Davdah,

Power of Attorney thing, is very complicated and not easy to do, but my friend is going to look into it more and find out the legal requirements for me. The thing is of course I need money to do all that too, which I don't at present. But thank you, it has given me an idea though.

Davdah wrote:
What I was getting at was not just the financial quality of the sponsor but both. The would be immigrant should be able to demonstrate the ability to support themselves with or without the sponsor.

Remove temptation for free support from the equation. Fraud would dry up over night. There would need to be some provisions to account for abuse on both sides but the way it is now its too easy to take the wrong path if the moral compass goes astray,

.....

I partly agree with you there Davdah, but I can see problems that could occur with this.
For one it won't stop fraud, for example I know a number of USC's for example who have married an immigrant for convenience, 2 of which who received money for marrying the immigrant. The immigrants are financially well off, so in return the USC will have some nice income in return for the marriage etc.
It does happen, and happens a lot. It happens in every country. Hard to stop that kind of fraud really.

The other problems are...what if an immigrant has an injury or an illness. They won't be able to work anymore or for a long period of time.
What about an immigrant woman who has young children with the USC, she is a stay at home mum, then finds herself in a situation where she cannot do full time work. She wouldn't have enough income to live on. The USC children would by rights be entitled to support or even benefits, but the immigrant would not for a time period (the 5 yr rule).
The thing is, no one knows what the future holds, we can't say what will happen in the 10 yrs after receiving the GC. The first 5 yrs after the GC is the crucial time period. Hence why they put that rule there. And don't forget that is usually where fraudsters/scammers would usually separate for divorce.
I agree its not fair for the USC who has been scammed by an immigrant, and will still be responsible for 10 yrs, unless of course the fraud can be proved.
There I think there should be something in place, they need to revise that part.
However, what about the thousands of immigrants who are not scammers, there has to be a safety net for them. Remember we are not allowed to have any government help, we are not entitled to so many things until we are a Citizen.

If they took my date of when I moved here rather then whey I received my GC, I could be a Citizen by now. My sponsor (husband) would be free from the affidavit.

There should be changes, and there should be clauses too, in case of fraud.

There is something that I did find out regarding an immigrant suing their sponsor...

If the immigrant choses not to work and doesn't try to support themselves if they are able, the Federal courts will not just side with them because of the affidavit, they will look at the whole picture first.
If the immigrant is working, or receives financial support from the sponsor in anyway, they take all that income into consideration.
If its still below the 125% poverty level, that is where the sponsor will be responsible for.
That is why there isn't that many immigrants who sue. Its there really only in case of real hardship.

quote:

Originally posted by Sprint_girl07:
If the immigrant choses not to work and doesn't try to support themselves if they are able, the Federal courts will not just side with them because of the affidavit, they will look at the whole picture first.

The Court held that the defendant US citizen spouse was required to continue to support his wife from December 20, 2001 till the date of the judgment. The plaintiff ex-spouse had to be supported in an amount equal to 125% of the annual income stipulated under the federal poverty guidelines from 2001 to 2006, which amounted to $50,116.75, minus the wages of $41,795.54 that she had received on her own accord during this period. Defendant was thus ordered to pay $8,321.21.

The Court held that the defendant’s obligation to sponsor the plaintiff would continue until such obligation expired by law based on the above 5 outlined events. The Court further held that there was no obligation for the spouse to work in order to relieve the defendant of his obligation.

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2006,0608-mehta.shtm

quote:

Originally posted by Sprint_girl07:
Davdah wrote:
I agree its not fair for the USC who has been scammed by an immigrant, and will still be responsible for 10 yrs, unless of course the fraud can be proved.

The sponsor’s obligation to support the sponsored immigrant under the Affidavit of Support only terminated upon the occurrence of one of the five circumstances:
1) the sponsor’s death,
2) the sponsored immigrant’s death,
3) the sponsored immigrant becoming a US citizen,
4) the sponsored immigrant permanently departing the US, or
5) the sponsored immigrant being credited with a total of 40 qualifying quarters of work.

Thanks
omozon

I stand corrected. I was basing on theory that alien would work and accumulate those qtrs. but in essence, you certainly can have situations where alien will not work.


I was looking for that article forever and couldnt find it for her. good job!

I remember reading that too. It was part of those legal briefs that were posted a while back as well. Why it isn't used much has a lot to do with ignorance of it in the family law courts. Generally a family law court will look at income and 'ability' of each person. The I-864 puts blinders on ability and just looks at a percentage and money. I would think it probably doesn't come into play often since most people will earn more than the 125%.

I see what your saying about there still being some fraud Sprintgirl. There are people who marry immigrants for profit. In some cases to create a slave of sorts. My wife knew a couple girls who married USCs. Once married the guy quit their job and had them working without status under the threat of deportation. I don't know how common that is but its probably more rare than what we normally hear about. I would agree there needs to be some provisions for emergencies. If two people are legit and things just go bad the rules should probably be similar to what exists for a normal USC couple.