Muddled

Thank you.

So as far as the petitioner's use of MTB goes, the beneficiary's existence in the household will basically be ignored? He won't be the recipient of MTB by default and therefore no worse for wear when filing for AOS? If that is the case that is really good to know.

Try the link here My link. I would say the best advise as far as whether he could leave in subsidized housing with you would be the agency you receive your benefits from. Make an appointment with your caseworker and discuss the issue with them as these types of benefits, housing, food stamps, etc are run by state agencies.

As to the immigration side of it, as long as you and/or a co-sponsor meet the income requirements it will have no determination on the issuance or denial of the visa that I am aware of.

Thank you for that very useful information Belinda.

So what that is saying is that- he should not be living with the SO in her means test benefit housing.

Basically, even though they would be lawfully wed, if the petitioner decides to stay in her subsidized apartment, her and the beneficiary would not be able to reside together as man and wife? They would have to live separately unless the petitioner vacates her current residence?

It will not hurt your chances of AOS... If the USCIS has a qualified sponsor then they will not deny because of this...

The real question should be will the US government pursue reimbursement from the person who is the REAL qualified sponsor...

I take that to mean then that the beneficiary of the K-1 would be considered the recipient of MTB by default because the petitioner is the recipient of benefits at the time of filing and the time of marriage. Would that be the correct way to understand this?

The same will go for filing for AOS. She will have to report income and martial status. Anyone can file for AOS as long as they meet the requirements.

Your orginal question was about the USC losing her means test housing. If she has reported her change in martial status to the correct agency and they have not done anything about it, the USCIS will not intervene.

Your confusing me. I am trying to figure out what would constitute the beneficiary of a K-1 Visa as being a recipient of means tested benefits. Since the petitioner is currently receiving these benefits (yes to be reported when appropriate) would that make the beneficiary of the K-1 Visa a beneficiary of means tested benefits by default, hence hurting their chances of successfully applying for and receiving AOS?

What the USC will have to do is report the change in her martial status, her present benefits are based on her present status. With a change in her life style, i.e married, that could mean a change in what means benefits she will be eligibile for. If she does not report the change in her life style, it could be considered FRAUD.

That wasn't very helpful at all. The petitioner is well aware of reporting changes in her household. The question is pertaining to whether or not her current situation seriously hurts their chances of filing for AOS when the time comes.

Will the petitioner be required to move from her current subsidized apartment due to the Non USC? To that effect will that make the Non USC a beneficiary of MTB by default?

Not having adequate income will not usually be a problem if you have a co-sponsor' date=' according to experiences

posted on the newsgroup, as long as the co-sponsor has adequate income/assets.

Be aware that the co-sponsor must have enough income/assets for both your fiance, any fiance children that will

be immigrating, and his/her own household. However, that IF the US fiance has been on welfare or other

government benefits for a lifetime or has no plans to work actively, the consulate can still deny the visa based on

the likelihood that the foreign fiance will become a public charge. Just having a co-sponsor may not be sufficient.

An actual case has been documented wherein a fiance visa was denied because the petitioning fiance was on

government benefits and would not be working, even though the US fiance had two co-sponsors.[/quote']

Would someone mind breaking this down for me. What if the petitioner is currently on means tested benefits, but has not been for a lifetime and does currently work? (petitioner receives EBT assistance and lives in subsidized housing) The petitioner has a sponsor to make up for what she lacks obviously and the likelihood of the beneficiary becoming a public charge is actually very low. Where does a person stand with this?