Tost

Hi. Curious about this myself. Are you the beneficiary? Did you live or work there? Did they ask about your work? I have to change my embassy from where originally on the i-130, is that how you did it?

Hmmph. I suppose that’s where it gets a little complicated. Business visa is what i entered on, then got some extensions based on the covid extensions they had here. Now I have a stamp that just says it’s extended for 1 year. It’s supposed to be a student visa extension, but no where in my passport does it say that. The business visa I entered on expired a long time ago and I stayed on covid visas then got that 1 year extension, so iim no sure what to say as category since if you just look at the poassport it’s just extensions to stay and the only last “visa” I had was business visa. as well I have another question. Does it change how long NVC takes to processs, will it slow down the process? thanskyou 🙂

On the I-130, I put my home country as the place for interview. However, I want to change it to where I’m living now. I have an extension to stay here, starting from a business visa then changed to a student visa. All it says on the stamp is that it’s an extension of stay, nothing about the purpose. Only that I can stay for 1 year. When my I-130 gets approved, how do I change it when it goes to NVC? Will they let me chance it if it’s an extension to stay but doesn’t say purpose?How much longer processing time does it add? How long of validity do they need to see on the visa? Thankyou 🙂

Ahhh, I hope it doesn’t seem I’m being argumentative. Just a friendly discussion and trying to come to a better understanding. I had to go digging again, but here is what it says on the SSAs official website regarding counting quarters between former spouses. Of course this is in reference to determining SSI eligibility (which is done somewhat frequently). I can see why we have mixup in reference the INA’s section 213, since it’s quite vague. But it does reference title 2 as determine the quarters. And what I just posted is the word on the matter from the SSA

It could matter. Not that it is of great concern, but hopefully from my curiosity it can cause someone to examine on their own with a defense in a possible litigation. And it’s true, I haven’t seen a case from all the ones I’ve read where the state or federal government pursued a sponsor for reimbursement. I’m not sure if there even is one, but it doesn’t surprise me since they aren’t really concerned with a few grand when the amount of effort they would have to put into it might cost them more. I do think under the trump era, if things had continued it might have ended up to where we started seeing more cases of federal and state government pursing reimbursement, since the administration started putting out instructions on holding sponsors liable, but never carried it out. All cases going through court ive read through have been where the immigrant demanded payment. Almost Every case they’ve been awarded, but they can waive their right and/or reduce the amount. Some states has cases that are more lenient, such as florida. However, they can’t waive the part where the federal government can still pursue reimbursement. That remains until the conditions for the obligation ending are met.

I see what you mean. Although I would note that there is a conjunction in (B) (ii). Notice: “all of the qualifying quarters worked by a sponsor of such alien during their marriage AND the alien remains married to such spouse”. Notice there is two conditions that must be met. During their marriage AND the alien remains married. And yes, the exception (“OR”) that they die. Naturally this is how it works with social security in their documents as well. Credits can be taken away from one spouse in the case of a divorce and not be credited with them. I mean, I agree with you in some sense that it indicates it should be terminated after 5 years where both contributed to the 40 quarters, but I suppose I see how they prevented that in the case of it counting quarters BEFORE the 5 years each (or 10 years however added together) with the AND conjunction.

Here’s some digging I did into the actual INA (where the I-864 originates) documents regarding the I-864. Here is the official INA section 213 word on the matter: So my take on this is that they DID specify the alien has to remain married. But this, again, brings up the point that it specifically says “Termination of period of enforceability upon completion of required employment, etc.” What specifically does “termination of period of enforceability” mean? Does that give room for reinstatement of conditions that were previously met to end the contract? Is someone good at legal terminology that can help me understand this. So the main question, could it essentially be reinstated after being fulfilled due to a subtraction of quarters? Part (ii) makes it clear that it only qualifies if they remain married. HOWEVER, once again this brings up the terminology of the previous statements, and I don’t see (ii) as a clause specifying the contracts fulfillment will be reinstated if qualifying quarters are subtracted. So as a recap, the ONLY TWO things I see here that could possibly lead to reverting back and reinstatement is: 1. How it starts in paragraph (A) by saying “in general” And 2. What the specific meaning of “termination of period of enforceability” is. Now I’m obviously no expert, although I love matters of law. However this is very interesting to me. If anyone has anything to add or is better at understanding legal terminology and logic, please explain

Hmm. I truly wonder if their case on this, as that’s what usually determines stuff. However the wording on the I-864 is definitely very vague, and I don’t see why it could be used in the manner I stated. Especially if the divorce was the initiated by the non-citizen. No trying to be argumentative here, but I wonder what led them to that conclusion. Since under the laws of social security, previous work credits are dropped. There’s gotta be a case out there somewhere I’m not finding. This is the second time I’ve seen lawyers say this.

Yes. That’s what I was referring to when I said they would loose the ability to count their spouses quarters for SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. However the I-864 makes no mention of having to continually maintain 40 or above credits. It simply states “your obligations WILL END….can receive credit for, 40 quarters”. There’s also no clause for reinstating the I-864 after the goal has been met.

Saw this forum and thought it might be good to ask this somewhat complex question. I have seen that spouses can be credited with each other’s social security quarters to equal to 40 while married (theoretically fulfilling the I-864’s requirements of 40 quarters to end in 5 years instead of 10 years?). However I do wonder if it would count AFTER a divorce. The quarters being reverted back to 20 and would reinstate the financial responsibilities an I-864? According to the I-864 form itself, it says this: “Your obligations that you signed will end if the person who becomes a lawful permanent resident based on that affidavit: B. Has worked, or can receive credit for, 40 quarters of coverage under the Social Security Act;” Now, according to the Social security administration, if a spouse divorces another, they loose the ability to count their ex-spouse’s quarters. Which would then bring them back down to 20 quarters instead of 40 (after 5 years of working.). HOWEVER, the I-864 explicitly states your obligations “will end” when the alien CAN receive credit for 40 quarters of work. So am I correct to understand the agreement ends at 5 years and stays ended, even if a year or years later they get divorced? I’m deducting that from the fact that it says it ends when the immigrant can receive or is eligible to receive credit for 40 quarters of social security. So can it be reinstated? I don’t see a clause for that, but interested to hear everyone’s thoughts, opinions, experiences, and perhaps links to real life scenarios.