triznite

Appreciate the replies. The plan has always been for us to live with my parents. We are all very close to each other and my parents have plenty of room, even a second owned home as an option as well. Perhaps I'll try to make that extra clear in the contact form request and try to see if they will go over the already uploaded evidence once more. I'll maintain that the officer sounds like they didn't look at all the evidence especially the domicile letters of intention. Maybe it'd help if my parents showed their significant multiple investment accounts of their own which are far more sizable than my assets. I agree $85k isn't a whole lot especially in the eyes of the average person. Though for us, we would be living very simply/modestly in a semi rural small town, and my parents refuse to charge rent. They enjoy the extra company and us helping to maintain two homes provides plenty of ways to "earn the keep" so to speak. We had planned to look for online work when this process was finished to continue adding to the investment portfolio so it doesn't run dry anytime soon. We can easily live on less than $12k a year with my parents and that is including paid insurance plan for us both. Obviously if we were out in the street it'd be closer to under $24k a year. Guess I can't "prove" any of this, but it does go to show this stuff is quite arbitrary. Where do you draw the line? If they don't want joint sponsors anymore then they should promptly remove the option. Some may suggest that isn't a plan and consider it unusual. Fair enough. I don't have a problem or embarrassment saying I have a great relationship with my parents. My wife and I actually do nearly daily video calls with them since I've been here in Manila. They are eager for us to be a part of their lives and had hoped their notarized statement of intention and approval would help a lot. I would also add a thought that being employed doesn't necessarily guarantee future stability. Plenty of people lose or quit their jobs out of nowhere. Plenty of people who have a decent job can also have a lot of debt to pay off and have zero owned assets whatsoever. But I recall reading they are getting tougher on visa interviews starting last year. My wife said there were a lot of other girls she saw with 221gs. And I'll have to consider the possibility that they won't consider even a $30k a year job to be enough for two people. And what about the current administration regularly growing list of countries with an indefinite visa pause? It wouldn't be surprising if the Philippines was next on the list soon.

Hi pushbrk, thanks for the reply and I appreciate your posts on this forum that helped me learn things about the process. I agree the 221g itself is clear. Though what was confusing was the officer claiming to my wife that the joint sponsor parents being retired is a problem as well as the 221g requesting proof of domicile despite having clearly already uploaded a pdf showing petitioner domicile evidence including letters of intent from all parties. Frankly I'm not sure the officer even looked at it. My wife was offering the physical proof to look, but the officer wasn't having it. Would using that contact link help? I think another consular officer looking at my case or at least double checking what is uploaded already could help. Maybe I'm wrong and they've cracked down on things recently.

This morning my wife had her CR1 interview in Manila and she was told specifically by interviewing officer that: Petitioner needs to have enough financially to support Joint sponsor not acceptable because they are retired Here is a quick overview of case details 30 year old petitioner currently unemployed but has individual brokerage account valued at $85,000 at time of interview 71 year old father as joint sponsor and 68 year old mother as household member of father, current income (going by their combined social security benefits as well as pension) of $64,000, which is decently above the minimum needed for household of 3. My wife then was explained by a separate person before leaving about the 221G and was told the proof of domicile is about letter of intention to work and support wife. I am somewhat concerned that there is a disconnect on the specific reasoning from the interviewing officer and how that other person explained the letter to my wife. My wife felt stonewalled at the interview as she tried to show financial documents. The interviewing officer even asked who these two names were (implying that they didn't go over the overall evidence and joint sponsors i864 and i864a?). From what I understood learning about this process, the petitioner being unemployed is not a problem as long as they have a joint sponsor and or assets that meet requirements. And I also had the understanding that social security and being retired for the joint sponsor is not a problem. I had sideloaded to ceac a lot of evidence a week before with updated statements,and my wife had it all ready for the officer to look in person as well. They have petitioner brokerage full statement from a year ago, 6 months ago, and then the latest month as well as current balance letter a week before interview date. Current social security benefits letter were uploaded for the joint sponsor parents of the petitioner. I also had included proof of domicile (as petitioner has been in manila for almost a year now on temporary stay visiting wife and supporting her through process while waiting) with a detailed letter of intention for myself as well as my parents that is notarized that they are close with their son and allow petitioner and the beneficiary to live with them at their primary owned home as well as the secondary owned home if desired. They have petitioner valid state ID, and local bank account statement. They also have joint sponsor birth certificates and proof of domicile. Also two pdfs with extensive relationship evidence showing family pictures and the extended stay. I have considered contacting the embassy using this page: https://ph.usembassy.gov/contact-us-visas/ in an attempt to clarify my case situation as my opinion is that the officer didn't really consider the totality of the situation as well as closely look at the documents and perhaps going by incorrect guidelines unless I am entirely mistaken on the retirement thing being a new problem for the joint sponsor. And I would also add that I believe petitioner asset amount is very close to the needed three times amount of minimum. At the very least it's close and it's not like the petitioner has nothing or plans to live in a big city. Check out the 221g itself and give comments to provide insight. Is it possible to have a second look at this from a different officer who would hopefully go over the full evidence more closely? Do people view this also as the only option is that the petition needs to work immediately? Obviously if they toss aside the joint sponsor then it is understandable that even with that amount of assets it's not a particularly large amount over the guideline amount.. though it's obviously better than an unemployed petitioner who has close to nothing as well as not a close relationship to her parents and no reliable home. I would have thought the totality of the situation would have been enough here compared to plenty of other cases. Thanks all.