если быть более точным, то $3,950
Вот-вот. Достаточно намерения, если “living abroad not meeting the criteria in 9 FAM 40.41 N7.1-1 who wishes to qualify”.
To qualify как кто? As a “Sponsor” for Purposes of the Affidavit of Support (AOS). Требования 1-4 см. выше.
А не то, что писали Вы
Est’ trebovania k AOS (Affidavit of Support i kto ego failit), a ne k peticioneru (po prichine togo chto on failit peticiu). Eto chto ia govoril
вздохнула
b. If the petitioner does not meet the qualifying criteria to be a sponsor (for example, by being under 18 years of age or not domiciled in the United States), the visa applicant must be found ineligible for a visa under INA 212(a)(4) until such circumstance no longer exists.
c. The “sponsor” for purposes of the AOS is the petitioner;
V sluchae esli grajdanin edet v USA vmeste s immigrantom, on imeet pravo failit’ I-864
Да, потому как в этом случае он выполнит критерий №4 через Establishing the Existence of a U.S.Domicile.
Но в корне неверно утверждать, что требования domicile не существует. (Иначе не нужно было бы показывать никакие “намерения” и прочее еstablishing…).
Мне кажется кому то надо почитать сам закон:):
INA 213A (f)
(f) Sponsor Defined.-
(1) In general.-For purposes of this section the term “sponsor” in relation to a sponsored alien means an individual who executes an affidavit of support with respect to the sponsored alien and who-
(A) is a citizen or national of the United States or an alien who is lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence;
(B) is at least 18 years of age;
(C) is domiciled in any of the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States;
(D) is petitioning for the admission of the alien under section 204; and
(E) demonstrates (as provided in paragraph (6)) the means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty line.
(2) INCOME REQUIREMENT CASE.–Such term also includes an individual who does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1)(E) but accepts joint and several liability together with an individual under paragraph (5)(A). 1a/
(3) Active duty armed services case.-Such term also includes an individual who does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1)(E) but is on active duty (other than active duty for training) in the Armed Forces of the United States, is petitioning for the admission of the alien under section 204 as the spouse or child of the individual, and demonstrates (as provided in paragraph (6)) the means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 100 percent of the Federal poverty line.
(4) Certain employment-based immigrants case.-Such term also includes an individual-
(A) who does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1)(D), but is the relative of the sponsored alien who filed a classification petition for the sponsored alien as an employment- based immigrant under section 203(b) or who has a significant ownership interest in the entity that filed such a petition; and
(B)(i) who demonstrates (as provided under paragraph (6)) the means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty line (or in the case of an affidavit for a spouse or minor child of the petitioner 140 percent of the Federal poverty line), or
(ii) does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1)(E) but accepts joint and several liability together with an individual under paragraph (5)(A). 1a/
(5) 1a/ NON-PETITIONING CASES- Such term also includes an individual who does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1)(D) but who–
(A) accepts joint and several liability with a petitioning sponsor under paragraph (2) or relative of an employment-based immigrant under paragraph (4) and who demonstrates (as provided under paragraph (6)) the means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty line; or
(B) is a spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child (if at least 18 years of age), son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law, grandparent, or grandchild of a sponsored alien or a legal guardian of a sponsored alien, meets the requirements of paragraph (1) (other than subparagraph (D)), and executes an affidavit of support with respect to such alien in a case in which–
(i) 3/ the individual petitioning under section 204 of this Act for the classification of such alien died after the approval of such petition, and the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined for humanitarian reasons that revocation of such petition under section 205 would be inappropriate; or
(ii) 3/ the alien’s petition is being adjudicated pursuant to section 204(l) (surviving relative consideration).
Vy utverjdali chto est’ trebovanie imet’ domicile, v to vremia kak eto ne sovsem tak.
Zakon - eto ne sovsem prostaia shtuka. Rabotaet ne sam tekst zakona, a chto o nem govorit sud. Kogda sud chto-to govorit, sam tekst ne meniaetsia, a meniaetsia ponimanie smysla. Eslu sud skazal, chto domicile schitaetsia vypolnennym, esli domicile is being established, to imenno tak i sleduet traktovat’ zakon, hotia iz ego teksta eto nikak ne sleduet. Grubo govoria, v 9 FAM vnosiatsia tolkovania sudov. Poetomu daleko ne vsegda tekst zakona govorit bol’she chem to chto napisano v 9 FAM.
Раевский спасибо огромнейшее! Я очень был рад почитать то что вы написали про законы и толкования их судами! Мне интересно.
ЗЫ Но законы всё таки надо читать особенно когда споришь о нормах ими устанавливаемых. Ну и толкования тоже обязательно читать, но только после самих законов. Хотя это всё я не лично вам и не вашей оппонентке сказал а в общем, абстрактно посоветовал.
Я и по-прежнему это утверждаю, вместе с 9 FAM (в который “vnosiatsia tolkovania sudov”), см. пп 1-4 и
“If the petitioner does not meet the qualifying criteria to be a sponsor (for example, by being under 18 years of age or not domiciled in the United States), the visa applicant must be found ineligible for a visa under INA 212(a)(4) until such circumstance no longer exists.”
А как бы так, чтобы no longer exists? Ну вот же, ниже “Establishing the Existence of a U.S.Domicile”. Бинго!
Ну раз на законы вы не ведётесь, то сделаю последний вброс в вашу дискуссию и пойду спать.
Раз: cfr 213a.2
Два: Kyung Park v. Holder, US Court of Appeals, 572 F.3d 619 (9th Cir. 2009)
А завтра посмотрю, сумеете ли вы договориться до консенсуса на основании этих 2-х текстов.
Может ли мне брат сделать I - 184 . Он проживает в Канаде. ?
On doljen imet’ namerenie pereehat’ v USA do vas ili s vami odnovremenno, no ne pozje vas
I chto? U Higi ne bylo konkretnogo sroka kogda on pereezjaet, a ego jena uje byla v USA i delala AOS. Esli by on sobiralsia pereehat’ k date ee AOS, reshenie bylo by inym. Vse vpisyvaetsia v obscuiu kartinu, izlojennuiu v 9 fam
1 лайк
если он - резидент или гражданин США, то может.
1 лайк
(выделенное моё)
А теперь из kyung-park-v-holder:
“…In support of Higa’s 1-130 petition, Luke Hwang also filed an 1-864 Affidavit of Support as a joint sponsor… … After a hearing, the IJ determined that Park failed to establish her eligibility for adjustment of status because Higa (her husband and sponsor) was not domiciled in the United States…”
Так всё таки если петиционер живёт за границей то “kto-to iz teh, kto jivet v USA, doljen podpisat’ I-864A” или сам петиционер должен иметь намерение переехать (establish a domicile)? Объясните мне пожалуйста, а то я в таких тонких материях как законы и решения суда не понимайт…
Mojno sravnit’ sluchai, opisannyi v dele, s delom roditelei moego odnoklassnika.
Delo Higy (sud):
“The substantial evidence test is essentially a case-by-case analysis requiring review of the whole record. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396,1398 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal citation omitted).
Domicile requires an “intention to maintain that residence for the foreseeable future.” 8 C.F.R. § 213a.1. The intention to remain may be established by factors such as: current residence; voting registration and practices; location of personal and real property; location of brokerage and bank accounts; location of *625625 spouse and family; membership in unions and other organizations; place of employment or business; driver’s license and automobile registration; and payment of taxes. See Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986). If the applicant’s statements conflict with the evaluated “objective facts,” then those “statements of intent are entitled to little weight.” See id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
The BIA reviewed this record and determined that the “objective facts” demonstrated that Higa was not domiciled in the United States. Substantial evidence supports this determination. Higa (1) has been working in Japan for more than three years; (2) has briefly visited the United States during that time period; (3) has indefinite employment in Japan; (4) pays taxes in Japan; (5) has a bank account in Japan; and (6) does not own any property in the United States. These facts support the BIA’s decision that Higa was not domiciled in the United States, because he lacked a present intent to live in Hawaii.
While Higa testified that he intended to return to Hawaii, he could not provide any specific time to return. He testified that his goal is to earn money and to gain experience, in order to open a school in Hawaii. These goals do not reflect a present intent to live in the United States for the foreseeable future, but instead are indefinite in time. Because these statements conflict with the “objective facts,” such statements are also entitled to little weight.
Vyvod - Higa ne imel domicile v USA i ne mojet podpisyvat’ affidavit.
Otec odnoklassnika otlichalsia ot Higi v sleduiuscem.
- V Moskve ne rabotal uje 30 let, byl pensionerom.
- Ne imel nikakogo employmenta v Moskve
- ne platil nalogov v Moskve
Krome togo, on mog dat’ tochnuiu datu pereezda v USA (ne v terminah kalendarnyh dnei, a v terminah v’ezda jeny - on sobiralsia v’ehat’ v USA odnovremenno s nei). Ego celi prebyvania v Moskve byli dojdat’sia dnia poluchenia jenoi vizy i daty reisa.
Да верно. Просто вы сказали
Вашу фразу “…теоретически кто то из тех кто живёт в ЮСА должен подписать Ай 864А. Чтоб была возможность судить кого то на деньги.” я понял так что по вашему даже если сам петиционер остаётся за границей достаточно чтобы “кто то из тех кто живёт в ЮСА” подписал 864А. Теперь я вижу что вы не имели такого ввиду, возможно просто ошиблись с формулировкой)) но так как эта фраза мне показадась неверной то я дал вам немного источников информации для размышлений.
Вы ведь согласны что именно сам петиционер (и никакой другой спонсор) должен быть domiciled или как минимум намереваться establish a domicile?
Vse kto podpisyvaet I-864 i I-864A. Vse oni doljny jit’ v USA ili imet’ namerenie pereehat’ v USA ne pozdnee immigranta