Visa Issued - Long'ish

[bosco]

The burden of proof is a little higher for self employed. If you work from someone else you need only include a copy of your federal tax return and W-2 showing your gross income. Deductions or expenses have no bearing on whether you qualify or not.

 

Why do you keep saying this? What is this "little higher" consist of??????

[warpedbored]

Never mind Curt. You are so much smarter than everyone else you figure it out.

[chilton747]

Does the I-864 have to clear the NVC before the petition is sent to GZ? He did say that his process was about 2 years in the making????

[bosco]

Never mind Curt. You are so much smarter than everyone else you figure it out.

 

 

That comment is completely uncalled for. But I'm glad to know what you really think about me. Thank you.

 

You keep saying it inspite of the info offered by myself and another to the contrary. Asking why you've completely disregarded that info is a legitimate question.

 

A Schedule C is not a higher burden of proof as it is already part of the tax return of a self-employed individual.

 

Unlike a self-employed person, an individual employed by another must submit a letter of employment. That sounds to me like the employed person has the higher burden of proof.

 

Why does my pointing this out and asking for clarification bother you so much??????

[chilton747]

Self employed people have a much broader way of submitting their returns. One can often deduct othewise questionable expenses. Often this is done to allow the filer to have an easier tax burden. But this can also create problems with the visa process as in "adjusted gross income." It is no secret that the self employed can and do manipulate the loop holes for their betterment.

Edited September 5, 2007 by chilton747 (see edit history)

[tsap seui]

As a self employed (now with schedule D's) my girlfriend submitted the "other" supporting evidence which the I-134 instructions Part. II states...

 

II. Supporting Evidence

"The sponsor must submit in duplicate evidence of income and resources, as appropiate."

 

As I didn't sell any houses in 2006, yet sold a house and two building lots in January and February 2007. I found it was VERY "appropriate" to my financial evidence. But alas, the VO tore all my supporting evidence from the I-134 and, in a huff, threw them back at the hole in the window. Never looking at them. Then she (the VO), in an angry tone, asked my girlfriend "why does he need a co-sponsor, is he broke?"

 

Well, let's see, my unseen supporting evidence clearly showed my certified bank statement showing over $100,000 in the bank, over $250,000 deposited in the bank over the last year, the certified settlement sheets showing the sales of the properties with a, to date, gross profit of $84,000 for 2007, and another certified settlement sheet showing I had bought another house in March 2007 for $42,000 along with it's sales information sheet clearly showing the property was now for sale for $117,900.

 

The VO also never looked at my passport, with it's 4 visa stamps, handing it back, un-opened, along with my letter of evolution of relationship. Then the VO asks my girlfriend, along with 21 other questions...

"Has he visited you in China?"

"How many times has he visited you?"

"How long were his stays in China"

"Is he in Guangzhou with you?"

"Do you know he was married twice?"....My girlfriend told her the name of my two previous wives, how long I was married to each one, and what year we got divorced. This was covered in my unread evolution of relationship letter and the VO never asked for my divorce decrees.

 

 

Hey guys, it's all arbitrary....sometimes they don't need actual physical and certified proof of anything. They just "ask" and know that your lady will tell the truth. Heck, she took an oath before the interview, didn't she?

 

I say all this tongue in cheek and with laughter. Some women walk in with nothing but the clothes on their back (and a fancy new watch), get asked no real questions, or some women (most that I saw) have a quarter inch of evidence and get asked 2 or 3 questions, and then....some women get asked, and asked for, everything under the sun.

 

Get your kitchen sink together, practice hard with your woman, and prepare her as thoroughly as you possibly can. Some women are gonna walk through the interview like a cakewalk on their six inch spiked heels, and others are gonna need to jump through hoops of real fire and walk barefoot on burning coals.

 

It's all arbitrary....and that's all there is to it. Nuttin' to get upset about, they'll most all get the visa....sooner....or later.

 

tsap seui

 

Jawga boy...LOL...Now son, you don't really think the self employed would play around with their write-offs on their Schedule C's, D's, E's, or F's do ya? My gawd man, where is the humanity? Is there no decency in this life?

[david_dawei]

The tax line that is wanted is Total Income... A self-employed person has their schedule C line prior to this..

 

So either the self-employed has to have a profit margin that passes to Total Income line to meet the guideline, or they don't use that tax line for self-employed... then what do they use? Schedule C? Which can show a little profit or a loss (with creative accounting)?

 

In either case, the self-employed seems at a disadvantage, IMO.

[SinoTexas]

LOL. This thread is getting funny. Obviously Jim and Sarha got the coveted pink slip and the method in which he claims it was obtained is an irritant to some here on CFL. Ya'll keep dissecting the method on the way they obtained it. I am sure that there are other methods used in obtaining a visa either through political connections or some other "unwritten" issuance route. We just don't read about them here on CFL, with the exception of Jim. Those that use "alternative" methods of getting a visa, probably don't need the help and expertise available here, they already have other connections and means.

 

Sure, it makes us angry that we have to go through the long arduous visa process and others can use alternative avenues, but that is life. Life is not always fair. At the interview, some of our spouses/fiance(e)s were asked zero questions or maybe just one or two questions and passed within a few minutes, while others were asked numerous questions that might have lasted for ten, fifteen minutes or more and maybe passed or not. When that happens, we don't dissect the reasons for the difference.

 

I'm sure that Jim's brash style of writing pisses a lot of people off. That probably doesn't endear him to a lot of us.

 

To each, their own, on the visa road. I still remember what my dad would say when facing a challenge, "There is more than one way to skin a cat".

 

As aye,

 

Jim

Edited September 5, 2007 by SinoTexas (see edit history)

[Randy W]

Lance - deductions have no bearing on whether you qualify - his gross income qualifies. His net income is what was 0.

 

Why call someor a liar or a law-breaKer when you don't have the facts?

[david_dawei]

I'm not sure why some have a hard time believing this particular case...

 

He doesn't have to meet a financial guideline, just satisfy the VO...

 

Jim said it in one line: The VO saw the relationship as valid and money not an issue.. SO... WHAT'S THE ISSUE??

 

I don't see any problem and nothing surprises me here...

Again, I submit either Jim is not stating all the facts, the wife didn't convey to Jim what really happened during the interview, or the VO broke the law by allowing Jim's wife a pass.

 

It's possible a VO who may have been impressed with Jim's taxes favored him and or his wife and allowed a pass, but given what Jim submitted and his explicit declaration that on paper he makes nothing, then a VO really is not allowed to grant his wife her visa with the I-864 he submitted.

 

Again, I'm not insisting that Jim doesn't make enough in reality to pass muster for the I-864. But I do suggest that what Jim has declared thus far in his posting does not meet the requirements of what is necessary for the I-864. He either has to show income or assets and he has not done that, according to his own declarations.

 

Is it possible he has a buddy/chum at GUZ which helped him internally? Is it possible he bribed someone at GUZ with his proclaimed inordinate wealth? All possible. I have no idea what the real truth is, except to say that what he's stated so far doesn't hold up to scrutiny and certainly is not a normal case for all to follow.

I'm not going to look at this case (or any) as black and white... the Vo was satisfied the financial picture; I'd assert discretionary power over breaking the law.

 

That the VO who encouraged Jim to go through with the interview is the same as the VO doing the interview is no coincidence.. time to read between the lines.. but not that something was broken, but that someone understood the whole picture.

[SirLancelot]

Lance - deductions have no bearing on whether you qualify - his gross income qualifies. His net income is what was 0.

 

Why call someor a liar or a law-breaKer when you don't have the facts?

 

Little things Jim says make his story sound implausible.

 

I quote Jim:

About 1pm Sarha came down with her pink slip. The really odd thing was that the VO asked her no questions at all. She sat down and said good morning. The VO looked in the computer and without turning to look at her asked "How's business?" She said it was doing fine. With that, he gives her the pink slip.

 

She sat down? Who sat down? Jim's wife? Where did Jim's wife sit down to say hello? Certainly there's no place to sit right in front of the VO's window counter. I asked my wife if there's any seats in front of the VO's windows and my wife said everyone stood during the interviews, no seats. How does Jim's wife sit down and say good morning when there's no seats right in front of the VO windows?

 

I've been to the Consulate in SH myself and likewise there's no place to sit right in front of the VO window counters.

 

So who came up with the part of the story which states "she sat down and said good morning"? Jim? His wife? or the VO?

 

Little things he says just make it impossible to believe what he's saying overall.

 

Randy and DavidZ, I'll concede to your point about gross income verses adjusted gross income.

 

For purposes of this affidavit, the line for gross (total) income on IRS Forms 1040 and 1040A will be considered when determining income. For persons filing IRS Form 1040 EZ,the line for adjusted gross income will be considered.

 

So for people filing 1040/A, they want the gross income, not the adjusted gross income. So I can perhaps believe that he made millions but deducted millions to show a negative adjusted income.

 

But the "she sat down and said good morning" part just ruins the believability of the story. Or perhaps because she was Miss Nokia 2004, she was accorded royal treatment and taken to a VIP room with chairs to accommodate her?

 

For the record, I don't begrudge Jim at all. It's not like my wife's I-129F took forever or my wife's interview consisted of the fifth degree. My wife's interview took less than 5 minutes and she was asked a total of 8 questions. To this day I'm still dumbfounded as to why they never looked at my I-134. I put in so much effort on the I-134 and the VO never even asked for it. Just crazy IMO. The entire process took just a hair under 7 months for us. So I don't envy his two year wait; I don't envy his wife's quick interview. I don't begrudge his wife getting pink on her first try. If all this happened for him and his wife, great.

 

But I do have doubts about the plausibility of his story as told in this thread.

Edited September 5, 2007 by SirLancelot (see edit history)

[chilton747]

tsap seui

 

Jawga boy...LOL...Now son, you don't really think the self employed would play around with their write-offs on their Schedule C's, D's, E's, or F's do ya? My gawd man, where is the humanity? Is there no decency in this life?

 

 

I was self employed for 10 years and I never played around with the numbers Now I can't speak for my CPA What's decency?

[NewDay2006]

I'm guessing his process took a little longer, because maybe he wasn't in a big rush to send some forms back. The fact that they didn't ask any questions at the interview shouldn't be a surprise. It is my thought that they know if they will give the visa before the interview, unless someone just does or says something to change thier mind. If his wife is as pretty as he said, the the VO probably didn't want to waste the time looking at papers when he could be filling up on eye candy

[Randy W]

Sitting down or standing up is an issue now?

 

Drop it already, Lance

[david_dawei]

Sitting down or standing up is an issue now?

 

Drop it already, Lance

 

With practically every single post on this site reporting of their interview, one has to carefully exclude certain pieces as typo.. that doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bath water...

 

Time to let this one run down the drain!