SO's Job

[LeeFisher3]

There is usually a large difference between the requirements and what is accepted by the USCIS or DOS concerning public charge matters.

 

GZ has expectations concerning support and are not too concerned with facts such as this.

 

Also, just because a person has professional credentials in China doesn't prove they will be accepted in the US and without a signed employment contract in the US the expected income is minimal at best as far as GZ is concerned.

[Trigg]

I don't have to play dumb.

 

Your 100% right--you dont!

[bosco]

I don't have to play dumb.

 

Your 100% right--you dont!

 

How very mature of you. Criticizing someone in context and with content, personal or not is within the boundaries of legitimate debate (within reason).

 

Taking something out of context in order put false words in their mouths is very immature and nothing more than juvenile flaming.

 

 

(sorry to add to the crapfest but sometimes, the crap needs a little toilet paper and a good flushing.)

[Guest Duke]

What kind of job your SO has is irrelevant to the family reunion visa. If she has some kind of sensitive job(high-tech, scientific, bio-chemistry for instance), additional name checking will be required.

 

I believe her background (and that includes education and work experience) are indeed relevant when the VO takes into account of the totality of the case when trying to determine whether she'll meet the public charge requirement. Her petitioner's own financial situation will of course be a huge factor as well.

 

The VO may well take the comparative potential earning power of the immigrant and USC as part of the totality of the case in determining other questions like bonafide relationship. For instance a rich professional intending immigrant marrying an pauper USC could raise potential fraud concerns. There's a lot to this "totality" that can seem like smoke and mirrors.

 

I'm baffled though at how anyone could read, "Her petitioner's own financial situation will of course be a huge factor as well." and come away thinking the author asserted the immigrant must prove an ability to support themself. Baffled.

[Randy W]

I don't have to play dumb.

 

Your 100% right--you dont!

 

How very mature of you. Criticizing someone in context and with content, personal or not is within the boundaries of legitimate debate (within reason).

 

Taking something out of context in order put false words in their mouths is very immature and nothing more than juvenile flaming.

 

 

(sorry to add to the crapfest but sometimes, the crap needs a little toilet paper and a good flushing.)

 

 

I think we need a (very) special Mods attacking members forum.

[phantom1949]

I don't have to play dumb.

 

Your 100% right--you dont!

 

How very mature of you. Criticizing someone in context and with content, personal or not is within the boundaries of legitimate debate (within reason).

 

Taking something out of context in order put false words in their mouths is very immature and nothing more than juvenile flaming.

 

 

(sorry to add to the crapfest but sometimes, the crap needs a little toilet paper and a good flushing.)

 

 

I think we need a (very) special Mods attacking members forum.

 

I think your right. You need to run a poll on it and then give it to "The Don"

[phantom1949]

Getting back to the question:

 

My SO has a position as a General Office Clerk with the Chinese Railroad Co. Will the VO look at the fact that she has had a good job for over ten years as a positive?

 

Income earning potential of the beneficiary has little to do with K and CR visas, if any. What is important is the financial condition of the sponsor. If the sponsor's income is not sufficient, a joint sponor is needed to overcome the burden of proof. The beneficiary can NOT include any income or assets at the obtaining visa stage.

 

Why? Because many professionals who are quite successful in China may have a very difficult time even finding a minimum wage job in the US. Their credentials and work history are essentially irrelevent at the visa stage. Their work history is important for security clearance reasons, though. If they worked at a nuclear research facility they may well end up getting a MANTIS clearance added to the normal clearances.

 

I will agree that someone who has a successful working career will perhaps address the question of fraud. If they have a good life in China it is less likely they are entering into a marriage just for immigration benefit. However, this would simply be one factor in making that determination.

 

I like your answer. It is too the point, and while I am no expert here, it makes total sense.

[david_dawei]

Getting back to the question:

 

My SO has a position as a General Office Clerk with the Chinese Railroad Co. Will the VO look at the fact that she has had a good job for over ten years as a positive?

 

Income earning potential of the beneficiary has little to do with K and CR visas, if any. What is important is the financial condition of the sponsor. If the sponsor's income is not sufficient, a joint sponor is needed to overcome the burden of proof. The beneficiary can NOT include any income or assets at the obtaining visa stage.

 

Why? Because many professionals who are quite successful in China may have a very difficult time even finding a minimum wage job in the US. Their credentials and work history are essentially irrelevent at the visa stage. Their work history is important for security clearance reasons, though. If they worked at a nuclear research facility they may well end up getting a MANTIS clearance added to the normal clearances.

 

I will agree that someone who has a successful working career will perhaps address the question of fraud. If they have a good life in China it is less likely they are entering into a marriage just for immigration benefit. However, this would simply be one factor in making that determination.

 

I generally agree with this.. only exception I have read is cases where the beneficiary is independently wealthy and those assets are used.

 

But this form is used by many more relationships than just the fiancee & spousal reasons we have. If she's walking and breathing, that's probably enough proof she is not some sort of medical concern (otherwise the medical would say if something is wrong).

 

To keep this to your specific situation: I think he'll look indifferent at her job and look hard at the petitioner (you).

[izus]

i say it all depends on how that VO's day is going, unless they have studied the case prior to the interview.

the only 2 questions VO asked my SO

VO Q: What does he do for a living?

ChunYans A: he wastes his days away reading candle.

VO Q: Do you think he will make a good husband?

ChunYans A: I hope so.

 

either they have already decided by going over the information we have supplied.

or

they have no idea about the individual case and just play it by ear to see how she conducts herself at the interview.

[david_dawei]

either they have already decided by going over the information we have supplied.

or

they have no idea about the individual case and just play it by ear to see how she conducts herself at the interview.

I personally doubt it's black or white.. I'll vote the gray matter in the middle.

[sawadee]

When I had my interview, my job Did caught the attention of VO, cause me and my husband having almost exactly the same position of the company in the same trade. He asked me about that, I said it was a coincidence. And he asked me if I would plan to work in States, I said it is undecided.

[brad]

My SO left her job when we became enganged to study english full time. I hope this is not of concern?

[david_dawei]

My SO left her job when we became enganged to study english full time. I hope this is not of concern?

It's not all that uncommon. If she doesn't then you'll have less time to talk and work on the relationship. Hopefully her strong work ethic won't make her too bored with not working..