HCT

I called again today at 7am EST and they answered in about 40 minutes.

9 hours ago, pushbrk said:

Well, yes.  For a spouse the factor is 3X, not 5X, but document ALL your "liquid" assets.  Go back to the form and particularly the part of the instructions that defines "liquid assets".  The question about current income asks for the current income YOU ARE USING TO QUALIFY.....   Instructions are clear you cannot use foreign income to qualify, so the answer should be zero.  You'll qualify based on assets.  Document them and state them accurately.

 

Lots of folks read these answers so, please don't think I'm piling on, BUT, your situation is a prime example of WHY I say so often, that becoming and A-Student of forms and their instructions (particularly the I-864) will be CRITICAL to your ultimate success.

Thank you, I appreciate your direct no-nonsense responses!

However, I cannot find any reference to the sponsor's international income not being acceptable. You may be right, but I've missed it if that's the case.

Additionally, yesterday we were advised by a US based immigration attorney that we are now unlikely to be offered an interview unless we submit a joint sponsor application. Again, you may be right but it's nerve-wracking sitting back and waiting for them to do something if they might never do it!

2 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

If you stated her income from the UK as any number other than zero, then you did incorrectly.  However, if you documented liquid assets of well over 3 times the income requirement, then relax.

 

DQ, ....IS...the next thing they do, but the timeline on that is unpredictable.  It's not connected with any actions related to the notice you quoted.

OK, we put UK income equivalent to US$56000. Sounds like we should complete a revised I-864 with our assets (over 5x the 125% poverty line for our situation) detailed (they weren't on the original) and take that to the interview.

23 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

They aren't.  Carry on, in this context, simply means carry on with your life as if no such message applies to you.  If the income is real and US based and the assets are real, liquid, and sufficient, it means nothing to you.  Millionaires get this message and ignore it.  It's a boilerplate message sent to everybody who doesn't have qualifying income shown on their most recent tax return.

Oh oh, "US based" - we live in the UK so it's not. However, my wife is looking at moving to the US ahead of me so she would get a US income probably by the time we get an interview.

9 minutes ago, Lil bear said:

In this case, the notice is advising that the application is considered complete and will be sent to the Consulate … and the consulate will decide if a joint sponsor is needed. This is exactly the NVC message that we received.. if the applicant was required to upload further documents to CEAC to complete the application, then the wording would have said so. We chose to have a joint sponsor in place just in case.. snd carried their I864 documents to tge interview .. the IO decided that our petitioner did meet the requirements. Having the joint paperwork in hand meant that, had the decision betn made that we needed a joint sponsor, we would have been able to have that approved at the time of interview. No delay.  

That was our original interpretation of it, but they have not sent us a message to say we are "documentarily qualified" which I thought was what they did next. Did you get that?

11 minutes ago, pushbrk said:

Based on how you describe your wife's current income and having sufficient liquid assets, I would ignore the message and carry on.

Thanks, but what does 'carry on' mean? What if we wait and they don't do anything? The message is so vague that we're worried they may be waiting for us to do something.

Just thought I'd post this in case it's of interest to others as I couldn't find much about it online. I called NVC today on +16033340700 at 3:15pm EST and was cut off after 12 minutes. I called back and waited on hold for an hour and a half before running out of patience. Will call again tomorrow at the recommended less busy times of 7am to 10am (EST) and 8pm to midnight (EST).

When I tried calling earlier in the day it wouldn't even let me get through. I just got a polite long message and then they suggested I try calling again later and hung up.

2 hours ago, JeanneAdil said:

are u saying u can meet the requirements with assets according to I 864 instructions?

If so,  complete a new I 864 and submit it with proof of assets as described 

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/i-864-affidavit-faqs.html#:~:text=actual household income.-,What can be used as assets%3F,%2C stocks%2C bonds and property.

Yes, we meet the requirements with cash assets. However, we met the requirements with my wife's salary which was more than enough, but they haven't accepted that, even though we provided recent paychecks. We didn't include cash assets in the I-864 as that section was optional and we could see we easily met the income requirements. It seems now that we should have done. So now I'm wondering if we should submit a new I-864, or just submit a note explaining the situation and evidence of the cash in the bank?

NVC has accepted all our docs - see screenshot below - and we've paid our fees, however, we have received the following message from them:

"This case does not meet the minimum income requirement to sponsor the intending immigrants. To avoid delays, an additional Affidavit of Support Form I-864 from a joint sponsor may be submitted. For more information visit https://nvc.state.gov/aos. The consular officer will make a decision regarding this requirement at the time of the interview. For more information, please visit https://www.uscis.gov/i-864p."

We have enough cash in the bank to show we can meet the financial requirements for our situation. Since they said "MAY" it seems like it's optional and we should be able to turn up to an interview with proof of our cash and be fine. However, NVC haven't told us we're Documentarily Qualified, they've only given us the above message several days ago, so we're unsure where we stand. Any ideas?

Thank you