[Federal Register: June 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 119)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 35731-35757] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21jn06-27] [[Page 35731]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II Department of Homeland Security ----------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 8 CFR Parts 204, 205, 213a and 299 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Department of Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Parts 1205 and 1240 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Affidavits of Support on Behalf of Immigrants; Final Rule [[Page 35732]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 8 CFR Parts 204, 205, 213a and 299 [DHS 2004-0026; CIS No. 1807-96] RIN 1615-AB45 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Executive Office for Immigration Review 8 CFR Parts 1205 and 1240 [EOIR No. 150F; AG Order No. 2824-2006] RIN 1125-AA54 Affidavits of Support on Behalf of Immigrants AGENCIES: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security; Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This final rule adopts, with specified changes, an interim rule published by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service on October 20, 1997. This final rule clarifies several issues raised under the interim rule regarding who needs an affidavit of support, how sponsors qualify, what information and documentation they must present, and when the income of other persons may be used to support an intending immigrant's application for permanent residence. These changes are intended to make the affidavit of support process clearer and less intimidating and time-consuming for sponsors, while continuing to ensure that sponsors will have sufficient means available to support new immigrants when necessary. The final rule also makes clear that, when an alien applies for adjustment of status in removal proceedings, the immigration judge's jurisdiction to adjudicate the adjustment application includes authority to adjudicate the sufficiency of the affidavit of support. DATES: This final rule is effective July 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Concerning amendments made by this Final Rule to 8 CFR parts 204, 205, 213A and 299: Jonathan Mills, Immigrant Program Management Branch, Office of Regulations and Product Management, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Room 3214, Washington, DC 20529; telephone (202) 272-8530 (not a toll free call); or Lisa S. Roney, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 20 Massachusetts Ave, NW., Room 4062, Washington, DC 20529; telephone (202) 272-1470 (not a toll free call). Concerning amendments made by this Final Rule to 8 CFR parts 1205 and 1240: MaryBeth Keller, General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone (703) 305-0470 (not a toll free call). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. The Interim Rule B. Synopsis of the Final Rule II. Description of and Response to Comments A. Employment Sponsored Immigrants B. Effect of an intending immigrant's Work History C. Effect of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 on the Affidavit of Support Requirement D. Definition of ``Domicile'' E. Sponsors Under the Age of 18 F. Joint Sponsors G. Effect of the Visa Petitioner's Death H. Other Sponsorship Requirements I. Orphan Cases J. Miscellaneous Comments K. Children Who Immigrate Under Section 211(a) of the Act L. Role of the Immigration Judges M. Additional Changes to Department of Justice Rules III. Regulatory Analysis A. Regulatory Flexibility Act B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act C. Administrative Procedure Act D. Assessment of Regulatory Impact on the Family E. Paperwork Reduction Act F. Executive Order 12866 G. Executive Order 13132 H. Executive Order 12988 Civil Justice Reform I. Background Section 531(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Public Law 104-208, Division C, amended section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act) to provide that an alien is inadmissible as an alien likely to become a public charge if the alien is seeking an immigrant visa, admission as an immigrant, or adjustment of status as: (a) An immediate relative, (b) a family-based immigrant, or (c) an employment-based immigrant, if a relative of the alien is the petitioning employer or has a significant ownership interest in the entity that is the petitioning employer. Sections 212(a)(4)(C)-(D) and 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C)-(D) and 1183a. To avoid a finding of inadmissibility as a public charge, the alien must be the beneficiary of an affidavit of support filed under section 213A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. Section 213A of the Act specifies the conditions that must be met in order for an affidavit of support to be sufficient to overcome the public charge inadmissibility ground. A. The Interim Rule The former Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) published an interim rule implementing these requirements in the Federal Register on October 20, 1997, at 62 FR 54346. The interim rule adopted 8 CFR part 213A, defining the procedures for submitting affidavits of support under section 213A of the Act, defining a sponsor's ongoing obligations under the affidavit of support, and specifying the procedures that Federal, State, or local agencies or private entities must follow to seek reimbursement from the sponsor for provision of means-tested public benefits. In conjunction with the interim rule, the Service also created three new public use forms: Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act; Form I-864A, Contract Between Sponsor and Household Member; and Form I-865, Sponsor's Notice of Change of Address. The interim rule was effective on December 19, 1997. On March 1, 2003, the Service ceased to exist and its functions were transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296. The Secretary of Homeland Security is the issuing authority for most of the provisions of this final rule, since the Homeland Security Act transferred immigration services functions to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of DHS. The Attorney General, however, continues to have authority relating to the Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Attorney General, therefore, is the issuing authority for the provisions of this final rule that relate to the jurisdiction of the immigration judges. B. Synopsis of the Final Rule This current rulemaking adopts the interim rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this Supplementary Information. The changes reflect the response of USCIS and the Department of Justice to the comments received relating to the [[Page 35733]] interim rule. USCIS also notes that it has adopted two additional public use forms to comply with the requirements of the final rule. USCIS designed Form I-864EZ, EZ Affidavit of Support, for use by a sponsor who relies only on his or her own employment to meet the income requirements under section 213A of the Act and the final rule. An intending immigrant uses Form I-864W, Intending Immigrant's I-864 Exemption, to establish that a Form I-864 is not required in his or her case. More information about these new Forms is included in the section of this Supplementary Information relating to the Paperwork Reduction Act. Also, pursuant to section 213A(i) of the Act, the final rule makes clear that USCIS may disclose a sponsor's social security number, as well as the sponsor's last known address, to a benefit granting agency seeking to obtain reimbursement from the sponsor. II. Description of and Response to Comments The comment period ended on February 17, 1998. The Service received 117 comments that were submitted during the comment period. USCIS and DOJ have considered these comments in formulating the final rules. The following is a discussion of the comments and USCIS's responses. A. Employment Sponsored Immigrants Definition of ``Significant Ownership Interest'' Sections 212(a)(4)(D) and 213A(f)(4) of the Act and 8 CFR 213a.2(b)(2) require the submission of Form I-864 in the case of an employment-based immigrant if a relative of the immigrant either filed the visa petition or has a ``significant ownership interest'' in the entity that did so. The interim regulation, at 8 CFR 213a.1, defined ``significant ownership interest'' as an ownership interest of five percent or more in a for-profit entity. Nine commenters (with 51 signers) believe that this five percent threshold is too low. One commenter, for example, argued that a five percent interest cannot be considered ``significant'' because ``no ability to control or even influence [the entity] can result from such a low level of ownership.'' These commenters believe that an affidavit of support should not be required unless the relative owns at least 50 percent of the petitioning entity. They based this suggestion on the Department of State's determination in the Foreign Affairs Manual that a treaty investor must own at least 50 percent of the entity in order to meet the ``substantial investment'' requirement for treaty investor visas. See Foreign Affairs Manual, Volume 9, Sec. 41.51, note 3.1 to 22 CFR 41.51. The final rule retains the five percent threshold adopted in the interim rule. In accordance with the authorities cited in the supplemental information to the interim rule, at 62 FR 54347, USCIS believes that the term ``significant ownership interest'' had a well- settled meaning in Federal statutes and regulations when Congress included the term in sections 212(a)(4)(D) and 213A(f)(4) of the Act. The commenters' observation that these definitions are in ``unrelated'' statutes is not persuasive, since it is the meaning of the term itself that is at issue. In the absence of the enactment of a different definition of ``significant ownership interest,'' there is no clear basis for adopting a different definition for section 213A of the Act. Citizenship or Resident Alien Status of the Relative-Employer Three commenters asked whether the affidavit of support requirement will apply to employment-based immigrants if the relative with the significant ownership interest is not a United States citizen or resident alien. For employment-based immigrants, the purpose of the affidavit of support is to ensure that a relative who could file a family-based visa petition will not use employment as a means to avoid the affidavit of support requirement that would apply if the relative were to file an alien relative visa petition. Relatives who are not U.S. citizens or resident aliens are ineligible to file alien relative visa petitions. For this reason, 8 CFR 213a.1 defines ``relative,'' for purposes of the affidavit of support requirement, to include only those family members who can file alien relative visa petitions. The final rule clarifies that a relative must be either a U.S. citizen or a resident alien in order for the affidavit of support requirement to apply to an employment-based immigrant. B. Effect of an Intending Immigrant's Work History Under section 213A(a)(3)(A) of the Act, all of a sponsor's obligations under the affidavit of support end once the intending immigrant has worked, or can be credited with, 40 qualifying quarters of coverage as defined under title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401 et seq. One comment (with 21 signatures) suggested that the affidavit of support requirement should not apply at all if, when the intending immigrant seeks an immigrant visa or adjustment of status, the intending immigrant can already meet this requirement. This comment is well-taken. If the intending immigrant can establish, on the basis of the records of the Social Security Administration, that he or she already has, or can be credited with, the necessary quarters of coverage, requiring the Form I-864 would serve no real purpose--the sponsor's obligations would terminate as soon as they arose. The final rule therefore adopts this suggestion. C. Effect of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 on the Affidavit of Support Requirement On October 30, 2000, President Clinton signed into law the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Public Law 106-395, 114 Stat. 1631. Section 101 of Public Law 106-395 amended section 320 of the Act, effective February 27, 2001. Under this amendment, the alien child of a citizen becomes a citizen automatically under section 320 of the Act if, before the child's 18th birthday, the child is lawfully admitted for permanent residence while in the legal and physical custody of a citizen parent and while residing with the citizen parent in the United States. It is likely that most alien children of citizens will acquire citizenship at the same moment as their admission for permanent residence. Because the requirements under the affidavit of support end when the sponsored immigrant becomes a citizen, USCIS concludes that imposing the affidavit of support requirement in these cases would be needless. Therefore, the final rule provides that no Form I-864 is required if the alien establishes that he or she will acquire citizenship automatically under section 320, as amended, upon his or her admission or adjustment of status. Note, however, that this final rule excuses the immigrant children of citizens from the requirement of filing a Form I-864 only. In a given case, it may still be that, in light of the general factors specified in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the Act--the alien's age, health, family status, assets, resources and financial status, education and skills--an immigrant child of a citizen would be inadmissible under section 212(a)(4)(A) of the Act as an alien likely to become a public charge. DHS does not consider it likely for this issue to arise in many cases, however. Under the amended section 320, most adopted children will acquire citizenship upon their admission to the United States or soon thereafter. Even a child with a serious medical condition, therefore, would most likely be a citizen before the child would become dependent on public assistance as a result of the condition. The Child Citizenship Act applies to adopted children and alien orphans, as [[Page 35734]] well as to birth children. Note, however, that amended section 320 of the Act requires the child to be in the legal and physical custody of a citizen parent in order for the child to acquire citizenship upon admission as a permanent resident. If the citizen parent, residing in the United States, adopts an alien orphan abroad, and both parents saw the child before or during the adoption, then the legal parent-child relationship will already exist for immigration purposes when the alien orphan is admitted to the United States as a permanent resident. If all the other requirements of section 320 of the Act are met, the alien orphan will become a citizen at admission. If, however, the alien orphan is to be adopted in the United States only after admission, then the alien orphan will not become a citizen until the adoption is finalized. The citizen parent will therefore have to sign a Form I-864. A Form I-864 will also be required of the citizen parent when there is a completed foreign adoption, but one or both of the parents did not see the child before or during the adoption, unless the citizen parent can establish that, under the law of the State of the child's proposed residence, the foreign adoption will be entitled to recognition without the need for any formal administrative or judicial proceeding in that State. The petitioning citizen parent must still submit a sufficient Form I-864 if the child immigrates after the child's 18th birthday, and also if the child immigrates before the child's 18th birthday, but the child is no longer a ``child'' as defined in section 101(b)(1) of the Act because the child is married. D. Definition of ``Domicile'' Eight comments questioned the definition of ``domicile.'' Several commenters objected that, because of the way the interim rule defined ``domicile,'' it would preclude citizens and resident aliens who are domiciled abroad from filing affidavits of support. It is true that those who are not domiciled in the United States may not file affidavits of support until they establish domiciles in the United States. This result is clearly what Congress intended in imposing the domicile requirement. An agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of a court in the United States, suggested by three comments, cannot substitute for this clear statutory requirement. It appears that the commenters may have misunderstood the scope of the definition. In particular, in 1997 the Service did not intend, and USCIS does not now intend, the reference to sections 316(b), 317, and 319(b) of the Act to exhaust the situations in which a person sojourning abroad may be said to retain a domicile in the United States. The final rule revises the definition to tie ``domicile'' to the sponsor's principal residence. The final rule also clarifies that a person residing temporarily abroad may file an affidavit of support if he or she can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she still has a domicile in the United States. To avoid confusion, the final rule makes this clarification in a new 8 CFR 213a.2(c)(1)(ii), rather than in the definition itself. The final rule does provide in section 213a.2(c)(1)(ii) a single exception, under which a sponsor who is not domiciled in the United States (i.e., cannot show his or her residence abroad has been only temporary) may submit a Form I-864. The sponsor may do so only if the sponsor establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the sponsor will have established his or her domicile in the United States no later than the date of the intending immigrant's admission or adjustment of status. The intending immigrant will, however, be inadmissible as an alien likely to become a public charge if the sponsor has not actually become domiciled in the United States by the date of the decision on the intending immigrant's application for admission or adjustment of status. Thus, the sponsor must arrive in the United States before, or at the same time as, the intending immigrant, and the sponsor must intend to establish his or her domicile in the United States. E. Sponsors Under the Age of 18 Four commenters objected to the requirement that the sponsor must be at least 18 years old. They noted that this requirement will mean that a citizen or resident alien spouse who does not meet the age requirement cannot file an affidavit of support on behalf of the spouse seeking to immigrate. Similarly, a parent who is under 18 years old could not do so for his or her alien children. Congress set the age limit in section 213A(f)(1)(B) of the Act. USCIS cannot change the age limit in the regulations unless Congress amends section 213A of the Act. If the sponsor or joint sponsor was not 18 when he or she signed a Form I-864, the signature will have no legal effect under section 213A of the Act. Rather than requiring rejection of the Form I-864, however, the final rule provides that, to cure the improper filing, the sponsor or joint sponsor must sign it again on or after his or her 18th birthday before there can be a decision on the intending immigrant's application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. F. Joint Sponsors Four commenters argued that the joint sponsorship provision is too restrictive to provide a practical alternative. One of these commenters, in particular, suggested that the sponsor and joint sponsor should be able to ``pool'' their income, that is, that the joint sponsor should only be required to make up the difference between the sponsor's income and the income threshold. However, sections 213A(f)(2) and (5) of the Act permit a joint sponsor only in one specified situation: when the sponsor's income is not sufficient. The joint sponsor, according to section 213A(f)(5) of the Act, must be able to meet the income threshold. For this reason, the final rule cannot, and does not, adopt the suggestion that, like the household members, the sponsor and joint sponsor should be able to ``pool'' their income. One comment suggested that a joint sponsor should be allowed if the visa petitioner is under 18. Sections 213A(f)(2) and (5) of the Act provide the only statutory basis for joint sponsors, and allow for a joint sponsor only if the sponsor's income is not sufficient. There is no similar provision for cases involving sponsors who are not at least 18, or who are not domiciled in the United States. One of the eight commenters on the domicile issue discussed earlier suggested that the regulation should permit a joint sponsor if the visa petitioner cannot meet the domicile requirement. But sections 213A(f)(2) and (5) of the Act provide the only statutory basis for joint sponsors, and allow for a joint sponsor only if the principal sponsor's income is not sufficient. If the person who is required to be the sponsor is not domiciled in the United States, and, as noted earlier in the discussion of domicile, does not intend to establish a domicile in the United States, then there is no one who has standing to sign an affidavit of support on behalf of the intending immigrant. The final rule also makes clear that an intending immigrant may not have more than one joint sponsor, in addition to the principal sponsor. This clarification is consistent with the statement of managers accompanying IIRIRA with respect to section 213A, which clearly indicates that the managers did not consider it appropriate to permit a second joint sponsor if the joint sponsor's income was not sufficient. H. Rep. No. 104-828 at 242 (1996). It is not necessary, however, for all the derivative beneficiaries of a visa petition to have the same joint sponsor as the [[Page 35735]] principal beneficiary. For example, suppose the principal beneficiary has a wife and four children who will accompany the principal beneficiary to the United States. It may be the case that a willing joint sponsor would have sufficient income to file an affidavit of support for the husband and wife and only one of the children. The final rule would permit the joint sponsor to accept responsibility only for those three aliens, and would allow a second joint sponsor to file an affidavit of support for the other three children. Each joint sponsor would then be responsible only for those aliens named in that joint sponsor's own Form I-864. The principal intending immigrant and the accompanying spouse and children, as a group, however, may not have more than two joint sponsors. G. Effect of the Visa Petitioner's Death Seven commenters suggested that a joint sponsor should be permitted if the visa petitioner dies before the visa petition is approved, and the beneficiary has obtained ``relief from revocation'' under 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C). There is no authority to approve a visa petition after the petitioner dies. See Abboud v. INS, 140 F.3d 843 (9th Cir. 1998); Dodig v. INS, 9 F.3d 1418 (9th Cir. 1993); Matter of Varela, 13 I. & N. Dec. 453 (BIA 1970). If the petitioner dies before approval of the visa petition, there is no basis for approving the visa petition. The legal situation is different if the visa petitioner dies after approval of the visa petition. Section 205 of the Act authorizes revocation of approval of a visa petition for ``good and sufficient cause.'' The related regulation, 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C), provides that the petitioner's death automatically revokes approval of a family-based immigrant petition. This same regulation, however, allows the approval to remain in force if USCIS, in the exercise of discretion, ``determines that for humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate.'' 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C). Reinstatement of approval of the visa petition does not waive the affidavit of support requirements under section 213A of the Act. However, on March 13, 2002, the Family Sponsor Immigration Act, Public Law 107-150, 116 Stat. 74, was enacted. Public Law 107-150 amended section 213A(f)(5) of the Act to permit another relative to sign the affidavit of support if the petitioner dies after the visa petition is approved, where it is determined that revoking the approval would not be appropriate. This final rule incorporates the provisions of section 213A(f)(5)(B), as amended by Public Law 107-150. A substitute sponsor must be either a citizen or national, or else an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. The substitute sponsor must also be at least 18 years of age, and must have a domicile in the United States. If USCIS allows the approval of the visa petition to stand, then the sponsored alien's 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, grandchild, or a legal guardian may sign the affidavit of support. The final rule also adopts a special rule for cases in which the alien beneficiary was, before the petitioner's death, the spouse of a citizen. Under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, if an alien was married to a citizen for at least 2 years at the time of the citizen's death, the alien may file a petition on his or her own behalf, so long as the alien does so within 2 years of the citizen's death, and has not remarried. Section 212(a)(4)(C)(i)(I) of the Act, in turn, relieves that alien of the affidavit of support requirement, once USCIS approves the new petition. The final rule provides that it will not be necessary for the beneficiary to file a new petition (Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant) as the widow(er) of a citizen. Instead, the final rule provides for automatic conversion of the citizen's spousal Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, to a widow(er)'s petition upon the citizen's death if, on that date, the widow(er) meets the requirements of section 201(b)(2)(A)(I) of the Act as it relates to widow(er)'s petitions. This automatic conversion will apply whether the citizen spouse dies before or after approval of the Form I-130. Since the alien spouse will then immigrate as the widow(er) of a citizen, it will not be necessary to submit a Form I-864 from a substitute sponsor. The final rule retains the provision of the interim rule that permits a joint sponsor if the visa petitioner dies after the principal beneficiary has immigrated, but before a family member entitled to ``follow to join'' the principal beneficiary immigrates. (``Following to join'' permits spouses and children of an alien to obtain the status nonimmigrant visa or immigrant visa and priority date of the principal alien.) The final rule, however, conforms the provision to the requirements of the Family Sponsor Immigration Act. That is to say, the substitute sponsor must be a citizen, national, or permanent resident alien, at least 18 years of age, and related to the new intending immigrant in at least one of the ways described in section 213A(f)(5)(B) of the Act, as amended by Public Law 107-150. H. Other Sponsorship Requirements Section 213A(f)(1)(D) of the Act provides that the sponsor must be the person ``petitioning for the admission of the alien under section 204'' of the Act. The interim rule, in 8 CFR 213a.2(b)(1), made clear that the sponsor must be the visa petitioner whose petition is the actual basis for the intending immigrant's eligibility to apply for the immigrant visa or adjustment of status. One commenter noted that an alien may be the beneficiary of more than one approved visa petition, filed by several relatives. This commenter believes that any one of these petitioners should be able to be the sponsor. For example, if the intending immigrant applies for a visa as an immediate relative, on the basis of his wife's visa petition, but his mother also filed a third family-based preference petition, then his mother, instead of his wife, should be able to be the sponsor. This comment cannot be adopted. The reference in section 213A(f)(1)(D) of the Act to section 204 of the Act can most reasonably be taken to mean that Congress anticipated that the sponsor would be the same person whose visa petition has made the intending immigrant's application for an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status currently possible. If the mother in this example is going to be the sponsor, then the alien will have to wait until the priority date for her petition is reached. The mother may, of course, choose to be a joint sponsor if the visa petitioner/sponsor cannot meet the income threshold. Proof of Sponsor's Social Security Number, Citizenship, and Residence One commenter suggested that every sponsor should have to prove his or her citizenship, residence, and Social Security number. It is not necessary to incorporate this suggestion into the final rule. USCIS already verifies the citizenship or resident alien status of those who file alien relative visa petitions. Moreover, the general authority to gather evidence concerning an alien's eligibility to enter the United States, granted under section 287(b) of the Act, is a sufficient basis for USCIS to require additional evidence concerning these issues. Such evidence may include verification of a sponsor's Social Security number, especially when there is a reasonable basis to question the sponsor's identity or eligibility to sign the Form I-864. A joint sponsor, however, will have to [[Page 35736]] prove his or her eligibility to be a joint sponsor. Nonimmigrant Fiance(e)s Another commenter asked for clarification that the nonimmigrant fiance(e) of a citizen does not need a Form I-864 when the fiance(e) comes to the United States as a K-1 nonimmigrant fiance(e) under section 101(a)(15)(K) of the Act to marry the citizen. This is correct. A K-1 nonimmigrant fiance(e), however, is admitted for only 90 days. The lawful status of the K-1 nonimmigrant fiance(e), and any accompanying child admitted as a K-2 nonimmigrant, ends unless, within this 90-day period, the K-1 nonimmigrant fiance(e) marries the citizen who filed the K-1 nonimmigrant visa petition. After the marriage, the K-1 nonimmigrant fiance(e) and any accompanying children admitted as K- 2 nonimmigrants must then apply for adjustment to permanent resident status. Sections 201(b)(2)(A)(i) and 245(d) of the Act make it clear that, when an alien who has been admitted as a K-1 nonimmigrant fiance(e), and any accompanying child admitted as a K-2 nonimmigrant, applies for adjustment of status, he or she does so as an immediate relative. Since the K nonimmigrant adjusts as an immediate relative, sections 212(a)(4) and 213A make the nonimmigrant inadmissible unless the citizen spouse files a Form I-864 for both the K-1 nonimmigrant fiance(e) and any accompanying children admitted as K-2 nonimmigrants. This commenter also believed that Forms I-864 should be required for other nonimmigrants, such as students and the family members of students and nonimmigrants in work-related classifications. Section 213A of the Act, however, clearly applies only to certain immigrants. There is no basis in section 213A of the Act for adopting this comment. Continued Use of the Form I-134, Affidavit of Support The interim rule clarified in 8 CFR 213a.5 that the regulations relating to the use of Forms I-864, I-864A, and I-865 do not apply to other situations where immigration or consular officers have permitted the use of Form I-134. The Form I-134 is the long-used affidavit of support that, as several State courts have held, does not impose an obligation that could be enforced against the sponsor by lawsuit. San Diego County v. Viloria, 276 Cal. App. 2d 350, 80 Cal. Rptr 869 (Cal. App. 1969); Michigan ex rel. Attorney General v. Binder, 356 Mich. 73, 96 N.W. 2d 140 (Mich. 1959); California Dept. Mental Hygiene v. Renel, 10 Misc.2d 402, 173 N.Y.S. 2d 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 1958). Seven commenters asked for clarification of the situations when Form I-134 may be used. The discretion concerning use of Form I-134 has long been quite broad. The sole purpose of 8 CFR 213a.5 is to retain that broad discretion. For this reason, the final rule makes no change to 8 CFR 213a.5. Definitions of ``Household Size'' and ``Household Income'' Numerous comments were received concerning the definitions of ``household size'' and ``household income'' and the use of the Form I- 864A. In general, these commenters believed that ``household size'' was defined too broadly, since all related people at the same residence would be considered in the household, even if they were, in fact, separate economic ``households.'' These comments are well-founded. The final rule, therefore, provides for flexibility in the definition of ``household size.'' In all cases, the sponsor must include in calculating the ``household size'' the sponsor, his wife or her husband, the sponsor's unmarried children under the age of 21 (other than a step-child who meets the requirements of section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act but who is not part of the sponsor's household, is not claimed as a dependent by the sponsor for tax purposes, and is not seeking to immigrate based on the step-parent/step-child relationship), and any other person--whether related to the sponsor or not--claimed as a dependent on the sponsor's income tax returns. The sponsor must include his or her spouse and all persons claimed as dependents for tax purposes, even if these persons do not actually have the same principal residence as the sponsor. The sponsor may exclude any unmarried children under 21 if these children have reached majority under the law of the place of domicile and the sponsor does not claim them as dependents on the sponsor's income tax returns. If, in fact, the household consists of a more extended family, the sponsor may elect to include other relatives in determining the ``household size.'' Under this alternative, the sponsor may then include in the calculation of household size any relative of the sponsor who has the same principal residence as the sponsor. In determining the household size, ``relative'' has the same meaning as for the affidavit of support regulation as a whole--that is, in addition to the spouse, unmarried children under 21, and any other persons legally claimed as dependents, the sponsor may include his or her father, mother, adult son, adult daughter, brother, or sister. The final rule removes the interim rule's requirement that the household member must have resided in the sponsor's household for at least six months in order to sign a Form I-864A. The final rule also clarifies, as requested by three commenters, that no person should be counted more than once in determining the size of the household. The definition of ``household income'' is revised to correspond to the revised definition of ``household size.'' In determining the ``household income'' the sponsor may include the income of any other persons included in calculating the ``household size,'' but these other persons, including the sponsor's spouse or children (who must be at least 18 years old), must still sign Form I-864A in order for the sponsor to use this option. The final rule retains the Form I-864A requirement to ensure that the family member's promise of support is enforceable. As with the sponsor's spouse and dependents, the income of these other relatives in the residence may be ``pooled'' to determine the household income. In response to one comment, the final rule clarifies that a person included in calculating ``household income'' must be at least 18 years old to sign a Form I-864A. Intending Immigrant as Part of the Sponsor's Household Two commenters argued that the intending immigrant and his or her family should not be considered in determining the sponsor's ``household size'' for purposes of the affidavit of support. Section 213A(f)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act clearly requires the sponsor's income to meet the income threshold ``for a family unit of a size equal to the number of members of the sponsor's household * * * plus the total number of * * * aliens sponsored by that sponsor.'' Consequently, the sponsor must continue to include the intending immigrants in calculating the ``household size,'' and must also include any other immigrants sponsored under any other Form I-864 if the sponsor's obligation is still in effect. Sponsor's Reliance on the Intending Immigrant's Income One commenter suggested that the intending immigrant's own income should never be considered in determining the household income, and that section 213A(f)(6)(A)(ii) of the Act permits consideration of the intending immigrant's assets, but not his or her income. The commenter also observed [[Page 35737]] that ``most'' intending immigrants will be giving up their jobs abroad, and so will no longer have that income. Many immigrants, however, acquire permanent residence through adjustment of status after working lawfully in the United States. Some intending immigrants work in the United States as nonimmigrants, and then go abroad and return with immigrant visas. Other intending immigrants may obtain transfers, so that they work in the United States for the same employer as abroad, or may have investments or other lawful sources of income that will continue to be available. The intending immigrant, moreover, is considered in calculating the sponsor's household size, and it is the income of the household that determines whether the sponsor can satisfy the income threshold. The final rule, therefore, clarifies that the sponsor may rely on the intending immigrant's income if the intending immigrant is either the sponsor's spouse or has the same principal residence as the sponsor and can show by a preponderance of the evidence that the intending immigrant's income will continue, after acquisition of permanent residence, from the same source (such as lawful employment with the same employer or some other lawful source). The prospect or offer of employment in the United States that has not yet actually begun will not be sufficient to meet this requirement. Who Must Sign the Form I-864 On a similar theme, one commenter asked whether the intending immigrant can sign the Form I-864 if the intending immigrant's own resources will be the chief basis for the sufficiency of the Form I- 864. The commenter's example is a 22-year-old student, of meager resources, who has filed a Form I-130 for her father, who is independently wealthy. Section 213A(f)(6)(A)(ii) of the Act provides that the sponsor may rely on the intending immigrant's assets. However, sections 212(a)(4)(C) and 213A(f)(1) of the Act make it clear that the daughter, not the father, must sign and file the Form I-864, although it may prove that it is the father's resources, not the daughter's, that make meeting the ``significant assets'' provision possible. As noted, she may rely on her father's income, as distinct from his assets, only if her father has the same principal residence as she does and can show by a preponderance of the evidence that his income will continue from the same source, even after acquisition of permanent residence. Documenting the Sponsor's Current Income Eighteen commenters pointed out that Form I-864 does not include a place for the sponsor to indicate his or her current income. This oversight was corrected in the September 15, 2003, edition of Form I- 864. The final rule now makes it clear that it is the sponsor's income in the year in which the intending immigrant applies for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status that is to bear the greatest evidentiary weight in determining whether the affidavit of support is sufficient. The tax forms for past years serve as an indication of the sponsor's ability to maintain that income over time. These 18 comments implicitly suggested another question: For what year must the sponsor's income meet the requirements of section 213A? This question will arise regularly, since it is often the case that there will be a lapse of time between the filing of the Form I-864 and the decision on the immigrant visa or adjustment application. The final rule clarifies that, as a general principle, the sufficiency of the Form I-864 will be determined based on the household income for the year in which the intending immigrant filed the immigrant visa or adjustment application. There is one exception, however. If more than a year has elapsed since the submission of the Form I-864, the final rule gives the Department of State officer, immigration officer, or immigration judge the discretion to request more current information if the Department of State officer, immigration officer, or immigration judge concludes that this additional evidence is necessary to the proper adjudication of the case. In any case in which the intending immigrant is requested to submit additional evidence, the additional evidence must relate to the current year, not to the year of the filing of the immigrant visa or adjustment application. The sufficiency of the Form I-864 will then be adjudicated based on the additional evidence. DHS does not intend that a one-year delay between the filing and adjudication of the immigrant visa or adjustment application will routinely lead to a request for additional evidence. If the sponsor has a stable employment and income history, it may in many cases be reasonable to infer that this history has continued, so that additional evidence would not become necessary simply through the passage of time. It is necessary to provide authority to request additional evidence, however, for the sake of those cases in which, on the basis of the evidence of record, a reasonable adjudicator could find the sponsor's ability to maintain a sufficient income is reasonably open to question. Changes in the Poverty Guidelines Eight commenters suggested that a sponsor should not have to provide a new Form I-864 if the Poverty Guidelines change while the case is awaiting decision. It will not be necessary to file a new Form I-864 in this case. The final rule also clarifies that the sufficiency of the affidavit of support will be determined in accordance with the Poverty Guidelines in effect when the intending immigrant files the application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. So that the record will include the correct version of the Poverty Guidelines, the final rule provides that the intending immigrant is to file a copy of the current edition of Form I-864P, Poverty Guidelines, with his or her application. USCIS updates the Form I-864P each year to reflect the annual adjustment in the Poverty Guidelines. There is one exception to this general rule: If, in the exercise of discretion, the Department of State officer, immigration officer, or immigration judge requests additional evidence because more than one year has elapsed since the filing of the application, then the sufficiency of the Form I-864 will be determined based on the Poverty Guidelines in effect when the request for evidence was made. ``Discretion'' To Discount a Form I-864 Despite Sufficient Current Income The interim rule, at 8 CFR 213a.2(c)(2)(v), provided that a Department of State officer, immigration officer, or immigration judge may find an affidavit of support to be insufficient, even if the sponsor's income meets the income threshold, if the officer finds that it is unlikely that the sponsor will be able to maintain that income. Twenty-one commenters argued that this element of the interim rule gives the deciding officer too much ``discretion.'' One of these comments, moreover, maintained that, if the officer can reject marginally sufficient Forms I-864, the officer should also be able to accept marginally insufficient Forms I-864. The provision in the interim rule was not ``discretionary.'' It is not enough that the sponsor has sufficient income. Section 213A(f)(1)(E) of the Act clearly specifies that the sponsor must demonstrate that he or she can maintain that income. The final rule does specify, however, that, if the sponsor satisfies all other requirements of section 213A of the Act, a sufficient income will ordinarily make the affidavit of support [[Page 35738]] sufficient, unless, on the basis of the specific facts of a given case, the deciding officer finds that the sponsor has not demonstrated his or her ability to maintain that income over time. The sponsors employment history could be one specific fact that could warrant such a finding. Suppose, for example, that the sponsor recently started a new job after a long period of unemployment. If the sponsor has a reasonable prospect that the employment will continue, then it may well be that the affidavit of support will be sufficient. If, however, the new position is, by its terms, only temporary or seasonal, it would be reasonable to hold that the income is not sufficient to show that the sponsor can reasonably be expected to be able to maintain his or her household income at the income threshold. Another situation may involve one person who has filed visa petitions for several relatives--two brothers and a sister, for example at--the same time, so that each beneficiary's priority date becomes current at about the same time. The relatives may then apply for immigrant visas or for adjustment of status at about the same time. Strictly speaking, the legal support obligation would not be in effect when these siblings (and their accompanying spouses and children) apply for visas, since none of them have been admitted as permanent residents yet. Thus, the second brother and the sister, for example, would not be included in calculating the ``household size'' for the first brother's affidavit of support. Yet the fact that the same person must sign an affidavit of support for several people would surely be relevant in determining whether the sponsor can meet the support obligation for all of those aliens. The Department of State officer, immigration officer, or immigration judge may, therefore, properly consider these other affidavits of support (although not yet in effect) in determining whether the sponsor can meet the requirements of section 213A with respect to the alien(s) whose case(s) are under review. It may prove that only one or two of the intending immigrants (and their accompanying family members) will be able to immigrate at that time, unless someone is willing to be a joint sponsor for those intending immigrants who, if included, would put the household size beyond the size for which the sponsor's income is sufficient. On a related issue, the final rule clarifies that a sufficient affidavit of support will not overcome the public charge ground of inadmissibility in every possible case. In most cases, the affidavit of support will carry the greatest weight. In a particular case, however, there may be specific facts about the intending immigrant's situation, under the factors specified in section 212(a)(4)(B) of the Act--the alien's age, health, family status, assets, resources and financial status, education and skills--that warrant a finding that the intending immigrant remains inadmissible on public charge grounds, even if the affidavit of support meets the requirements of section 213A of the Act. Effect of the Sponsor's Own Receipt of Means-Tested Public Benefits Several commenters objected to the requirement that the sponsor must disclose whether the sponsor or any household members have received means-tested public benefits. The argument is that section 213A of the Act does not authorize this requirement. USCIS does not agree that section 213A of the Act does not permit USCIS to ask about past receipt of means-tested public benefits. In most cases, however, information about this issue will not add much evidence of probative value. As a matter of policy, therefore, the sponsor will not be asked to disclose his or her receipt of means-tested public benefits. The Service already removed this question from the November 5, 2001, edition of the Form I-864. If a sponsor uses an older edition of the Form I-864, the sponsor may leave that question unanswered. However, USCIS notes that the sponsor may not include any means-tested benefits received in calculating the household income. The sponsor may, of course, rely on retirement benefits, unemployment compensation, workman's compensation, or other benefits that the sponsor has received, that must be included as taxable income. The duration of the sponsor's eligibility for these benefits may be relevant in determining the sponsor's ability to maintain his or her income over time. Income Tax Returns Section 213A(f)(6)(A)(i) of the Act requires the sponsor to provide certified copies of his or her individual income tax returns for the last three years before the sponsor signed the Form I-864. One commenter suggested that the final rule should make clear that the sponsor must provide the complete return as actually filed, including all Internal Revenue Service Forms W-2 (if the sponsor relies on income from employment), Forms 1099 (if the sponsor relies on income from sources documented on Forms 1099 in meeting the income threshold), or other documentary evidence of income, and not just the Forms 1040, 1040A or 1040EZ. The final rule makes this clarification. Section 213A(f)(6)(B) of the Act gives discretion to alter the affidavit of support requirements so that a sponsor need only file a copy of the tax return from the most recent tax year, rather than the returns for the three most recent tax years. This final rule adopts this alternative. That is, once this final rule enters into force, a sponsor will only be required to submit one Federal tax return, for the most recent tax year. However, the sponsor may, at his or her option, submit the sponsor's or household member's Federal income tax returns for the three most recent years if the sponsor believes these additional tax returns may help to establish the sponsor's ability to maintain his or her household income at the applicable threshold set forth in Form I-864P, Poverty Guidelines. Use of IRS Transcripts Instead of Copies of the Required Tax Returns Another commenter asked whether the sponsor may submit IRS- generated transcripts of the returns. Under current IRS policy, IRS will provide transcripts, free of charge, if the sponsor files IRS Form 4506T. There is, by contrast, a fee for filing an IRS Form 4506, rather than the free IRS Form 4506T, if one wants to obtain an actual photocopy of the filed return. It is important to note that the interim rule did not require the sponsor to obtain photocopies of the sponsor's own returns from the IRS. If, as the IRS recommends, the sponsor has kept photocopies or duplicate originals of the sponsor's returns in the sponsor's own files, the sponsor may submit copies of his or her own file copies. Section 213A requires the submission of certified copies, but the interim rule and the Form I-864 itself make it clear that, by signing the Form I-864, the sponsor certifies under penalty of perjury that the copies are true copies. The final rule does give the sponsor, substitute sponsor, joint sponsor, household member, or intending immigrant the option of submitting either photocopies or IRS-generated transcripts of the required tax returns. Along with the transcripts or photocopies, the sponsor, joint sponsor, or household member must submit copies of all Forms W-2, Forms 1099, and schedules, as specified in the rule. No Legal Duty To File a Tax Return Two commenters addressed the situation of a sponsor who had no legal duty to file a tax return for a particular year. The sponsor would bear the burden of showing the basis for his or [[Page 35739]] her claim that he or she had income that was not subject to taxation, including the source and amount of the income. If the claim that the sponsor had no duty to file is based on the sponsor's income being too low to require a return, proof that the income was below the threshold will be enough to establish that the sponsor had no duty to file. If the sponsor claimed that the sponsor had no duty to file for some reason other than the sponsor's income level, this burden may require the sponsor to provide the officer with information, including citations to or copies of statutes, treaties, or regulations that support the claim that the sponsor had no duty to file. One commenter asked, for example, about the situation in which the sponsor claimed that a tax treaty affects the sponsor's tax liability under United States law. The sponsor would have to include a copy of the relevant treaty provision. The other commenter asked what sort of evidence a sponsor may submit to show he or she had no duty to file, and asked whether a joint sponsor would always be required. The sponsor would submit whatever evidence the sponsor has to support the claim, such as proof that the sponsor's income was below the level at which a return is required for the year in question. The visa petitioner must file an affidavit of support even if the visa petitioner had no duty to file an income tax return for one or more of the past three years. A joint sponsor would be necessary if the sponsor's income did not meet the 125 percent income threshold in section 213A of the Act. The most common situation in which there is a claim that the sponsor had no duty to file a Federal income tax return will probably involve sponsors who reside in Puerto Rico. These sponsors, under 26 U.S.C. 933(1), may exclude from their taxable income any income from a source in Puerto Rico (other than from U.S. Government employment in Puerto Rico). If a sponsor had no income from a source outside Puerto Rico, it may well be the case that he or she will have considerable income, none of which is subject to the Federal income tax. In this case, the sponsor will have to present other evidence to substantiate his or her claimed income. In most cases, the sponsor's Puerto Rico income tax return, if any, would be the most probative alternative evidence. Those who reside in Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands would also need to present evidence in accordance with the special tax provisions that apply to persons living in those places. Proof of Income Through Self-Employment Finally, one commenter believed that, for self-employed persons, the sponsor's income should be taken from line 7 of Schedule C to IRS Form 1040. That is to say, the self-employed sponsor's income should be the gross receipts of the person's business, minus the cost of goods sold, but without subtracting legitimate deductions the sponsor has taken. USCIS cannot adopt this suggestion. The focus of concern is the sponsor's ability to provide the necessary support to the intending immigrant(s). Money paid for expenses included in part II of Schedule C is not available for this purpose. Moreover, it is the amount of income after deduction of expenses that is carried over from Schedule C to the Form 1040 itself. Consequently, the final rule retains the original definition of income, but clarifies that total income means the entry for total income shown on the appropriate line of the relevant Federal individual income tax return, IRS Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ, not the preliminary calculation of gross income on Schedule C. The final rule also tracks the language on IRS Forms 1040 and 1040A by using the term ``total income'' rather than ``gross income'' in relation to those forms, and the term ``adjusted gross income'' in relation to Form 1040EZ. Use of Photocopies of Forms I-864 and I-864A for Accompanying Family Members The interim rule required that, for accompanying family members, the sponsor could file copies of the Forms I-864 and I-864A filed for the principal intending immigrant, so long as the copies bore original signatures and notarizations. On May 18, 1998, however, the Service announced, at 63 FR 27193, that the sponsor could submit complete photocopies of these original Forms I-864 and I-864A for the accompanying family members, so long as the forms for the principal intending immigrant bear original signatures and notarizations. The final rule incorporates this change. The Service also revised Form I-864 so that the sponsor now signs the Form ``under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States,'' thus making it unnecessary to sign or acknowledge the Form I- 864 before an officer authorized to administer oaths or take acknowledgements. The November 5, 2001, edition of the Form I-864 still includes the notary's jurat block, for those who may wish to have the Form I-864 notarized. Under 28 U.S.C. 1746, however, signing before a notary is not necessary. Significant Assets Ten commenters objected to the requirement that the assets of the sponsor or intending immigrant must equal at least five times the difference between the applicable income threshold and the actual household income. One of these ten commenters argued that this requirement could impose a special hardship on large families, forcing ``painful choices of bringing only part of the family.'' One commenter, on the other hand, supported this requirement. Those who objected to this requirement believed that a lower figure, such as twice the difference between the applicable income threshold and the actual household income, would be sufficient to qualify as ``significant assets.'' The purpose of the requirement, however, is to ensure that a sponsor whose income is not sufficient will nevertheless be able to provide the needed support until the sponsorship obligation ends. In most cases, an alien is not eligible for naturalization until he or she has been a permanent resident alien for at least 5 years. It is likely, therefore, that the sponsor's obligation will last at least that long. One commenter did point out that the spouse of a citizen can naturalize after 3 years. Thus, the final rule modifies the ``significant assets'' requirement slightly. If the intending immigrant is immigrating as the spouse or child of a citizen (but the child has already reached his or her 18th birthday), the ``significant assets'' requirement will be satisfied if the assets equal three times, rather than five times, the difference between the applicable income threshold and the actual household income. As noted, many IR-4 immigrants (orphans coming to the United States for adoption) will become citizens soon after admission, as soon as the adopting parents complete the adoption in the United States. As long as the parents' assets equal the difference between the applicable income threshold and the actual household income, they will be deemed to have met the ``significant assets'' requirement. Beginning and End of the Sponsor's Support Obligation The interim rule did not specify precisely when the obligations under Form I-864 or Form I-864A actually commence. No comments were received on this issue. Nevertheless, the final rule clarifies that the mere signing of Form I-864 or Form I-864A does not [[Page 35740]] impose any obligations on the sponsor, joint sponsor, or household member. A sponsor may file a fully sufficient Form I-864, but the intending immigrant may be held to be inadmissible on some other basis. In another case, the intending immigrants included in a Form I-864 or Form I-864A may not all acquire permanent residence on the same day. The final rule clarifies that, for the obligations to arise, the intending immigrant must actually acquire permanent resident status on the basis of the application supported by the Form I-864 or Form I- 864A. Additionally, a potential joint sponsor who signed a Form I-864 that met all the requirements of the affidavit of support regulation would be bound by the support obligations only if the immigration judge, immigration officer, or consular officer found that the principal sponsor did not meet the income threshold, so that the joint sponsor's Form I-864 was actually necessary to the grant of permanent residence to the intending immigrant. In response to nine commenters, the final rule clarifies that a household member's obligations under Form I-864A terminate under the same circumstances as the sponsor's obligations under Form I-864 terminate. One commenter asked whether a household member's obligation under Form I-864A terminates when he or she leaves the household. It does not. One of the commenters suggested that divorce should terminate a support obligation. Another commenter suggested that divorce should be irrelevant to the support obligation. Finally, one commenter maintained that the support obligation should terminate five years after the sponsored immigrants become resident aliens, ``even if they do not become citizens or work.'' Section 213A of the Act specifies the two circumstances that end the support obligation: The sponsored immigrant's (1) naturalization or (2) having acquired 40 quarters of coverage under the Social Security Act. The interim rule added two more: (1) The death of the sponsor or sponsored immigrant or (2) the sponsored immigrant's abandonment of status and permanent departure from the United States. These two additional grounds for termination exist as a matter of logical necessity. Section 213A of the Act does not provide any basis to say that divorce does, or does not, affect a support obligation under an affidavit of support. If the sponsored immigrant is an adult, he or she probably can, in a divorce settlement, surrender his or her right to sue the sponsor to enforce an affidavit of support. The sponsored immigrant and the sponsor (or joint sponsor) may not, however, alter the sponsor's obligations to DHS and to benefit-granting agencies. This final rule adds two additional situations that will terminate the obligations that result from the signing of a Form I-864 or I-864A. First, as noted, the interim rule terminated these obligations if the sponsored immigrant ceases to be an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence and leaves the United States. It is not always the case, however, that an alien who abandons permanent residence does so formally, such as by filing a USCIS Form I-407 when departing the United States. In many cases, the issue of abandonment is determined only in a later removal proceeding. The final rule makes clear that a formal adjudication in a removal proceeding that an alien has abandoned permanent resident status will also terminate any remaining obligations under any Form I-864 or I-864A submitted when the person became a permanent resident. Second, some aliens who have already been admitted as permanent residents but have become subject to removal apply for a new grant of adjustment of status as a means of relief from removal. If an alien in this situation seeks this new adjustment as an immediate relative or as a family-based immigrant (or as an employment-based immigrant who will work for a relative or a relative's firm), the alien may need to submit a new Form I-864 or I-864A with the new adjustment application. The grant of adjustment will terminate the support obligations resulting from any earlier Forms I-864 or I-864A, and those obligations will then rest on whomever signed the Forms I-864 or I-864A in support of the new adjustment application. Thirteen commenters believed that USCIS should notify sponsors when the sponsorship obligations have terminated. Adopting this suggestion is not feasible. Since the sponsor is a relative, it is likely that the sponsor will know, or can inquire of the sponsored immigrant, whether any fact that terminates the obligation has occurred. The only bases for termination of which USCIS is likely to be aware are the sponsored immigrant's naturalization or the sponsored immigrant's formal abandonment of permanent residence or formal removal from the United States. The termination of the obligation would be an affirmative defense to any deeming of the sponsor's income to the sponsored immigrant, request for reimbursement, or notice of intent to fine for failure to file Form I-865 to report a change of address. Reporting a Change of Address One commenter suggested that Form I-865, Sponsor's Notice of Change of Address, is virtually worthless, since the sponsor need not report the sponsored immigrant's name, address, or other identifying information. Form I-865 need not include information about the sponsored immigrant, because the USCIS database automatically links a Form I-865 to every Form I-864 that the sponsor may have filed, based on the sponsor's Social Security number. The commenter also suggested that USCIS should send a confirm