K-1 Income/Assets Reqmn't

[rebeccajo 14]

If he crosses the threshold, he crosses it.

Crossing the threshold is not assurance the Consular officer will approve the visa. It's a subjective judgment being made. At least, you're not advocating the 100% threshold. Please understand the difference between informed and prepared and "scared". Many of us have seen co-sponsors requested even when the "threshold" has been crossed.

All other things being satisfactory with the case, a ConOff will not request a co-sponsor solely based upon an affidavit that meets the threshold. There would have to be something peculiar about the sponsors information (or their presentation of it) for that to happen.

You know it and I know it.

PS - 100% of the poverty guideline is the State Department directive to consulates. I know that and you also know that.

"Scaring the OP" in my definition means shot-gunning them with so much information (that is not applicable to him) that you put him around the bend. Most people don't give a damn about the 'rules' all of us know. They want to figure out how to get their case approved.

We need to know if ezmiller has a contract for his employment. He has alluded there may be one. We can help him better from that point on.

[pushbrk 13,136]

If he crosses the threshold, he crosses it.

Crossing the threshold is not assurance the Consular officer will approve the visa. It's a subjective judgment being made. At least, you're not advocating the 100% threshold. Please understand the difference between informed and prepared and "scared". Many of us have seen co-sponsors requested even when the "threshold" has been crossed.

All other things being satisfactory with the case, a ConOff will not request a co-sponsor solely based upon an affidavit that meets the threshold. There would have to be something peculiar about the sponsors information (or their presentation of it) for that to happen.

You know it and I know it.

PS - 100% of the poverty guideline is the State Department directive to consulates. I know that and you also know that.

"Scaring the OP" in my definition means shot-gunning them with so much information (that is not applicable to him) that you put him around the bend. Most people don't give a damn about the 'rules' all of us know. They want to figure out how to get their case approved.

We need to know if ezmiller has a contract for his employment. He has alluded there may be one. We can help him better from that point on.

Nevertheless, I've seen MANY cases where the 125% threshold was met and a cosponsor was requested. If you haven't please trust that I have. Your advise is what I would call preparation for failure. I'm more concerned with preparing for success.

[ezmiller 0]

Oh people! No need to squabble. I have been learning from the range of opinions expressed here. I am a historian--and so used to sifting through lots of statements about how things are and try to get a sense of the complexity of things--and I am apply the full extent of my analytical ability to this. I am not really scared so much as frustrated. The problem with this whole process is that at every stage at which one gets the courage to make an emotional commitment, the state amps up the interference you have to endure and the financial/legal stakes involved. Funnily, the otherwise quite dry Nolo guide that I started with before coming on this site starts with a quote by a senator from Idaho named William E. Borah that reads:

"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by governments."

Now I think the people's ability to be patient with the state is indeed noble. I would also emphasize the strain this process puts on individuals. I am scraping bottom financially these days so that I can continue to teach and write history--not a high paying profession--and I suppose I didn't anticipate falling in love with someone from the Czech Republic, but I also think it would be a shame if in getting into this process I ultimately find myself in a position in which I need to abandon history. So I am not scared. Better to say that I am angry, and not at you guys of course, but at the way in which this whole system seems to be configured. If I as a citizen want to marry a foreigner, why should the state not want to support both of us in the case that we fall upon hard times. The end goal, which usually the state is interested in, is the formation of a stable family that can add to the productivity and quality of the nation's economy. The fact that they want to recoup their losses in the case that an immigrant finds themselves needing assistance--thereby probably ruining the financial fortune of one of their citizens as well--smacks of the xenophobic attitudes that swirl around immigration policy. It seems conspicuously punitive. As a student of history, none of this surprises me, but it still angers me.

Now back to business. Someone asked whether I have a contract. I'm not exactly sure if I have a formal contract. What I have is a verbal agreement with the university, saying that they will hire me in the spring and the summer. I know how much I will make as well. Once the semester begins, I get a letter stating the hours and money I will make. In addition, I know that the person in charge of finances at the school is willing to write a letter stating that I they have hired me to work for the fall, spring and summer semesters and stating the amount of income I will make, which would be on the order of $22-24K. I can perhaps get my parents to co-sponsor me, but that will be extremely uncomfortable for them due to the way in which it exposes them legally and financially. Indeed, they may refuse and I would understand. I want to avoid the whole issue if I can.

Edited October 30, 2009 by ezmiller

[rebeccajo 14]

This letter sounds equivalent to an employer's letter.

If it contains the information you have put forth, and you are on the job at the time of the interview, that's a good thing.

Is the position ongoing though past this school year?

If it is not, the consulate will likely wish to see sizable cash assets or another sponsor in place.

PS - I had issues with the I134 as well when I was processing. That's how I learned about it. I have to say though I never felt it was on the government to take care of us should we fall on hard times - especially in light of the fact that my husband had never paid any US taxes. I felt it was up to me to prove I could support him. I did go as his sponsor with two affidavits - one executed by myself and one by my father. I did this at my husband's visa interview as well as his adjustment of status. In both cases my affidavit stood on its own and I didn't need my father to act as sponsor. At the end of the day I was quite satisfied with myself for having stood on my own.

Edited October 30, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Another thing to be midful of. Prague will ask you to support you affidavit with "2 of the following 4 items"

1. Most recent year tax return or tax transcript

2. Employment letter

3. Recent check stubs (not specific by 2 months usually is plenty)

4. Bank letter showing when the account was opened, amount of deposits in the last 12 months and current balance

So it is the big day and you are filling out the I-134...

"I am employed as school teacher and derive an income of $24,000 per year" See anything wrong with that statement. (provided it is true the day you sign the form?)

Attach last year's tax return (the amount you made is not so important, they qualify you on current income)

Attach a bank letter (bank letters are better than 12 months bank statements, but OK, bank statements if you must) and recent check stubs.

Employment letters are optional, that said, if an employer has employed you on a contract, they are going to say so, that gives you a limited term of employment and the consulates do not like that. On the other hand, if you were in most any other job, an employment letter may have, at best, vague reference to the future. NO employer is going to say your job is guaranteed (the whole concept of "permanenet employment" being neigh on impossible in a free society) I think that would be the itme I leave off.

Though this would indicate the tax return is optional, in my experience it is not. Certainly not with Prague or Kiev. The instructions should read "two of the following 4 itmes as long as one of them is you most recent tax return" but they don't do that. Many visas have been held waiting for the tax return

Now as far as "pocket co-sponsors" Many consulates, Prague and Kiev are good for this, use a procedure where your fiancee goes to a window before the interview and turns in her documents. Including affidavits of support. So, you have told her (or you are there) "give them my affidavit and keep this one in case they ask" She gives all the documents, holds the co-sponsor as you said. 45 minutes later she is called to the window and told to bring a co-sponsor and make another appointment. "Ah-hah! I was prepared for you! I have that right here" The CO answers "Uh, huh, well good then ,there will be no delay in making another appointment" Now you are delayed and have to make another appointment because they needed something you had all along.

These "interviews" are not long drawn out negotiations. They make a decision and your fiancee has 10 seconds or less to make them change their mind, it isn't happening in most cases.

So if you line a co-sponsor, just lay it on them right up front. The I-134 and consulate co-sponsor is so meaningless (except to get the visa) that it is bascially a "no harm, no foul" situation. The co-sponsor is relieved of his obligation under the I-134 (if you can even imagine such a thing) when you adjust status, so it is a non-issue for the co-sponsor really.

[ezmiller 0]

This letter sounds equivalent to an employer's letter.

If it contains the information you have put forth, and you are on the job at the time of the interview, that's a good thing.

Is the position ongoing though past this school year?

If it is not, the consulate will likely wish to see sizable cash assets or another sponsor in place.

PS - I had issues with the I134 as well when I was processing. That's how I learned about it. I have to say though I never felt it was on the government to take care of us should we fall on hard times - especially in light of the fact that my husband had never paid any US taxes. I felt it was up to me to prove I could support him. I did go as his sponsor with two affidavits - one executed by myself and one by my father. I did this at my husband's visa interview as well as his adjustment of status. In both cases my affidavit stood on its own and I didn't need my father to act as sponsor. At the end of the day I was quite satisfied with myself for having stood on my own.

Yes that's right. I think it is an employer's letter. The job might be ongoing or might not. This is how adjunct teaching works at the universities. They often hire you back, but it can be that something happens and they decide to cut you, even up to the last minute. The employer's letter, of course, won't say that. And at the moment, I have not agreed to teach (or even been asked to) for any term beyond the summer. The employer's letter would concern the academic year, meaning this fall, spring, and summer. I don't really know what will happen later. It is remotely possible that I will land a more permanent university job at some point in the spring, either a tenure-track appointment which is ongoing, or a one- or two-year contract. It's hard to say what will happen. If I don't get a more permanent job, it is possible that this adjuncting gig may continue and/or that I will find others.

Can you be more specific, or provide a range, in terms of what sizable cash assets might mean?

I would also like to sponsor my girlfriend without needing to rely upon my parents (even if they were willing) and my questions here are aimed at trying to figure out whether I have half a chance (or perhaps more) of being able to do that. You said you were able to support your husband independently. Was your situation at all comparable to mine? Is the consulate in the Czech Republic likely to be more critical than the one you went through?

Edited October 30, 2009 by ezmiller

[ezmiller 0]

Another thing to be midful of. Prague will ask you to support you affidavit with "2 of the following 4 items"

1. Most recent year tax return or tax transcript

2. Employment letter

3. Recent check stubs (not specific by 2 months usually is plenty)

4. Bank letter showing when the account was opened, amount of deposits in the last 12 months and current balance

So it is the big day and you are filling out the I-134...

"I am employed as school teacher and derive an income of $24,000 per year" See anything wrong with that statement. (provided it is true the day you sign the form?)

Attach last year's tax return (the amount you made is not so important, they qualify you on current income)

Attach a bank letter (bank letters are better than 12 months bank statements, but OK, bank statements if you must) and recent check stubs.

Employment letters are optional, that said, if an employer has employed you on a contract, they are going to say so, that gives you a limited term of employment and the consulates do not like that. On the other hand, if you were in most any other job, an employment letter may have, at best, vague reference to the future. NO employer is going to say your job is guaranteed (the whole concept of "permanenet employment" being neigh on impossible in a free society) I think that would be the itme I leave off.

Though this would indicate the tax return is optional, in my experience it is not. Certainly not with Prague or Kiev. The instructions should read "two of the following 4 itmes as long as one of them is you most recent tax return" but they don't do that. Many visas have been held waiting for the tax return

Ok...so tax return is key. Trouble is that the tax return will confirm that I have stocks and assets of some sort (via capital gains) but will also show that I haven't made income for a long time. Last year, I was on an exchange fellowship to Germany and I don't think the money I received from the German government even counted as income. I have been a PhD student for 8 years now. The first four years I had a fellowship then after that I lived off of a mixture of loans, parental support, and fellowships. So there is not much evidence of me making income in my tax returns unfortunately. The adjunct work is a new thing.

Now as far as "pocket co-sponsors" Many consulates, Prague and Kiev are good for this, use a procedure where your fiancee goes to a window before the interview and turns in her documents. Including affidavits of support. So, you have told her (or you are there) "give them my affidavit and keep this one in case they ask" She gives all the documents, holds the co-sponsor as you said. 45 minutes later she is called to the window and told to bring a co-sponsor and make another appointment. "Ah-hah! I was prepared for you! I have that right here" The CO answers "Uh, huh, well good then ,there will be no delay in making another appointment" Now you are delayed and have to make another appointment because they needed something you had all along.

These "interviews" are not long drawn out negotiations. They make a decision and your fiancee has 10 seconds or less to make them change their mind, it isn't happening in most cases.

So if you line a co-sponsor, just lay it on them right up front. The I-134 and consulate co-sponsor is so meaningless (except to get the visa) that it is bascially a "no harm, no foul" situation. The co-sponsor is relieved of his obligation under the I-134 (if you can even imagine such a thing) when you adjust status, so it is a non-issue for the co-sponsor really.

How can I convince my parents that in fact this I-134 does not actually carry legal weight?

[pushbrk 13,136]

This letter sounds equivalent to an employer's letter.

If it contains the information you have put forth, and you are on the job at the time of the interview, that's a good thing.

Is the position ongoing though past this school year?

If it is not, the consulate will likely wish to see sizable cash assets or another sponsor in place.

PS - I had issues with the I134 as well when I was processing. That's how I learned about it. I have to say though I never felt it was on the government to take care of us should we fall on hard times - especially in light of the fact that my husband had never paid any US taxes. I felt it was up to me to prove I could support him. I did go as his sponsor with two affidavits - one executed by myself and one by my father. I did this at my husband's visa interview as well as his adjustment of status. In both cases my affidavit stood on its own and I didn't need my father to act as sponsor. At the end of the day I was quite satisfied with myself for having stood on my own.

Yes that's right. I think it is an employer's letter. The job might be ongoing or might not. This is how adjunct teaching works at the universities. They often hire you back, but it can be that something happens and they decide to cut you, even up to the last minute. The employer's letter, of course, won't say that. And at the moment, I have not agreed to teach (or even been asked to) for any term beyond the summer. The employer's letter would concern the academic year, meaning this fall, spring, and summer. I don't really know what will happen later. It is remotely possible that I will land a more permanent university job at some point in the spring, either a tenure-track appointment which is ongoing, or a one- or two-year contract. It's hard to say what will happen. If I don't get a more permanent job, it is possible that this adjuncting gig may continue and/or that I will find others.

Can you be more specific, or provide a range, in terms of what sizable cash assets might mean?

I would also like to sponsor my girlfriend without needing to rely upon my parents (even if they were willing) and my questions here are aimed at trying to figure out whether I have half a chance (or perhaps more) of being able to do that. You said you were able to support your husband independently. Was your situation at all comparable to mine? Is the consulate in the Czech Republic likely to be more critical than the one you went through?

You can't sponsor your girlfriend but you may qualify to sponsor a fiancee. If you only have temporary employment, there's no actual formula for cash assets, particularly when they may need to be consumed quickly after the employment ends. This entire financial issue is all about convincing a reasonable Consular officer that you have the means to support your fiancee or, if you will that the burden of that support will not fall upon the US taxpayer. Keep that principal in mind as you move forward and think this through. Sometimes, people simply decide they need to get their practical and financial house in order BEFORE making a commitment to marry and support their foreign loved one.

[rebeccajo 14]

This letter sounds equivalent to an employer's letter.

If it contains the information you have put forth, and you are on the job at the time of the interview, that's a good thing.

Is the position ongoing though past this school year?

If it is not, the consulate will likely wish to see sizable cash assets or another sponsor in place.

PS - I had issues with the I134 as well when I was processing. That's how I learned about it. I have to say though I never felt it was on the government to take care of us should we fall on hard times - especially in light of the fact that my husband had never paid any US taxes. I felt it was up to me to prove I could support him. I did go as his sponsor with two affidavits - one executed by myself and one by my father. I did this at my husband's visa interview as well as his adjustment of status. In both cases my affidavit stood on its own and I didn't need my father to act as sponsor. At the end of the day I was quite satisfied with myself for having stood on my own.

Yes that's right. I think it is an employer's letter. The job might be ongoing or might not. This is how adjunct teaching works at the universities. They often hire you back, but it can be that something happens and they decide to cut you, even up to the last minute. The employer's letter, of course, won't say that. And at the moment, I have not agreed to teach (or even been asked to) for any term beyond the summer. The employer's letter would concern the academic year, meaning this fall, spring, and summer. I don't really know what will happen later. It is remotely possible that I will land a more permanent university job at some point in the spring, either a tenure-track appointment which is ongoing, or a one- or two-year contract. It's hard to say what will happen. If I don't get a more permanent job, it is possible that this adjuncting gig may continue and/or that I will find others.

Can you be more specific, or provide a range, in terms of what sizable cash assets might mean?

I would also like to sponsor my girlfriend without needing to rely upon my parents (even if they were willing) and my questions here are aimed at trying to figure out whether I have half a chance (or perhaps more) of being able to do that. You said you were able to support your husband independently. Was your situation at all comparable to mine? Is the consulate in the Czech Republic likely to be more critical than the one you went through?

Was my situation like yours? Sorta kinda.....

I was a divorcee and for the latter portion of my marriage, my ex earned the lions share of income. I had a permanent part time job that didn't meet the criteria for a household of three using 125% of the US Poverty Guidelines - I was fine at 100% which is the minimum barrier the Department of State has advised consulates to use. I did have child support that put my income over 125%. I could document the regular payment of that support and (in case you or readers are wondering) you CAN use child support to qualify (you have to count the kiddos in the household after all).

I had about $25000 in cash in the bank verified on bank statements. I had equity in my house which i documented with an appraisal and a mortgage statement, but I knew that asset would bear little weight as it's not liquid.

London (which is an easy consulate, I will freely admit) had no trouble with my situation at all. In fact, they never even asked to see a single supporting document although I was carrying a boatload (I attended the interview with my now husband). I'm a literalist and a believer in just giving them what they ask for - the ConOff directed his question at me (not my husband) - "do you have an Affidavit of Support with you?". So I just gave him the affidavit. He read it over (front and back), looked at a chart on the wall, and put it down on the counter. He did not ask to see my employment letter; he did not ask to see my bank statements; he did not ask to see the proof of the child support - nothing.

This is a true story as God is my witness. Honest.

I was carrying in my back pocket (as Gary talked about above) an affidavit from my Father in case the ConOff's didn't like mine. "Back pocket" sponsors were the common wisdom on Vj at that time. I still think they are a good idea and see absolutely no reason why a ConOff would refuse another parties affidavit and make you come back a second time just so you could give them something you are waving in their face at the first interview. ConOff's really aren't ogres, especially in the European arena.

I've also always been a strong advocate of covering 'different looking' affidavits with a letter of explanation. I had such a letter on mine but I didn't produce it at London. I did send it along with the I864 about two months later when my husband filed his adjustment. My financial situation was no different then than it had been two months prior. When my husband filed his adjustment, I enclosed my affidavit and my fathers. My letter asked that should the Adjudicating Officer concur that my affidavit stood on it's own merit, that they return my Father's to me. And that is exactly what happened on the day my husband was interviewed for his adjustment. The AO stated my income was marginal, but my cash was "more than sufficient" to allay his concerns. He handed my Father's affidavit back to me, complete with the USCIS clock marks on it, thereby removing it from the record.

Another true story. Swear.

Now - I am not an expert on Prague. You can surely find several accounts, though, of the demeanor of that consulate in the Consular Review section of Vj. I suspicion they won't be much different from London other than they will likely want some paperwork to back up your affidavit. In other words, I doubt they are ogres. But please do research it.

You have eloquently explained to us here your situation for the last few years. I'd suggest you do the same in a cover letter to your affidavit. You have been in school so you can better your future - no reasonable ConOff is going to hold that against you. Prove the income you have now and back it up with some cash. "Back pocket" another sponsor for your safety net.

You may find Joy.

Edited October 31, 2009 by rebeccajo