i-134 and i-864 sponsorship

[filipina2b 0]

Hi everyone!

I am wondering if there is a clear winner between the choice of using a household member (relative/dependent) to supplement for the income threshold, or using a joint sponsor (which I guess is anyone who is not related or dependent)? What if the joint sponsor makes a bunch more money than the household sponsor, but the household member makes about 20,000$ (enough, but not extraordinary)?

I also just wanted to make sure that there was no such distinction made for the type of co-sponsorship for the I-134 form?

Thank you for any help with this!

[payxibka 10,047]

there is no choice as it will depend on the visa type... "K" visas are I-134... immigrant visas are I-864

[filipina2b 0]

there is no choice as it will depend on the visa type... "K" visas are I-134... immigrant visas are I-864

I am a little confused... I am applying for the K-1 visa (this is the K-1 visa forum, right?), and I will need both the i-134 and i-1864 during this process. The question is whether it is viewed as better by USCIS for me to use a household member realtive/dependent as my co-sponsor or a joint sponsor, which would be someone who is not related/dependent on me? I then also just wanted to make sure that I did not have this option with the i-134...

[payxibka 10,047]

there is no choice as it will depend on the visa type... "K" visas are I-134... immigrant visas are I-864

I am a little confused... I am applying for the K-1 visa (this is the K-1 visa forum, right?), and I will need both the i-134 and i-1864 during this process. The question is whether it is viewed as better by USCIS for me to use a household member realtive/dependent as my co-sponsor or a joint sponsor, which would be someone who is not related/dependent on me? I then also just wanted to make sure that I did not have this option with the i-134...

it helps to complete you profile because it helps us understand what you are doing and where you are in the process...

I-134 is adjudicated by the consulate so the USCIS is not involved in that step... Some consulates such as the PI do not like co sponsors...

Later for a greencard, the USCIS is less concerned about familiar relationship and is more concerned about qualifications of the co-sponsor when reviewing the I-864

[filipina2b 0]

there is no choice as it will depend on the visa type... "K" visas are I-134... immigrant visas are I-864

I am a little confused... I am applying for the K-1 visa (this is the K-1 visa forum, right?), and I will need both the i-134 and i-1864 during this process. The question is whether it is viewed as better by USCIS for me to use a household member realtive/dependent as my co-sponsor or a joint sponsor, which would be someone who is not related/dependent on me? I then also just wanted to make sure that I did not have this option with the i-134...

it helps to complete you profile because it helps us understand what you are doing and where you are in the process...

I-134 is adjudicated by the consulate so the USCIS is not involved in that step... Some consulates such as the PI do not like co sponsors...

Later for a greencard, the USCIS is less concerned about familiar relationship and is more concerned about qualifications of the co-sponsor when reviewing the I-864

Would you have a suggestion then, in my case? would it be better to have a relative with an income of $22,000, or a friend with an income of $30,000?

Also, you say some consulates do not like co-sponsors--I don't really understand this, what exactly do you mean "do not like"? What are the regulations, am I allowed to use a co-sponsor or not? Is it regulation that I am allowed to use a co-sponsor but it's corruption that allows the PI to disregard? Are you saying my income has to be above 125% poverty level to be approved, but that because it is not well regulated that all I can do is apply and by dumb luck I might be approved?

Thank you again!

[YuAndDan 153]

Where are you in the process??? Interviewing for a K-Visa or Adjustment of status??

http://www.visajourney.com/timeline/profile.php?id=54976

K-Visa interview uses I-134, Adjustment of status uses I-864.

I-134 is NOT needed at the time of filing the I-129F for the K-Visa only needed at the interview.

Note many posts about PI rejecting a co-sponsor, I-134 is designed for only 1 sponsor, and petitioner must be the sponsor, many consulates allow substituting a co-sponsor, others can be picky about this.

Since you talk about I-134, will move this to consulate/embassy forum.

[rebeccajo 14]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

[pushbrk 13,124]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

Even though a "sponsor" must qualify on their own, an affidavit is required from the petitioner as well. So, semantics aside, you would have two I-134's and supporting documents. Manila has been somewhat inconsistent on this. I'd certainly ask in the PI regional forum but my conclusion has been that they're much more likely to accept a co-sponsor (for lack of a better description) when the petitioner is about to graduate or recently graduated from college (has good financial prospects) and a parent or close relative with a strong income is the co-sponsor than to accept an un or underemployed petitioner with a co-sponsor who barely qualifies. Their task is to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge and they can use any evaluation method they find reasonable to do so.

[rebeccajo 14]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

Even though a "sponsor" must qualify on their own, an affidavit is required from the petitioner as well. So, semantics aside, you would have two I-134's and supporting documents. Manila has been somewhat inconsistent on this. I'd certainly ask in the PI regional forum but my conclusion has been that they're much more likely to accept a co-sponsor (for lack of a better description) when the petitioner is about to graduate or recently graduated from college (has good financial prospects) and a parent or close relative with a strong income is the co-sponsor than to accept an un or underemployed petitioner with a co-sponsor who barely qualifies. Their task is to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge and they can use any evaluation method they find reasonable to do so.

I am anecdotally unfamiliar with petitioners needing to provide an affidavit if someone other than themselves is the sponsor. But as consulates can request what they see fit, I suppose it is a possibility.

My understanding of Manila's 'take' on sponsorship by persons other than the petitioner is they are interested in sponsorship by a party who is likely 'vested' in the immigrant. As the I134 is not a binding contract, a 'friend' who antes up with an affidavit is less likely to actually follow through with providing for the immigrants financial needs than - say - a near relative of the petitioner who would likely step into the picture in the event of job loss or some other financial disaster of the petitioner.

Edited January 1, 2009 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 13,124]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

Even though a "sponsor" must qualify on their own, an affidavit is required from the petitioner as well. So, semantics aside, you would have two I-134's and supporting documents. Manila has been somewhat inconsistent on this. I'd certainly ask in the PI regional forum but my conclusion has been that they're much more likely to accept a co-sponsor (for lack of a better description) when the petitioner is about to graduate or recently graduated from college (has good financial prospects) and a parent or close relative with a strong income is the co-sponsor than to accept an un or underemployed petitioner with a co-sponsor who barely qualifies. Their task is to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge and they can use any evaluation method they find reasonable to do so.

I am anecdotally unfamiliar with petitioners needing to provide an affidavit if someone other than themselves is the sponsor. But as consulates can request what they see fit, I suppose it is a possibility.

My understanding of Manila's 'take' on sponsorship by persons other than the petitioner is they are interested in sponsorship by a party who is likely 'vested' in the immigrant. As the I134 is not a binding contract, a 'friend' who antes up with an affidavit is less likely to actually follow through with providing for the immigrants financial needs than - say - a near relative of the petitioner who would likely step into the picture in the event of job loss or some other financial disaster of the petitioner.

Agreed but it's only one of the considerations. They want an I-134 from the petitioner so they can see the whole picture from which to evaluate the public charge concern.

[rebeccajo 14]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

Even though a "sponsor" must qualify on their own, an affidavit is required from the petitioner as well. So, semantics aside, you would have two I-134's and supporting documents. Manila has been somewhat inconsistent on this. I'd certainly ask in the PI regional forum but my conclusion has been that they're much more likely to accept a co-sponsor (for lack of a better description) when the petitioner is about to graduate or recently graduated from college (has good financial prospects) and a parent or close relative with a strong income is the co-sponsor than to accept an un or underemployed petitioner with a co-sponsor who barely qualifies. Their task is to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge and they can use any evaluation method they find reasonable to do so.

I am anecdotally unfamiliar with petitioners needing to provide an affidavit if someone other than themselves is the sponsor. But as consulates can request what they see fit, I suppose it is a possibility.

My understanding of Manila's 'take' on sponsorship by persons other than the petitioner is they are interested in sponsorship by a party who is likely 'vested' in the immigrant. As the I134 is not a binding contract, a 'friend' who antes up with an affidavit is less likely to actually follow through with providing for the immigrants financial needs than - say - a near relative of the petitioner who would likely step into the picture in the event of job loss or some other financial disaster of the petitioner.

Agreed but it's only one of the considerations. They want an I-134 from the petitioner so they can see the whole picture from which to evaluate the public charge concern.

Well, I think that is also consulate specific. London doesn't require I134 from the petitioner if another party is sponsoring. There are other consulates who operate similarly. But - the OP is querying Manila and as such should look for evidence from that consulate and that consulate alone.

The entire I134 phase of the process is, in most cases, much ado about nothing - ie meaning that it seems a whole lot harder than it really is. I kind of feel this way because I wrung the process to death in our own case. That's not to say you don't need to 'hit the target'. But you have to clear out the clutter of your own personal feelings about money and finances and look at the nuts of bolts of what is required for this particular financial 'transaction'. It's not unlike trying to figure out if you qualify for a mortgage.

I honestly like to see beneficiaries go to interview with their petitioners truthful affidavit (if that petitioner is at all self supporting and near the target) but also with the affidavit of another sponsor in their 'back pocket' to produce should difficulty arise. Joy is often had.

Edited January 1, 2009 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 13,124]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

Even though a "sponsor" must qualify on their own, an affidavit is required from the petitioner as well. So, semantics aside, you would have two I-134's and supporting documents. Manila has been somewhat inconsistent on this. I'd certainly ask in the PI regional forum but my conclusion has been that they're much more likely to accept a co-sponsor (for lack of a better description) when the petitioner is about to graduate or recently graduated from college (has good financial prospects) and a parent or close relative with a strong income is the co-sponsor than to accept an un or underemployed petitioner with a co-sponsor who barely qualifies. Their task is to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge and they can use any evaluation method they find reasonable to do so.

I am anecdotally unfamiliar with petitioners needing to provide an affidavit if someone other than themselves is the sponsor. But as consulates can request what they see fit, I suppose it is a possibility.

My understanding of Manila's 'take' on sponsorship by persons other than the petitioner is they are interested in sponsorship by a party who is likely 'vested' in the immigrant. As the I134 is not a binding contract, a 'friend' who antes up with an affidavit is less likely to actually follow through with providing for the immigrants financial needs than - say - a near relative of the petitioner who would likely step into the picture in the event of job loss or some other financial disaster of the petitioner.

Agreed but it's only one of the considerations. They want an I-134 from the petitioner so they can see the whole picture from which to evaluate the public charge concern.

Well, I think that is also consulate specific. London doesn't require I134 from the petitioner if another party is sponsoring. There are other consulates who operate similarly. But - the OP is querying Manila and as such should look for evidence from that consulate and that consulate alone.

The entire I134 phase of the process is, in most cases, much ado about nothing - ie meaning that it seems a whole lot harder than it really is. I kind of feel this way because I wrung the process to death in our own case. That's not to say you don't need to 'hit the target'. But you have to clear out the clutter of your own personal feelings about money and finances and look at the nuts of bolts of what is required for this particular financial 'transaction'. It's not unlike trying to figure out if you qualify for a mortgage.

I honestly like to see beneficiaries go to interview with their petitioners truthful affidavit (if that petitioner is at all self supporting and near the target) but also with the affidavit of another sponsor in their 'back pocket' to produce should difficulty arise. Joy is often had.

Since the OP is from the PI I've made my comments Manila specific. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[rebeccajo 14]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

Even though a "sponsor" must qualify on their own, an affidavit is required from the petitioner as well. So, semantics aside, you would have two I-134's and supporting documents. Manila has been somewhat inconsistent on this. I'd certainly ask in the PI regional forum but my conclusion has been that they're much more likely to accept a co-sponsor (for lack of a better description) when the petitioner is about to graduate or recently graduated from college (has good financial prospects) and a parent or close relative with a strong income is the co-sponsor than to accept an un or underemployed petitioner with a co-sponsor who barely qualifies. Their task is to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge and they can use any evaluation method they find reasonable to do so.

I am anecdotally unfamiliar with petitioners needing to provide an affidavit if someone other than themselves is the sponsor. But as consulates can request what they see fit, I suppose it is a possibility.

My understanding of Manila's 'take' on sponsorship by persons other than the petitioner is they are interested in sponsorship by a party who is likely 'vested' in the immigrant. As the I134 is not a binding contract, a 'friend' who antes up with an affidavit is less likely to actually follow through with providing for the immigrants financial needs than - say - a near relative of the petitioner who would likely step into the picture in the event of job loss or some other financial disaster of the petitioner.

Agreed but it's only one of the considerations. They want an I-134 from the petitioner so they can see the whole picture from which to evaluate the public charge concern.

Well, I think that is also consulate specific. London doesn't require I134 from the petitioner if another party is sponsoring. There are other consulates who operate similarly. But - the OP is querying Manila and as such should look for evidence from that consulate and that consulate alone.

The entire I134 phase of the process is, in most cases, much ado about nothing - ie meaning that it seems a whole lot harder than it really is. I kind of feel this way because I wrung the process to death in our own case. That's not to say you don't need to 'hit the target'. But you have to clear out the clutter of your own personal feelings about money and finances and look at the nuts of bolts of what is required for this particular financial 'transaction'. It's not unlike trying to figure out if you qualify for a mortgage.

I honestly like to see beneficiaries go to interview with their petitioners truthful affidavit (if that petitioner is at all self supporting and near the target) but also with the affidavit of another sponsor in their 'back pocket' to produce should difficulty arise. Joy is often had.

Since the OP is from the PI I've made my comments Manila specific. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Oh, I was pretty sure I knew where you were coming from. For me, personally, when I write about the financial requirements at this stage of the process, I always over-emphasize the bit about the consulates. Experience has led me to believe that readers get confused about this issue. I think that's understandable since virtually all the other steps of the process are blanket.

[filipina2b 0]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

Even though a "sponsor" must qualify on their own, an affidavit is required from the petitioner as well. So, semantics aside, you would have two I-134's and supporting documents. Manila has been somewhat inconsistent on this. I'd certainly ask in the PI regional forum but my conclusion has been that they're much more likely to accept a co-sponsor (for lack of a better description) when the petitioner is about to graduate or recently graduated from college (has good financial prospects) and a parent or close relative with a strong income is the co-sponsor than to accept an un or underemployed petitioner with a co-sponsor who barely qualifies. Their task is to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge and they can use any evaluation method they find reasonable to do so.

I am anecdotally unfamiliar with petitioners needing to provide an affidavit if someone other than themselves is the sponsor. But as consulates can request what they see fit, I suppose it is a possibility.

My understanding of Manila's 'take' on sponsorship by persons other than the petitioner is they are interested in sponsorship by a party who is likely 'vested' in the immigrant. As the I134 is not a binding contract, a 'friend' who antes up with an affidavit is less likely to actually follow through with providing for the immigrants financial needs than - say - a near relative of the petitioner who would likely step into the picture in the event of job loss or some other financial disaster of the petitioner.

Agreed but it's only one of the considerations. They want an I-134 from the petitioner so they can see the whole picture from which to evaluate the public charge concern.

Well, I think that is also consulate specific. London doesn't require I134 from the petitioner if another party is sponsoring. There are other consulates who operate similarly. But - the OP is querying Manila and as such should look for evidence from that consulate and that consulate alone.

The entire I134 phase of the process is, in most cases, much ado about nothing - ie meaning that it seems a whole lot harder than it really is. I kind of feel this way because I wrung the process to death in our own case. That's not to say you don't need to 'hit the target'. But you have to clear out the clutter of your own personal feelings about money and finances and look at the nuts of bolts of what is required for this particular financial 'transaction'. It's not unlike trying to figure out if you qualify for a mortgage.

I honestly like to see beneficiaries go to interview with their petitioners truthful affidavit (if that petitioner is at all self supporting and near the target) but also with the affidavit of another sponsor in their 'back pocket' to produce should difficulty arise. Joy is often had.

What if the petitioner (me) is not really self-sufficient at this point, should I not submit the i-134 on my behalf?

Do you happen to have a rough estimate (one week, one month, 4 months) on the time between when I submit my i-129f and the time this information will need to be in my fiance-s hand for review? Just wondering if it will be enough time for me to get a job and have a few dollars stashed in the bank account.

Thank you so much for your help!!!!!

[pushbrk 13,124]

When using the I-134, there is no such thing as a 'co-sponsor'. The sponsor will end up being either the petitioner or another party.

The consulate in Manila doesn't necessarily 'reject' a sponsor other than the petitioner. They are more inclined however to accept the sponsorship of a relative. Read up on recent anecdotal evidence from this consulate to spot the real trends.

The reason you have confusion about consulates 'liking' something is because the I134 has few clear specifics, not the least of which is the vague instruction that a sponsors income be 'sufficient'. Consulates are not even required to use the I134 - I believe the consulate in Manila does.

Even though a "sponsor" must qualify on their own, an affidavit is required from the petitioner as well. So, semantics aside, you would have two I-134's and supporting documents. Manila has been somewhat inconsistent on this. I'd certainly ask in the PI regional forum but my conclusion has been that they're much more likely to accept a co-sponsor (for lack of a better description) when the petitioner is about to graduate or recently graduated from college (has good financial prospects) and a parent or close relative with a strong income is the co-sponsor than to accept an un or underemployed petitioner with a co-sponsor who barely qualifies. Their task is to determine whether the applicant is likely to become a public charge and they can use any evaluation method they find reasonable to do so.

I am anecdotally unfamiliar with petitioners needing to provide an affidavit if someone other than themselves is the sponsor. But as consulates can request what they see fit, I suppose it is a possibility.

My understanding of Manila's 'take' on sponsorship by persons other than the petitioner is they are interested in sponsorship by a party who is likely 'vested' in the immigrant. As the I134 is not a binding contract, a 'friend' who antes up with an affidavit is less likely to actually follow through with providing for the immigrants financial needs than - say - a near relative of the petitioner who would likely step into the picture in the event of job loss or some other financial disaster of the petitioner.

Agreed but it's only one of the considerations. They want an I-134 from the petitioner so they can see the whole picture from which to evaluate the public charge concern.

Well, I think that is also consulate specific. London doesn't require I134 from the petitioner if another party is sponsoring. There are other consulates who operate similarly. But - the OP is querying Manila and as such should look for evidence from that consulate and that consulate alone.

The entire I134 phase of the process is, in most cases, much ado about nothing - ie meaning that it seems a whole lot harder than it really is. I kind of feel this way because I wrung the process to death in our own case. That's not to say you don't need to 'hit the target'. But you have to clear out the clutter of your own personal feelings about money and finances and look at the nuts of bolts of what is required for this particular financial 'transaction'. It's not unlike trying to figure out if you qualify for a mortgage.

I honestly like to see beneficiaries go to interview with their petitioners truthful affidavit (if that petitioner is at all self supporting and near the target) but also with the affidavit of another sponsor in their 'back pocket' to produce should difficulty arise. Joy is often had.

What if the petitioner (me) is not really self-sufficient at this point, should I not submit the i-134 on my behalf?

Do you happen to have a rough estimate (one week, one month, 4 months) on the time between when I submit my i-129f and the time this information will need to be in my fiance-s hand for review? Just wondering if it will be enough time for me to get a job and have a few dollars stashed in the bank account.

Thank you so much for your help!!!!!

It will be six to eight months before the I-134 is required.