Hello everybody! Translate this page:
You can translate the content of this page by selecting a language in the select box.
This Website provides diverse language translation by Google Translation button. You can find translation menu at the upper left corner of this website.
You can select your own language for the translation of the pages you want to read in your own language.
[한국변호사, 미국변호사, 일리노이 변호사, 세무사 이재욱] → [의뢰인이 비용을 지불하고 적법한 해결을 원하는 것이라면 개인과 기업을 위한 모든 법률문제를 서비스하고 뭐든지 대리해드립니다. ]
ATTORNEY [ licensed to practice in KOREA, U.S.A., ILLINOIS ] LEE, JAE WOOK
∗ [LANGUAGE Translation] You can use Google Translate application to see in your own language the pages in this website. For your convenience, click the "Google Translate(Select Language)"
|→ 미국 이민,비자,영주권|
|→ PRACTITION TIP|
|→ U.S.A. Tax News|
|→ 미국이민 범죄행위 Defend 서비스|
|→ 미국 이민사기 범죄 Defend 서비스|
|→ 비거주자,영주권자의 상속세,증여세|
|→ 미국 부동산거래실무|
|→ 비거주자,영주권자의 양도소득세|
|→ 비거주자,영주권자의 소득세|
|→ 미국세금(U.S. TAX)|
|→ C VISA|
|→ USCIS AFM(DHS)|
|→ 9 FAM VISAS(DOS)|
|→ PERM (Labor Certification)|
|→ Consular Process(DOS)|
|→ E1, E2|
|→ F visa|
|→ H visa|
|→ J visa|
|→ K visa|
|→ L visa|
|→ O, P visa|
|→ R visa|
|→ S visa|
|→ T, U visa|
|→ V visa|
|→ 체류기간연장(NIV EOS)|
|→ 비이민비자 신분변경(NIV COS)|
|→ inadmissibility 입국불허사유|
|→ deportability 추방사유|
|→ 조건해제(Removal of condition)|
|→ EB2, NIW(국익면제)|
|→ 영주권 신분변경(AOS)|
|→ LPR TRAVEL 영주권자 해외여행|
|→ DACA, DAPA|
|→ legal english|
|→ Immigration Court 항소|
|→ ICE 이민집행|
|→ CBP 세관 및 입출국관리|
|→ Removal 추방|
|→ 일리노이주법 기초|
|→ 캘리포니아법 기초|
|→ 미 연방법 기초|
|→ 캘리포니아 부부공동체법|
|→ 캘리포니아 가족법|
|→ 캘리포니아 민사소송법|
|→ 일리노이 민사소송법|
|→ 일리노이 가족법|
|→ 미국 연방헌법|
Dealing with Form I-864 Requests for Evidence
During the May 15, 2015 AILA liaison meeting
a) with the National Benefits Center (NBC),
NBC officials stated that
a) they issue more Requests for Evidence (RFEs)
i) in connection with Form I-864,
A) Affidavit of Support,
ii) than they do
A) for any other product line.
The NBC confirmed that
a) contract employees perform the initial screening
i) of Form I-864
ii) based on a set of checklist criteria.
While the use
a) of contractors
may be necessary
a) for overall process efficiency,
1) anecdotal reports
a) from AILA members
a) the issuance
i) of erroneous I-864 RFEs
are not uncommon.
The AILA NBC Liaison Committee continues to raise this issue
a) with the NBC
b) in an effort to stop the issuance
i) of these unnecessary RFEs.
In the meantime,
this practice pointer provides tips
a) for dealing with one of the more common issues.
Although the NBC did not provide a copy of the contractor checklist,
1) it appears that
a) RFEs are often issued
b) where the total income
i) for the most recent tax year
ii) listed in Part 6,
A) Item 19
I) of Form I-864
is less than the federal poverty guidelines
i) based on the sponsor’s household size.
These RFEs request
a) evidence of assets
i) to make up the perceived shortage
A) of income or
b) an I-864
i) from a joint sponsor.
a) the regulations and
b) USCIS guidance
1) are clear that
a) the focus should be on the sponsor’s current income,
i) not income
A) as reported on the federal tax return
I) for the most recent tax year.
When an RFE is issued
a) in connection with the Affidavit of Support,
1) interim benefits
a) such as
i) employment authorization and
ii) advance parole
2) until an adequate RFE response is submitted to the NBC.
In order to avoid such delays,
1) practitioners should keep the following points in mind:
a. While the initial Form I-864 is screened
i) at the NBC
ii) by contractors,
1) the RFE response is reviewed
A) by a USCIS officer.
The NBC clearly stated
A) at the May 15, 2015 liaison meeting
B) that it will not forward a case
I) to the local office
C) if it believes that
I) the I-864 is inadequate
(a) following an RFE response.0F
In such cases,
the NBC will deny the Form I-485
A) due to the insufficiency of the RFE response.
b. In an effort
i) to avoid an RFE
A) in situations
I) where the total income
(a) for the most recent tax year
(i) listed in Part 6, Item 19
(A) of the Form I-864
(a) than the federal poverty guidelines,
1) include documentation
A) to substantiate the sponsor’s current household income
I) (as listed in Part 6,
(a) Item 2 and
(b) Item 15
(i) of the I-864).
Although such documentation is not required initial evidence,
1) it may assist the NBC contractor
A) in determining
I) that the I-864 is in fact sufficient.1
c. When responding to an RFE
i) that you believe is incorrect,
1) make your strongest legal arguments
A) as to why you believe your initial I-864 was adequate.
1. Note that the NBC approach is different than the National Visa Center (NVC) approach where the NVC will forward Form I-864 to the consulate following the issuance of an I-864 checklist letter and response.
You should also be prepared
A) to submit the documentation requested,
I) which would be either
(a) evidence of the sponsor’s assets
(i) to cover any perceived shortage
(A) in income or
(b) an I-864
(i) completed by a joint sponsor.
Consider including language
A) directing the USCIS adjudicator
I) to consider the joint sponsor’s I-864
(a) only as an alternative
1) should the adjudicator still deem
A) the I-864 and
B) supporting documentation
II) after review of the RFE response.
You should renew this request
A) with the local USCIS adjudicator
B) at the time
I) of the adjustment of status interview.
d. Prepare yourself and your clients
i) for the possibility of an RFE
1) where the total income
A) for the most recent tax year
I) listed in Part 6, Item 19 of the Form I-864
is less than the federal poverty guidelines
A) based on the sponsor’s household size, and
2) where there may be a legal argument
A) as to how or why the sponsor’s income is adequate
B) (for example,
I) where assets are being used
(a) for overcoming an income shortage or
II) where non-traditional sources
(a) of income
are being used
(a) to demonstrate the sponsor’s current income).
↑ Dealing with Form I-864 Requests for Evidence
Copyright 1997-2019 TAX & LAW (세금과 법률)
본 site의 정보는 영리를 목적으로 제공하는 것이 아니며, 이곳에 등재된 모든 글은 "공개"된 대법원판례(온라인이 아니라 대법원이 종이책으로 출간한 대법원 법원공보상의 판례집)에 기한 것으로 실명과 무관합니다.
따라서, 이 곳에 기재된 대법원 판례에 혹시라도 귀하의 성명과 인적사항이 있다면, 그것은 귀하의 것이 아니며, 귀하와 동명이인이거나 가상의 인적사항이라는 점에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
그럼에도 불구하고 이를 귀하의 인적사항이라고 주장하신다면, 귀하는 본 사이트가 아니라 대법원에 그러한 점을 적시하여 공개된 (종이책으로 출간된 대법원 법원공보상의 판례집) 판례의 내용을 전부 직접 수정을 해줄 것을 스스로 주장하십시요. 본 사무실에 연락하실 부분이 아닙니다.