <prrrrrrrr prrrrrrrrr prrrrrrrrrr>

But hey, ...there have been absolutely NO cases (that any immigration attorney I've found is aware of) where a gov't agency has used the I-864 to recover expenses FROM the Sponsor that were paid out on behalf of an alien immigrant spouse...

Let me make that clear. NONE... it hasn't happened to date.

So as I point out, it's all well-and-good if this is the intention, but the reality is this just does NOT happen.

And even still... as the Wheeler comment suggests "going on welfare" (a means-tested benefit) would be next to impossible for five years anyway...

The author is not aware of any successful actions to obtain reimbursement for means-tested benefit programs obtained by the alien, largely due to the following: (1) sponsored aliens are barred from receiving these benefits for a five-year period in most jurisdictions; (2) after this five-year period, the income of the sponsor is deemed to the alien in determining financial eligibility; and (3) most states have not implemented a system for seeking such reimbursement in cases where the alien does access benefits.

-- Dan