fathum21

4 minutes ago, payxibka said:

I don't dispute your information and even seemingly increased scrutiny by the USCIS.   However,  your affidavit will be reviewed by Manila (Department of State) and not DHS.  And despite what you would think it would be logical to have consistency across different departments of the federal government, that isn't necessarily the situation.  Example, USCIS accepts "liguid" assets to fulfill the affidavit support requirements,  Manila does not.  As of right now, the DOS has given the issuing post some level of autonomy in making these decisions.

 

 We have not seen a change (yet) coming out of them.  That is the situation today at least and could be wildly different in 2020 or 2021 when you finally get to that stage.

Oh I see your point now. Yes, I thought DHS might be currently imposing these changes on Manila.  I didn't realize the affidavit was currently reviewed only by the Department of State. Thank you for clarifying. This helps significantly.

6 hours ago, payxibka said:

Again, this is not some sort of attack to lessen or eliminate joint sponsor affidavits (there are those that wish it was eliminated as an available option).   This is a higher level of scrutiny on tbe public charge as a whole.

Maybe we are interpreting this differently. I didn't say the joint sponsor affidavits are lessened or eliminated. My interpretation is that they now carry less weight due to the holistic approach to determining a public charge. Before, the sponsor or joint sponsor affidavit satisfied this requirement 100%. Now, it is just one factor of many.

https://www.boundless.com/blog/public-charge-rule-explained/

DHS plans to require a new form called the “Declaration of Self-Sufficiency” (Form I-944) to accompany most applications for green cards and temporary visas. This form would collect information intended to help immigration officers determine whether the applicant is a “public charge” under the new, more expansive criteria outlined above.

This new form is not to be confused with the “Affidavit of Support” (Form I-864), which Congress has mandated since 1996 to demonstrate the financial resources of the person sponsoring the applicant for a green card or other visa. Until now, immigration officers have typically given great deference to an Affidavit of Support showing that the sponsor has an income (or asset equivalent) of at least 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, since this is a statutory threshold indicating that the visa applicant will have sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming dependent on government benefits.

Under the new policy, however, DHS plans to impose similar financial requirements on the applicant, not just the sponsor. It appears that at a minimum, applicants will have to demonstrate household income (or asset equivalent) of at least 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. But in addition, DHS would set an entirely new and higher household income threshold at 250% of the poverty guidelines, establishing this much higher hurdle as a “heavily weighted positive factor.”

This could mean that, to safely avoid denial on public-charge grounds, an applicant would need to show annual household income of $41,150 (for a couple with no children) on up to $73,550 (for a family of five) or higher.

1 hour ago, payxibka said:

I don't see anything correlating a finding of "public charge" and a joint sponsorship.

In the first link, the person had a joint sponsor with adequate support and was declined due to public charge concerns. Maybe it was because their kids were receiving government aid?

Here is an additional link https://asl-lawfirm.com/blog/tightening-minimum-income-requirements-for-immigration

Currently, immigrants can avoid being deemed a public charge if a sponsor submits an “affidavit of support” agreeing to financially support them. The sponsor is normally a family member with U.S. citizenship or a green card who must meet certain income guidelines and agree to repay the government if the foreigner receives benefits. Typically, the affidavit of support solves the problem.

Under the proposed regulations, an affidavit of support may no longer be enough.  The primary concern is whether the foreign beneficiary can be self-sufficient. A component of self-sufficiency can be the fact that the U.S. sponsor promises aid in support by signing the affidavit of support and providing documentation in support. The government can also look to the earning capacity of the foreign applicant.

Quote from  https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/03/01/state-department-visa-denials-surged-in-2018/#39d822b466d4

Anderson: What do you think is the impact of this increase in public charge denials?

Gorsky: These denials are for immigrant visa applicants and primarily impacted family immigration cases, leading to separations of family members (mainly spouses, parents and children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents). It should be noted that this “public charge” ineligibility is for persons “likely to become a public charge,” and is not for having actually received public benefits (although past receipt of public benefits is one factor that can be considered). It is instead primarily directed at applicants based on the income levels of the applicant and/or petitioner/sponsor on the grounds that the low income indicates that they might apply for a public benefit. In fact, most people in this class who get visas obtain employment and do not receive or qualify for public benefits.

1 hour ago, payxibka said:

I don't see anything correlating a finding of "public charge" and a joint sponsorship.

From the link:

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PIF-FAM-Summary-2018.pdf

How do the new FAM instructions change the longstanding “public charge” policy?

The revised State Department instructions continue to require that each factor (age, health, income, education, family situation, etc.) be considered in the public charge test. The instructions maintain the current definition of public charge as a person who is likely in the future to rely on cash assistance for monthly income or governmentfunded long-term care. However, the instructions include changes in evaluating a sponsor’s affidavit of support and the use of noncash benefits by applicants, sponsors, and family members.

Affidavit of support.

The new instructions emphasize that the affidavit of support is a positive factor in the totality-of-the-circumstances test but is not sufficient on its own to protect an individual from a determination that the person is likely to become a public charge. In addition, it suggests that the sponsor’s use of benefits could be taken into account. However, since the forms that visa applicants and their sponsors submit do not ask about the sponsor’s use of benefits, it’s not clear how this would be implemented in practice.

How have the revised instructions been implemented so far?

We are gathering information about how these changes are being implemented. We understand that applications at some consular offices have been scrutinized more closely than previously, and we’ve heard reports of denials and requests for additional information related to public charge. For example, individuals filing affidavits of support from joint sponsors have been asked to submit evidence regarding their relationship with the joint sponsor and the reasons why the joint sponsor is agreeing to take on this legal responsibility. Applicants who are asked to submit further information to satisfy the public charge test (such as evidence of a job offer or health insurance) may face delays.

3 hours ago, payxibka said:

Where did you read this?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-visas-insight/denials-of-u-s-immigrant-visas-skyrocket-after-little-heralded-rule-change-idUSKCN1RR0UX

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PIF-FAM-Summary-2018.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/03/01/state-department-visa-denials-surged-in-2018/#39d822b466d4

23 hours ago, missileman said:

A spousal visa takes 12-16 months from filing to visa in hand......if there are no hiccups along the way.....and you must already be married to even apply....Time is short....You might want to marry now and apply immediately.

The 12-16 month wait time was why we were considering the civil wedding first. I've read things saying that a joint sponsor doesn't carry much weight anymore so it's made me hesitant.  Thanks for the response.

On 6/10/2019 at 5:22 PM, Bill & Katya said:

If you have a valid joint sponsor that meets the requirements with a cushion your current income should not be a big issue.  Most of the rejection stories I have seen is with primary or joint sponsors just barely meet the income requirements.

 

That being said, you have to do what is best for you.

 

Good Luck!

Thanks for replying

I'm an American citizen and full-time graduate student that is planning to get married to a non U.S. citizen who is from the Philippines. I had consistent good income for 9 years but then quit my job in 2017 so I do not currently meet the income requirement for the spousal visa. Only 2016 will show significant income and I will have government student loan debt when I graduate. Because of this I will need a joint sponsor (my mom who is retired) for the AOS.  We plan to have a formal wedding in the Philippines in May 2020 but, due to the significant increase in visa processing times, are considering adding a civil ceremony this August so we can start the process earlier. We are trying to time it where she can come to the U.S. right when I graduate in Aug 2020 and I'm working again. 

My question is, will my lack of income be more likely to cause a rejected application due to the new 'public charge' interpretation? I have heard stories of rejections even with joint sponsors now. If that is the case, then would it be better to stick to the original plan and apply in May 2020 so that when her interview comes around I'm already working?  I'd like her to be here sooner but I don't want starting the process too soon to backfire on us and make us have to reapply.

Thank you for all your insight