Is two better than one?

[heyjimi]

USCONGUZ take on the financial requirements.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=343591

 

We can't shed any light on the rumors you may have heard, but we will note that petitioner income is only one of a number of criteria that consular officers are mandated by law to weigh when considering whether there is a public charge ineligibility.

 

Other factors include the applicant's health, education, family status, age, language ability, and work experience.

 

Again, it is mandated by law that consular officers consider the totality of circumstances, and not just rely only on whether income surpasses the poverty guidelines.

 

So, it is quite possible that some applicants have been found to have a public charge ineligibility in spite of having a petitioner or co-sponsor with income greater than the poverty guidelines.

 

 

While it is true that you satisfy the I-134 requirement if your income exceeds 125% of the poverty level, that is NOT necessarily enough to get you a visa.

 

When a "truth" is stated enough times in the wrong context, we mislead people.

 

Perhaps if a co-sponsor is a family member, it would help the overall picture (and not just the financial picture). Perhaps adding a few ("unnecessary") assets would help the financial picture, without exposing any vulnerabilities to the VO.

 

Yeah,i did not speak to a lawyer,my wife did,And i think what he is trying to say,having a co sponsor,like a family member,like my mom,sort of helps in a overall picture,not necessarily for the financial picture.I am thinking maybe,it's something i should do.our second interview,will have to be more than a kitchen sink,maybe tear out my heart,and stick it in a box,hahaha.I mean,whats driving me crazy,is not knowing what the real reason is,and thus finding a remedy to the problem.

[Corbin]

USCONGUZ take on the financial requirements.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=343591

 

We can't shed any light on the rumors you may have heard, but we will note that petitioner income is only one of a number of criteria that consular officers are mandated by law to weigh when considering whether there is a public charge ineligibility.

 

Other factors include the applicant's health, education, family status, age, language ability, and work experience.

 

Again, it is mandated by law that consular officers consider the totality of circumstances, and not just rely only on whether income surpasses the poverty guidelines.

 

So, it is quite possible that some applicants have been found to have a public charge ineligibility in spite of having a petitioner or co-sponsor with income greater than the poverty guidelines.

 

 

While it is true that you satisfy the I-134 requirement if your income exceeds 125% of the poverty level, that is NOT necessarily enough to get you a visa.

 

When a "truth" is stated enough times in the wrong context, we mislead people.

 

Perhaps if a co-sponsor is a family member, it would help the overall picture (and not just the financial picture). Perhaps adding a few ("unnecessary") assets would help the financial picture, without exposing any vulnerabilities to the VO.

 

Yeah,i did not speak to a lawyer,my wife did,And i think what he is trying to say,having a co sponsor,like a family member,like my mom,sort of helps in a overall picture,not necessarily for the financial picture.I am thinking maybe,it's something i should do.our second interview,will have to be more than a kitchen sink,maybe tear out my heart,and stick it in a box,hahaha.I mean,whats driving me crazy,is not knowing what the real reason is,and thus finding a remedy to the problem.

You have just pointed at the true and real problem. The USC has no right to know why. That is the sad part and I think it is left that way so the USC's can't some how get it brought before the court system. Now this is only my thoughts about it......

[heyjimi]

USCONGUZ take on the financial requirements.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=343591

 

We can't shed any light on the rumors you may have heard, but we will note that petitioner income is only one of a number of criteria that consular officers are mandated by law to weigh when considering whether there is a public charge ineligibility.

 

Other factors include the applicant's health, education, family status, age, language ability, and work experience.

 

Again, it is mandated by law that consular officers consider the totality of circumstances, and not just rely only on whether income surpasses the poverty guidelines.

 

So, it is quite possible that some applicants have been found to have a public charge ineligibility in spite of having a petitioner or co-sponsor with income greater than the poverty guidelines.

 

 

While it is true that you satisfy the I-134 requirement if your income exceeds 125% of the poverty level, that is NOT necessarily enough to get you a visa.

 

When a "truth" is stated enough times in the wrong context, we mislead people.

 

Perhaps if a co-sponsor is a family member, it would help the overall picture (and not just the financial picture). Perhaps adding a few ("unnecessary") assets would help the financial picture, without exposing any vulnerabilities to the VO.

 

Yeah,i did not speak to a lawyer,my wife did,And i think what he is trying to say,having a co sponsor,like a family member,like my mom,sort of helps in a overall picture,not necessarily for the financial picture.I am thinking maybe,it's something i should do.our second interview,will have to be more than a kitchen sink,maybe tear out my heart,and stick it in a box,hahaha.I mean,whats driving me crazy,is not knowing what the real reason is,and thus finding a remedy to the problem.

You have just pointed at the true and real problem. The USC has no right to know why. That is the sad part and I think it is left that way so the USC's can't some how get it brought before the court system. Now this is only my thoughts about it......

 

Corbin,you are probably right,

the problem that goes on in this immigration process,has to be addressed,fixed,but they made it so screwed up,so secretive,where does one begin,? after most people get their wifes over here,they are just happy the nightmare is over. if everyone banded together,it would get changed.

strength in numbers.

 

Jimi

[tsap seui]

USCONGUZ take on the financial requirements.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=343591

 

We can't shed any light on the rumors you may have heard, but we will note that petitioner income is only one of a number of criteria that consular officers are mandated by law to weigh when considering whether there is a public charge ineligibility.

 

Other factors include the applicant's health, education, family status, age, language ability, and work experience.

 

Again, it is mandated by law that consular officers consider the totality of circumstances, and not just rely only on whether income surpasses the poverty guidelines.

 

So, it is quite possible that some applicants have been found to have a public charge ineligibility in spite of having a petitioner or co-sponsor with income greater than the poverty guidelines.

 

 

While it is true that you satisfy the I-134 requirement if your income exceeds 125% of the poverty level, that is NOT necessarily enough to get you a visa.

 

When a "truth" is stated enough times in the wrong context, we mislead people.

 

Perhaps if a co-sponsor is a family member, it would help the overall picture (and not just the financial picture). Perhaps adding a few ("unnecessary") assets would help the financial picture, without exposing any vulnerabilities to the VO.

 

Yeah,i did not speak to a lawyer,my wife did,And i think what he is trying to say,having a co sponsor,like a family member,like my mom,sort of helps in a overall picture,not necessarily for the financial picture.I am thinking maybe,it's something i should do.our second interview,will have to be more than a kitchen sink,maybe tear out my heart,and stick it in a box,hahaha.I mean,whats driving me crazy,is not knowing what the real reason is,and thus finding a remedy to the problem.

 

Hang in there Jimi. There is so much speculation, conjecture, and profiling going on by the consulate VO's that they have a built in need to hide behind the inane words...did not prove a bona fide relationship.

 

You may well NEVER know what they came up with as a problem.

 

What you two are going through is pure hell... you go to bed with it at night, and you wake up to it in the morning. AND...you are own your own, ain't nobody can help ya.

 

The DOS in Guangzhou has no oversight that's one of the first things you find out when you get hit with trouble from that bunch of jokers.

 

Good luck with your next step.

 

tsap seui