How to explain the I-134 to a potential co-sponsor

[endoftheroad 1]

my potential co-sponsor wants more info than what is on the I-134 instructions. what are the REAL liabilities? does the co-sponsor's responsibilities end upon AOS if he isn't involved in the I-864? I've searched the guides and threads, but can't seem to find what i'm looking for.

Yes, the I-864, an enforceable contract, supercedes the I-134. The I-134 is very limited in its time frame and your co-sponsors real liability is virtually zero. If your fiancee were to come to the USA and apply for welfare BEFORE adjusting status, your co-sponsor (and you) could be held liable to reimburse the government for the cost of the benefits. If you do not need a co-sponsor when filing the I-864 he is off the hook.

If he co-sponsors for the I-864 his liability is still limited. If she were to go on welfare for the next ten years he could be liable to reimburse. Otherwise their is no liability. If she becomes a citizen (which she can after 3 years as a K-1) he is off the hook. If she divorces you and returns to her native country and her green card is cancelled, he is off the hook. Once she has been here 10 years, even if not a citizen, he is off the hook. So, for him to be liable she would need to file for welfare benefits, still be in the country and basically not married to you (she could still be married to you, but what are the odds of that?) This is not the same as co-signing for a mortgage or a car loan and it would not reflect on his credit score, they do not do credit checks

This helps!

[pushbrk 12,877]

my potential co-sponsor wants more info than what is on the I-134 instructions. what are the REAL liabilities? does the co-sponsor's responsibilities end upon AOS if he isn't involved in the I-864? I've searched the guides and threads, but can't seem to find what i'm looking for.

Yes, the I-864, an enforceable contract, supercedes the I-134. The I-134 is very limited in its time frame and your co-sponsors real liability is virtually zero. If your fiancee were to come to the USA and apply for welfare BEFORE adjusting status, your co-sponsor (and you) could be held liable to reimburse the government for the cost of the benefits. If you do not need a co-sponsor when filing the I-864 he is off the hook.

If he co-sponsors for the I-864 his liability is still limited. If she were to go on welfare for the next ten years he could be liable to reimburse. Otherwise their is no liability. If she becomes a citizen (which she can after 3 years as a K-1) he is off the hook. If she divorces you and returns to her native country and her green card is cancelled, he is off the hook. Once she has been here 10 years, even if not a citizen, he is off the hook. So, for him to be liable she would need to file for welfare benefits, still be in the country and basically not married to you (she could still be married to you, but what are the odds of that?) This is not the same as co-signing for a mortgage or a car loan and it would not reflect on his credit score, they do not do credit checks

This helps!

Except the part in bold is completely wrong. See previous post and citation to the FAM.

[aaron2020 11,651]

Why would the US government asked someone to sign a contract that is not binding on the Signatory? The sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant will becomes a public charge, and the sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant would maintain the non-immigrant status and depart the US. The sponsor also acknowledges that he/she can be sue so the government can recover any benefits that the non-immigrant may enjoy as a public charge. So explain to me what would happen if the non-immigrant does not get marry, illegally stays in the US and receives public benefits? Wouldn't the sponsor be liable? Wouldn't the government go after the sponsor.

The I-864 only supercede the I-134 if the non-immigrant adjust his/her status to a legal permanent resident. If there is no I-854, the I-134 is legally binding.

The analogy that I will draw is this. The first contract states that you will buy a car for $10,000. Later, the second contracts states that you will buy the car for $5,000. This does not make the first contract invalid or not binding. The second contract supercede the first contract. If the second contract fails for some reason (like it was procure by fraud), the first contract would still be valid and binding on the parties.

If you disagree with me, please point out from a reliable source where the I-134 is not binding.

No, I-134 sponsors are never sued or billed for benefits collected but I-864 sponsors are.

Google "I-134 not binding".

This is the relevant section.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3 Use of Form I-134, Affidavit of

Support

(CT:VISA-911; 11-02-2007)

a. Because INA 212(a)(4)© and INA 213A require the use of Form I-864,

Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, for so many classes of

immigrants, the use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, has been

reduced considerably. Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when

Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the applicant at

your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be

accorded the same weight as Form I-864. Form I-134 should be given

consideration as one form of evidence, however, in conjunction with the

other forms of evidence mentioned below.

Form I-134 is not legally binding on the sponsor of an immigrant. What about non-immigrants?

[pushbrk 12,877]

Why would the US government asked someone to sign a contract that is not binding on the Signatory? The sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant will becomes a public charge, and the sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant would maintain the non-immigrant status and depart the US. The sponsor also acknowledges that he/she can be sue so the government can recover any benefits that the non-immigrant may enjoy as a public charge. So explain to me what would happen if the non-immigrant does not get marry, illegally stays in the US and receives public benefits? Wouldn't the sponsor be liable? Wouldn't the government go after the sponsor.

The I-864 only supercede the I-134 if the non-immigrant adjust his/her status to a legal permanent resident. If there is no I-854, the I-134 is legally binding.

The analogy that I will draw is this. The first contract states that you will buy a car for $10,000. Later, the second contracts states that you will buy the car for $5,000. This does not make the first contract invalid or not binding. The second contract supercede the first contract. If the second contract fails for some reason (like it was procure by fraud), the first contract would still be valid and binding on the parties.

If you disagree with me, please point out from a reliable source where the I-134 is not binding.

No, I-134 sponsors are never sued or billed for benefits collected but I-864 sponsors are.

Google "I-134 not binding".

This is the relevant section.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3 Use of Form I-134, Affidavit of

Support

(CT:VISA-911; 11-02-2007)

a. Because INA 212(a)(4)© and INA 213A require the use of Form I-864,

Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, for so many classes of

immigrants, the use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, has been

reduced considerably. Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when

Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the applicant at

your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be

accorded the same weight as Form I-864. Form I-134 should be given

consideration as one form of evidence, however, in conjunction with the

other forms of evidence mentioned below.

Form I-134 is not legally binding on the sponsor of an immigrant. What about non-immigrants?

It's answered above. The statement is absolute without regard for the status of the beneficiary. It's "evidence" not a binding contract under current law.

[aaron2020 11,651]

Why would the US government asked someone to sign a contract that is not binding on the Signatory? The sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant will becomes a public charge, and the sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant would maintain the non-immigrant status and depart the US. The sponsor also acknowledges that he/she can be sue so the government can recover any benefits that the non-immigrant may enjoy as a public charge. So explain to me what would happen if the non-immigrant does not get marry, illegally stays in the US and receives public benefits? Wouldn't the sponsor be liable? Wouldn't the government go after the sponsor.

The I-864 only supercede the I-134 if the non-immigrant adjust his/her status to a legal permanent resident. If there is no I-854, the I-134 is legally binding.

The analogy that I will draw is this. The first contract states that you will buy a car for $10,000. Later, the second contracts states that you will buy the car for $5,000. This does not make the first contract invalid or not binding. The second contract supercede the first contract. If the second contract fails for some reason (like it was procure by fraud), the first contract would still be valid and binding on the parties.

If you disagree with me, please point out from a reliable source where the I-134 is not binding.

No, I-134 sponsors are never sued or billed for benefits collected but I-864 sponsors are.

Google "I-134 not binding".

This is the relevant section.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3 Use of Form I-134, Affidavit of

Support

(CT:VISA-911; 11-02-2007)

a. Because INA 212(a)(4)© and INA 213A require the use of Form I-864,

Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, for so many classes of

immigrants, the use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, has been

reduced considerably. Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when

Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the applicant at

your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be

accorded the same weight as Form I-864. Form I-134 should be given

consideration as one form of evidence, however, in conjunction with the

other forms of evidence mentioned below.

INA 212(A)(4)© Family-Sponsored immigrants.

Under that section of the INA, a person sponsoring a family member is required to file Form I-864. That is why Form I-134 is not binding. Form I-134 is binding on non-immigrant because INA(A)(4)© and INA 213A applies only to sponsoring immigrants.

Show me where INA(A)(4)© and INA 213A applies when someone is sponsoring on a non-immigrant visa.

Edited September 4, 2009 by aaron2020

[pushbrk 12,877]

Why would the US government asked someone to sign a contract that is not binding on the Signatory? The sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant will becomes a public charge, and the sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant would maintain the non-immigrant status and depart the US. The sponsor also acknowledges that he/she can be sue so the government can recover any benefits that the non-immigrant may enjoy as a public charge. So explain to me what would happen if the non-immigrant does not get marry, illegally stays in the US and receives public benefits? Wouldn't the sponsor be liable? Wouldn't the government go after the sponsor.

The I-864 only supercede the I-134 if the non-immigrant adjust his/her status to a legal permanent resident. If there is no I-854, the I-134 is legally binding.

The analogy that I will draw is this. The first contract states that you will buy a car for $10,000. Later, the second contracts states that you will buy the car for $5,000. This does not make the first contract invalid or not binding. The second contract supercede the first contract. If the second contract fails for some reason (like it was procure by fraud), the first contract would still be valid and binding on the parties.

If you disagree with me, please point out from a reliable source where the I-134 is not binding.

No, I-134 sponsors are never sued or billed for benefits collected but I-864 sponsors are.

Google "I-134 not binding".

This is the relevant section.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3 Use of Form I-134, Affidavit of

Support

(CT:VISA-911; 11-02-2007)

a. Because INA 212(a)(4)© and INA 213A require the use of Form I-864,

Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, for so many classes of

immigrants, the use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, has been

reduced considerably. Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when

Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the applicant at

your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be

accorded the same weight as Form I-864. Form I-134 should be given

consideration as one form of evidence, however, in conjunction with the

other forms of evidence mentioned below.

INA 212(A)(4)© Family-Sponsored immigrants.

Under that section of the INA, a person sponsoring a family member is required to file Form I-864. That is why Form I-134 is not binding. Form I-134 is binding on non-immigrant because INA(A)(4)© and INA 213A applies only to sponsoring immigrants.

Show me where INA(A)(4)© and INA 213A applies when someone is sponsoring on a non-immigrant visa.

An I-134 cannot be used for an immigrant visa so all references to it apply to non-immigrant visas. I just quoted a small portion of the document. Read the rest to understand fully.

[thepizzadude 26]

Why would the US government asked someone to sign a contract that is not binding on the Signatory? The sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant will becomes a public charge, and the sponsor guarantees that the non-immigrant would maintain the non-immigrant status and depart the US. The sponsor also acknowledges that he/she can be sue so the government can recover any benefits that the non-immigrant may enjoy as a public charge. So explain to me what would happen if the non-immigrant does not get marry, illegally stays in the US and receives public benefits? Wouldn't the sponsor be liable? Wouldn't the government go after the sponsor.

The I-864 only supercede the I-134 if the non-immigrant adjust his/her status to a legal permanent resident. If there is no I-854, the I-134 is legally binding.

The analogy that I will draw is this. The first contract states that you will buy a car for $10,000. Later, the second contracts states that you will buy the car for $5,000. This does not make the first contract invalid or not binding. The second contract supercede the first contract. If the second contract fails for some reason (like it was procure by fraud), the first contract would still be valid and binding on the parties.

If you disagree with me, please point out from a reliable source where the I-134 is not binding.

No, I-134 sponsors are never sued or billed for benefits collected but I-864 sponsors are.

Google "I-134 not binding".

This is the relevant section.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3 Use of Form I-134, Affidavit of

Support

(CT:VISA-911; 11-02-2007)

a. Because INA 212(a)(4)© and INA 213A require the use of Form I-864,

Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, for so many classes of

immigrants, the use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, has been

reduced considerably. Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when

Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the applicant at

your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be

accorded the same weight as Form I-864. Form I-134 should be given

consideration as one form of evidence, however, in conjunction with the

other forms of evidence mentioned below.

INA 212(A)(4)© Family-Sponsored immigrants.

Under that section of the INA, a person sponsoring a family member is required to file Form I-864. That is why Form I-134 is not binding. Form I-134 is binding on non-immigrant because INA(A)(4)© and INA 213A applies only to sponsoring immigrants.

Show me where INA(A)(4)© and INA 213A applies when someone is sponsoring on a non-immigrant visa.

An I-134 cannot be used for an immigrant visa so all references to it apply to non-immigrant visas. I just quoted a small portion of the document. Read the rest to understand fully.

:thumbs:

[endoftheroad 1]

I MAY BE SUED IF THE PERSON NAMED IN ITEM 3 BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARGE AFTER ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES

I think any person who reads this right above where they sign the I-134 will find it hard to believe they can not be sued.

[pushbrk 12,877]

I MAY BE SUED IF THE PERSON NAMED IN ITEM 3 BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARGE AFTER ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES

I think any person who reads this right above where they sign the I-134 will find it hard to believe they can not be sued.

That's why you would be wise to steer them to the FAM link. The form is old and the statement was true at one time, not now.

Lots of true things are hard to believe. Harder for some than for others.

[endoftheroad 1]

I MAY BE SUED IF THE PERSON NAMED IN ITEM 3 BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARGE AFTER ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES

I think any person who reads this right above where they sign the I-134 will find it hard to believe they can not be sued.

That's why you would be wise to steer them to the FAM link. The form is old and the statement was true at one time, not now.

Lots of true things are hard to believe. Harder for some than for others.

Oh I know but one person I know had a lawyer look at it and the link and still advised the person to not take the chance. Go figure.

[pushbrk 12,877]

I MAY BE SUED IF THE PERSON NAMED IN ITEM 3 BECOMES A PUBLIC CHARGE AFTER ADMISSION TO THE UNITED STATES

I think any person who reads this right above where they sign the I-134 will find it hard to believe they can not be sued.

That's why you would be wise to steer them to the FAM link. The form is old and the statement was true at one time, not now.

Lots of true things are hard to believe. Harder for some than for others.

Oh I know but one person I know had a lawyer look at it and the link and still advised the person to not take the chance. Go figure.

Obviously a CYA kind of lawyer.