We're blue

[Sebastian]

Randy, you've got the right quote ! But, study the sentence that starts with 'However..'

[Randy W]

Randy, you've got the right quote ! But, study the sentence that starts with 'However..'

 

 

Yes - but it also says that you may include the immigrant's assets and that Form I-864A is not required. Wouldn't that mean you simply add hers to yours?

 

But I think that the factor of three applies for the total of all I-864 and I-864a assets IF you are a USC sponsoring a spouse or child.

 

That is, it refers to an amount that must be met, not a proportion of each that may be included.

 

The way I read it, anyway.

[Sebastian]

Sorry, I did not get hung up on the 864-A document, so I don't pay attention to 'that exclusionary usage'.

 

Sponsering a spouse, you say? Pardon, is that the entire point?

[Randy W]

Sorry, I did not get hung up on the 864-A document, so I don't pay attention to 'that exclusionary usage'.

 

Sponsering a spouse, you say? Pardon, is that the entire point?

 

 

Spouses and children are what we deal with most here.

 

This is my claim

if you are a U.S. citizen and you are sponsoring your spouse or minor child, the total value of your assets must only be equal to at least three times the difference

and that that total value may include the intending immigrants assets - not at 1/3 or 1/5 but at full value

 

After that, I expect we'll get lost up in the arithmetic or semantics of it

[Sebastian]

Sorry, I did not get hung up on the 864-A document, so I don't pay attention to 'that exclusionary usage'.

 

Sponsering a spouse, you say? Pardon, is that the entire point?

 

 

Spouses and children are what we deal with most here.

 

This is my claim

if you are a U.S. citizen and you are sponsoring your spouse or minor child, the total value of your assets must only be equal to at least three times the difference

and that that total value may include the intending immigrants assets - not at 1/3 or 1/5 but at full value

 

After that, I expect we'll get lost up in the arithmetic or semantics of it

 

 

AH - OK. ya, I can see where the math will gent complicated. Personally, I'm not declaring any of her assets for the I-864, just mine.

[Randy W]

An update - i read here in your post that you were combining HER assets with YOURS. I learned last night that the benificiary's assets CAN be considered, but only at 1/5 of actual cash value. 1/5th !! that sucks !

 

 

This is what caught my eye - as I understand it, HE would add 100% of her assets to his, and then add 1/3 of that total to his income - THAT figure must exceed the poverty line.

 

In other words, BOTH USC and the beneficiary's assets figure in at the same 1/3 value.

[Sebastian]

Ah - that's where we're backwards, you and me.

 

What I read last night was only 1/5 of her assets could be used in 'the tally'.

[Randy W]

Ah - that's where we're backwards, you and me.

 

What I read last night was only 1/5 of her assets could be used in 'the tally'.

 

Any links, or articles?