Boiler

Apparently, I had not heard of them, but not a channel I would be likely to stop on. It does not sound that Country to me, more crossover but what do I know. Seemed to be an issue with Fast Car recently, well WaPo trying to stir things up, now I do remember that when it came out.

Could be a lot quicker to interview in their home country.

Getting to the point where a waiver is available could be seen as a positive.

The visual, which his label Broken Bow Records/BMG, released on Friday (July 14), was in rotation on CMT through Sunday (July 16), playing in the morning music video hours. It is unclear how many times CMT played the video before pulling it on Monday. Other than confirming the outlet had yanked the video, CMT declined to comment on the decision to cease playing the clip. The video, which has received more than 346,000 views on YouTube since its release, features Aldean performing in front of courthouse with an American flag hanging from the entrance. The performance is interspersed with footage of a flag burning, protesters screaming and attacking police in various scenarios, and robbing a convenience store. It’s unclear where the footage was taken from, but at one point, a Fox News chyron appears with the words “state of emergency declared in Georgia.” Aldean is from Macon, Ga. I had never heard of CMT, new Bud Light?

I have seen many people successfully put together a Waiver Package without a Lawyer, however none that have had a friend ask for them if they can do it themselves. So I am going to assume they need a lawyer. What happened to his first marriage? Did they divorce?

I could see that if it was the Sponsor looking for a Divorce and are basically stuck, what if it is an abusive relationship, seems contrary to Public Policy.

Using any Annuity rates I can think of as being reasonable it would be a lot more than that.

The card is just evidence of status, not the status itself. I would have thought you could have just said the amount stated in the I 864P? No need for the Court to revisit it.

I tend to agree with you, I was just thinking of a few cases we have seen on here. One very recently where the USC was retired or nearly retired and the beneficiary had very good working potential. And a couple of children! Also another case where the USC was a stay at home mum and they were using the beneficiaries assets to meet the requirement, quite a few where the beneficiary has the income that will continue in the US. And then we thow is all the people who use Joint Sponsors. The more I think of it the more complicated this becomes. I mentioned above the assets aspect, $75,000 lump sum is a lot more attractive than $25,000 a year. Interpretation, Reality and Practice do not match.

So there was no mention of 10 years, that confused me.

40 Quarters is approx 10 years, and just so we are all on the same page is just one factor in terminating the I 864. From what you said previously if she ever completes 40 Quarters it will be a lot longer than 10 years. Let us say she does decide to naturalise, the I 864 is no longer enforceable and you still have to pay her for another 4 or so years, why? What if she decides she doesn't want to stay and goes home tomorrow, seems you still have to pay. A bit macabre but if she dies tomorrow do you still have to pay her Estate? The whole thing seems a mess to me, it does not reflect the I 864, assuming it is supposed to, in many ways.

They seem to be in the normal time zone.

I am not sure that is the case, it would still seem to be cheaper to give her an extra $70k even if it is. I can not remember a year where the I 864P has not increased, some years have been nominal, but now we seem to be back in a period of high inflation, if the 2k is something you have to pay to meet the requirements why is it not automatic? You mention 10 years, that as has been mentioned many times has nothing to do with the I 864, nowhere is there any mention of 10 years. Where does the 10 years come in to this? As a general comment Family Law varies by State.

The Court case initially mentioned 10 years and then went on later to specify the proper wording of the I 864. Remarrying has no impact on the I 864, and I think that was also mentioned. OP mentioned the I 864 was specified so if it is related to that it would only expire when one of the dies etc, she seems to have no interest in working or naturalising, well why would she? I remember some time back reading somewhere about the need to update the I 864 amounts, seems it does not include housing which is why it is so low. Just think of the consequences if that happens.

Well the I 864 as you point out gives you the option of using assets rather than income, 3x the income amount and the OP paid this three times over. Item Number 10. Total Value of Assets. In order to qualify based on the value of your assets, the total value of your assets must equal at least five times the difference between your total household income and the current Federal Poverty Guidelines for your household size. However, if you are a U.S. citizen and you are sponsoring your spouse or child age 18 years of age or older, the total value of your assets must only be equal to at least three times the difference. If the intending immigrant is a foreign national orphan who will be adopted in the United States after he or she acquires legal permanent residence, and who will, as a result, acquire citizenship under section 320 of the INA, the total value of your assets need only equal the difference. I did read the California case law, obviously most of our members do not live in California, I found it confusing and incomplete, and illogical. It did not address the capital instead of income option. Obviously for the OP this is chump change but we have many members scraping to meet the minimum, I can think of quite a few who are retired, questions about using SSDI etc. So if the logic of this California case is followed they would have to hand over all their income and have nothing to live on. Would a non California court do this? Anyway quite fascinating.

You said it was limited to 10 years and did not increase with the I 864 annual adjustment? This is the 2023 amount, it will no doubt increase next year. For the 48 Contiguous States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Sponsor's Household Size 100% of HHS Poverty Guidelines* 125% of HHS Poverty Guidelines* For sponsors on active duty in the U.S. armed forces who are petitioning for their spouse or child For all other sponsors 2 $19,720 $24,650

What is the plan now, will your Legal team be looking to amend your current arrangement to match the requirements of the I 864?

4 more years

Well not applicable here but the DV was originally the Irish Visa.

Vaccination waivers are usually quick

Nothing you have mentioned shouts expedite, do you have anything else?

Yep apply 1st Jan 2025, meantime sort out the other stuff.

You can not upgrade I thought you know that

You can not.