K3 Denied

[LeeFisher3]

Income is one area where there are no shades of gray. You either make 125% of the poverty guidelines or you don't. If you don't you must either show sufficient assets or get a co-sponsor. As Lee has alluded many people submit more than they need which can confuse the situation. I recall a couple of years ago someone who was borderline income also submitted the equity in his home as assets. He probably would have been fine without it but they made him get a certified appraisal.

 

Not to get too sidetracked, but I'd like to ask a related question.

 

I've heard it suggested in some posts that when documenting with assets--especially real estate property--that one may need to have an appraisal, but doesn't the annual property tax assessment suffice?

 

I don't know how it's done in other states, but in CA, the county assessor's office sends you an annual property tax bill for the property tax of your property. Each year, the value of your property is listed on the tax bill. Wouldn't this suffice as an official appraisal?

You need to keep in mind that in GZ we are dealing with DOS and they don't always do things the same way as the USCIS. Perhaps they will accept property tax appraisals instead of a certified appraisal, but they again they could ask for it without hesitation.

 

You might remember the member who got a blue slip asking for his employer to certify that he didn't have the vacation time he claimed in a letter to the VO. It's easier to take the safe road and give them what they expect or desire than face a blue slip for something that absolutely has nothing to do with whether someone qualifies for a visa.

[SirLancelot]

You need to keep in mind that in GZ we are dealing with DOS and they don't always do things the same way as the USCIS. Perhaps they will accept property tax appraisals instead of a certified appraisal, but they again they could ask for it without hesitation.

 

You might remember the member who got a blue slip asking for his employer to certify that he didn't have the vacation time he claimed in a letter to the VO. It's easier to take the safe road and give them what they expect or desire than face a blue slip for something that absolutely has nothing to do with whether someone qualifies for a visa.

 

 

I'm not going to argue against Lee's suggestions. It's better to be safe than sorry of course. I just don't like people needlessly paying $400 for an appraisal if they don't need to. But for anyone who wants to be extra safe, by all means. Pay for an official appraisal.

 

Still, for CA residents, I would imagine that a county assessor's appraisal of my property holds at least as much credibility/authority as a private licensed appraiser. I don't know how it's done in other states.

 

Anyway, pay for the property appraisal if you want to be extra safe.

Edited August 6, 2007 by SirLancelot (see edit history)

[lostinblue]

As we all remember Relheim's problem one of the main thing a VO is looking for ability to support a wife long term at the income level required. Saying my business has a lot of cash flow is like spitting in the wind ...it means nothing. What is on your personal income tax is what matters most. If you cannot hit that number get a co-sponser for now. Make things easy.Most small business can hide a lot of profit by plowing it into the business.That is fine for the IRS but this year work on making a profit even if you need to hold off on deductions.So next year when you really need the income for AOS time you will fly through

Some reading on this subject.....

 

http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/aosupp/aosupp021.htm

Edited August 7, 2007 by lostinblue (see edit history)

[Pete Shaolan]

I will use the co-sponser option as advised in this thread. My father who will be my co-sponser is retired. His social security income is not included on his income tax return. Is there any problem with the VO accepting this additional form of income?

[warpedbored]

You need to keep in mind that in GZ we are dealing with DOS and they don't always do things the same way as the USCIS. Perhaps they will accept property tax appraisals instead of a certified appraisal, but they again they could ask for it without hesitation.

 

You might remember the member who got a blue slip asking for his employer to certify that he didn't have the vacation time he claimed in a letter to the VO. It's easier to take the safe road and give them what they expect or desire than face a blue slip for something that absolutely has nothing to do with whether someone qualifies for a visa.

 

 

I'm not going to argue against Lee's suggestions. It's better to be safe than sorry of course. I just don't like people needlessly paying $400 for an appraisal if they don't need to. But for anyone who wants to be extra safe, by all means. Pay for an official appraisal.

 

Still, for CA residents, I would imagine that a county assessor's appraisal of my property holds at least as much credibility/authority as a private licensed appraiser. I don't know how it's done in other states.

 

Anyway, pay for the property appraisal if you want to be extra safe.

Some states such as Oregon have rollback tax laws which put the assessed taxes at a previous value and only allow small increases afterwords. In such cases the tax assessed value of your home would likely be a lot less than the resale value. They would probably want an as accurate as possible appraisal.

Edited August 7, 2007 by warpedbored (see edit history)

[SirLancelot]

Some states such as Oregon have rollback tax laws which put the assessed taxes at a previous value and only allow small increases afterwords. In such cases the tax assessed value of your home would likely be a lot less than the resale value. They would probably want an as accurate as possible appraisal.

 

Hey Carl, CA has that too. Prop 13 was voted in a long time ago to help seniors live in their homes instead of being taxed out of their homes.

Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of residential property is limited to 1% of its assessed value. This "assessed value," however, may only be increased by a maximum of 2% per year, until and unless the property is resold. At the time of sale, the assessment may increase by an arbitrary amount, but future assessments are likewise restricted to the 2% annual maximum increase. If the property's market value increases rapidly (values of many detached dwellings in California have appreciated at annual rates averaging more than 10% over the course of several years) or if inflation exceeds 2% (common), the differential between the owner's taxes and the taxes a new owner would have to pay can become quite large.

 

But this actually makes the true market value much higher than what the county tax appraiser assesses. For example, the market value of our home is around $750-$800k but the property tax assessed value for our home earlier this year was around $300K. Still, that would be plenty for the purpose of an I-134 or I-864 as the remaining mortgage left on the house is a little over $120K. That's why I would be content to use the county assessors tax bill in our case, even if their appraised value is artificially kept low by Prop 13.

 

Anyway, sorry to the OP for getting off topic. I just thought it would be a good idea to use that in place of a formal appraisal which may cost $400.

[warpedbored]

As anything in the interview process the VO has wide discretion. tax assessed value may be enough for one and another may want to know more about a petitioners debt to income ratio. If a person is depending on assets rather than income then you would want to paint yourself in the best possible light. A certified appraisal would eliminate the possiblity of the VO questioning the value of your assets.