I-134 question.. co-sponsor was not born in US..

[AdamF 1]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it. You can trust this is correct and provide the needed docuumentation in advance or you can stubbornly insist it isn't required, right up until the visa is delayed for lack of documenting the cosponsor's eligibility to sponsor. It's your/his choice. Provide it now, profide it later or no visa.

Believe me I am well aware of the vagueness of the I-134 and the general 'financial support' aspect of the K-1 process.

As I mentioned earlier I would never suggest someone skimp on evidence/documentation - if it's not required all you've done is waste a small amount of time gathering it. If it is required and you don't have it, then the implications can be much worse.

You've been around here a lot longer than me so I'm not claiming to know anything more than you. But you are equally as stubborn as me in your insistence that it is required.

The form does not say any evidence of US citizenship is required, so we didn't provide any. It was accepted & my visa was approved. No "official notice asking for the missing documentation".

Have there been specific cases of I-134's not being accepted because there was no evidence of the co-sponsors citizenship being provided? If so, I'm willing to admit I either got lucky or perhaps the London Embassy interprets the rules differently.

Thanks,

Adam

[pushbrk 12,617]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it. You can trust this is correct and provide the needed docuumentation in advance or you can stubbornly insist it isn't required, right up until the visa is delayed for lack of documenting the cosponsor's eligibility to sponsor. It's your/his choice. Provide it now, profide it later or no visa.

Believe me I am well aware of the vagueness of the I-134 and the general 'financial support' aspect of the K-1 process.

As I mentioned earlier I would never suggest someone skimp on evidence/documentation - if it's not required all you've done is waste a small amount of time gathering it. If it is required and you don't have it, then the implications can be much worse.

You've been around here a lot longer than me so I'm not claiming to know anything more than you. But you are equally as stubborn as me in your insistence that it is required.

The form does not say any evidence of US citizenship is required, so we didn't provide any. It was accepted & my visa was approved. No "official notice asking for the missing documentation".

Have there been specific cases of I-134's not being accepted because there was no evidence of the co-sponsors citizenship being provided? If so, I'm willing to admit I either got lucky or perhaps the London Embassy interprets the rules differently.

Thanks,

Adam

When it comes to finances, London may well be the most lax of all Consulates. Also, there appears to be pretty recent new guidance to Consulates to be more diligent in evaluating the public charge concerns. I don't know the circumstances of your case either. For instance, if your father was the cosponsor and your G325a indicates he was born in the USA, that's going to raise less questions that if there's no other information available about the sponsor except an obviously "foreign" name. (Yes, I know how silly the term "foreign name" sounds when speaking of US Citizens but hopefully it makes the point anyway.)

[maoyu 0]

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it....

Really? Now that's interesting.

[pushbrk 12,617]

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it....

Really? Now that's interesting.

Yes, for USCIS the old I-134 was replaced by the old I-864 which was later replaced by the new I-864. The I-134 is just an old affidavit available for use in non-immigrant visa cases. Exept for a few Consulates who have decided to "require" it, it's just a convenient tool for demonstrating the non-immigrant visa applicant will not become a public charge. Because the Consulates are aware the K visa applicants will be needing I-864 sponsorship in the near future, they tend to apply the I-864 requirements to their evaluation of finances.

It's their responsibility that is statutory, not the use of the I-134.

[rebeccajo 14]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it. You can trust this is correct and provide the needed docuumentation in advance or you can stubbornly insist it isn't required, right up until the visa is delayed for lack of documenting the cosponsor's eligibility to sponsor. It's your/his choice. Provide it now, profide it later or no visa.

Believe me I am well aware of the vagueness of the I-134 and the general 'financial support' aspect of the K-1 process.

As I mentioned earlier I would never suggest someone skimp on evidence/documentation - if it's not required all you've done is waste a small amount of time gathering it. If it is required and you don't have it, then the implications can be much worse.

You've been around here a lot longer than me so I'm not claiming to know anything more than you. But you are equally as stubborn as me in your insistence that it is required.

The form does not say any evidence of US citizenship is required, so we didn't provide any. It was accepted & my visa was approved. No "official notice asking for the missing documentation".

Have there been specific cases of I-134's not being accepted because there was no evidence of the co-sponsors citizenship being provided? If so, I'm willing to admit I either got lucky or perhaps the London Embassy interprets the rules differently.

Thanks,

Adam

When it comes to finances, London may well be the most lax of all Consulates. Also, there appears to be pretty recent new guidance to Consulates to be more diligent in evaluating the public charge concerns. I don't know the circumstances of your case either. For instance, if your father was the cosponsor and your G325a indicates he was born in the USA, that's going to raise less questions that if there's no other information available about the sponsor except an obviously "foreign" name. (Yes, I know how silly the term "foreign name" sounds when speaking of US Citizens but hopefully it makes the point anyway.)

A link to this "new guidance" would be helpful. I am unable to locate anything here:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1446.html

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22752.htm

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22751.htm

[pushbrk 12,617]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it. You can trust this is correct and provide the needed docuumentation in advance or you can stubbornly insist it isn't required, right up until the visa is delayed for lack of documenting the cosponsor's eligibility to sponsor. It's your/his choice. Provide it now, profide it later or no visa.

Believe me I am well aware of the vagueness of the I-134 and the general 'financial support' aspect of the K-1 process.

As I mentioned earlier I would never suggest someone skimp on evidence/documentation - if it's not required all you've done is waste a small amount of time gathering it. If it is required and you don't have it, then the implications can be much worse.

You've been around here a lot longer than me so I'm not claiming to know anything more than you. But you are equally as stubborn as me in your insistence that it is required.

The form does not say any evidence of US citizenship is required, so we didn't provide any. It was accepted & my visa was approved. No "official notice asking for the missing documentation".

Have there been specific cases of I-134's not being accepted because there was no evidence of the co-sponsors citizenship being provided? If so, I'm willing to admit I either got lucky or perhaps the London Embassy interprets the rules differently.

Thanks,

Adam

When it comes to finances, London may well be the most lax of all Consulates. Also, there appears to be pretty recent new guidance to Consulates to be more diligent in evaluating the public charge concerns. I don't know the circumstances of your case either. For instance, if your father was the cosponsor and your G325a indicates he was born in the USA, that's going to raise less questions that if there's no other information available about the sponsor except an obviously "foreign" name. (Yes, I know how silly the term "foreign name" sounds when speaking of US Citizens but hopefully it makes the point anyway.)

A link to this "new guidance" would be helpful. I am unable to locate anything here:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1446.html

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22752.htm

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22751.htm

I agree a link would be helpful. Unfortunately, not all guidance given to Consulates is available at a public URL. Are you suggesting the OP simply skip sending the evidence of citizenship or LPR status in the absense of such a link?

Edited November 26, 2009 by pushbrk

[erik123 0]

Hi guys,

Has anyone checked the Foreign Affairs Manual? I imagine it might shed some light on this issue.

[rebeccajo 14]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it. You can trust this is correct and provide the needed docuumentation in advance or you can stubbornly insist it isn't required, right up until the visa is delayed for lack of documenting the cosponsor's eligibility to sponsor. It's your/his choice. Provide it now, profide it later or no visa.

Believe me I am well aware of the vagueness of the I-134 and the general 'financial support' aspect of the K-1 process.

As I mentioned earlier I would never suggest someone skimp on evidence/documentation - if it's not required all you've done is waste a small amount of time gathering it. If it is required and you don't have it, then the implications can be much worse.

You've been around here a lot longer than me so I'm not claiming to know anything more than you. But you are equally as stubborn as me in your insistence that it is required.

The form does not say any evidence of US citizenship is required, so we didn't provide any. It was accepted & my visa was approved. No "official notice asking for the missing documentation".

Have there been specific cases of I-134's not being accepted because there was no evidence of the co-sponsors citizenship being provided? If so, I'm willing to admit I either got lucky or perhaps the London Embassy interprets the rules differently.

Thanks,

Adam

When it comes to finances, London may well be the most lax of all Consulates. Also, there appears to be pretty recent new guidance to Consulates to be more diligent in evaluating the public charge concerns. I don't know the circumstances of your case either. For instance, if your father was the cosponsor and your G325a indicates he was born in the USA, that's going to raise less questions that if there's no other information available about the sponsor except an obviously "foreign" name. (Yes, I know how silly the term "foreign name" sounds when speaking of US Citizens but hopefully it makes the point anyway.)

A link to this "new guidance" would be helpful. I am unable to locate anything here:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1446.html

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22752.htm

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22751.htm

I agree a link would be helpful. Unfortunately, not all guidance given to Consulates is available at a public URL. Are you suggesting the OP simply skip sending the evidence of citizenship or LPR status in the absense of such a link?

Not at all.

I'm suggesting that peculiarities from one consulate to another do not equate to 'recent new guidance'.

And I'm suggesting that your allusion to having information the rest of us don't have is an illusion.

[pushbrk 12,617]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it. You can trust this is correct and provide the needed docuumentation in advance or you can stubbornly insist it isn't required, right up until the visa is delayed for lack of documenting the cosponsor's eligibility to sponsor. It's your/his choice. Provide it now, profide it later or no visa.

Believe me I am well aware of the vagueness of the I-134 and the general 'financial support' aspect of the K-1 process.

As I mentioned earlier I would never suggest someone skimp on evidence/documentation - if it's not required all you've done is waste a small amount of time gathering it. If it is required and you don't have it, then the implications can be much worse.

You've been around here a lot longer than me so I'm not claiming to know anything more than you. But you are equally as stubborn as me in your insistence that it is required.

The form does not say any evidence of US citizenship is required, so we didn't provide any. It was accepted & my visa was approved. No "official notice asking for the missing documentation".

Have there been specific cases of I-134's not being accepted because there was no evidence of the co-sponsors citizenship being provided? If so, I'm willing to admit I either got lucky or perhaps the London Embassy interprets the rules differently.

Thanks,

Adam

When it comes to finances, London may well be the most lax of all Consulates. Also, there appears to be pretty recent new guidance to Consulates to be more diligent in evaluating the public charge concerns. I don't know the circumstances of your case either. For instance, if your father was the cosponsor and your G325a indicates he was born in the USA, that's going to raise less questions that if there's no other information available about the sponsor except an obviously "foreign" name. (Yes, I know how silly the term "foreign name" sounds when speaking of US Citizens but hopefully it makes the point anyway.)

A link to this "new guidance" would be helpful. I am unable to locate anything here:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1446.html

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22752.htm

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22751.htm

I agree a link would be helpful. Unfortunately, not all guidance given to Consulates is available at a public URL. Are you suggesting the OP simply skip sending the evidence of citizenship or LPR status in the absense of such a link?

Not at all.

I'm suggesting that peculiarities from one consulate to another do not equate to 'recent new guidance'.

And I'm suggesting that your allusion to having information the rest of us don't have is an illusion.

So then, all knowledge that can't be proved to you with an internet link is "illusion". Maybe look up the word "delusion". As usual, if you have nothing to add....

[Anh map 2,098]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

The mistake you are making is to presume everything you need to know about the I-134 is in the I-134 instructions. Since there is no statutory requirement for the I-134 at all and it is not actually used by USCIS (the agency that created it) anymore, Consulates tend to follow I-864 procedures when accepting it. You can trust this is correct and provide the needed docuumentation in advance or you can stubbornly insist it isn't required, right up until the visa is delayed for lack of documenting the cosponsor's eligibility to sponsor. It's your/his choice. Provide it now, profide it later or no visa.

Believe me I am well aware of the vagueness of the I-134 and the general 'financial support' aspect of the K-1 process.

As I mentioned earlier I would never suggest someone skimp on evidence/documentation - if it's not required all you've done is waste a small amount of time gathering it. If it is required and you don't have it, then the implications can be much worse.

You've been around here a lot longer than me so I'm not claiming to know anything more than you. But you are equally as stubborn as me in your insistence that it is required.

The form does not say any evidence of US citizenship is required, so we didn't provide any. It was accepted & my visa was approved. No "official notice asking for the missing documentation".

Have there been specific cases of I-134's not being accepted because there was no evidence of the co-sponsors citizenship being provided? If so, I'm willing to admit I either got lucky or perhaps the London Embassy interprets the rules differently.

Thanks,

Adam

When it comes to finances, London may well be the most lax of all Consulates. Also, there appears to be pretty recent new guidance to Consulates to be more diligent in evaluating the public charge concerns. I don't know the circumstances of your case either. For instance, if your father was the cosponsor and your G325a indicates he was born in the USA, that's going to raise less questions that if there's no other information available about the sponsor except an obviously "foreign" name. (Yes, I know how silly the term "foreign name" sounds when speaking of US Citizens but hopefully it makes the point anyway.)

A link to this "new guidance" would be helpful. I am unable to locate anything here:

http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegram...grams_1446.html

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22752.htm

Or here:

http://www.state.gov/m/a/dir/regs/fam/09fam/c22751.htm

I agree a link would be helpful. Unfortunately, not all guidance given to Consulates is available at a public URL. Are you suggesting the OP simply skip sending the evidence of citizenship or LPR status in the absense of such a link?

Not at all.

I'm suggesting that peculiarities from one consulate to another do not equate to 'recent new guidance'.

And I'm suggesting that your allusion to having information the rest of us don't have is an illusion.

See this post for comments from a recent Naples Consulate interviewee regarding the CO's being more diligent regarding the affidavit of support: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3519272

[rebeccajo 14]

So then, all knowledge that can't be proved to you with an internet link is "illusion". Maybe look up the word "delusion". As usual, if you have nothing to add....

You claim to possess knowledge that has potential value to the membership here.

Now it's either out there in official written policy or it is not. You know that as well as I do. Please don't try to convince us that you have an inroad to some sort of "official" rules that the rest of us are not privy too. That is mere bluster.

US consulates abroad paying stricter attention to affidavits of support from citizens of a country that is swimming through the worst economic turmoil since the Great Depression does not equal "official guidance". It might be common sense, but it's not "official guidance".

I would suggest you continue the good advice of teaching members to pay attention to the norms of their particular consulate, rather than intimidating readers into thinking there is some sort of top-secret written criteria hidden away in the desk drawers of Consular Officers.

[rebeccajo 14]

See this post for comments from a recent Naples Consulate interviewee regarding the CO's being more diligent regarding the affidavit of support: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3519272

Very good.

We should note that that information pertains to the I-864, for which the State Department does issue more official guidance.

Consulates continue to operate under random and widely differing variances of financial proof for the hybrid K1 (which is the OP's query).

[Anh map 2,098]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

Perhaps this line of thinking will help the argument.

The sponsor certifies in item 1 under penalty of perjury that they are eligible to be a sponsor by being a US citizen, an LPR, or lawfully admitted non-immigrant. While it is never stated, is it reasonable to assume that the person reviewing the form will want to have proof that the sponsor meets the requirement?

If so, as a petitioner wanting to have their S.O. issued a visa as soon as possible, I would want to provide that proof rather than getting an RFE which would delay the processing.

[rebeccajo 14]

yes.. now whether my father will actually listen to all the advice is another question! lol

thanks for the help

Well, it's his choice. He can listen now or wait for the official notice asking for the missing documentation.

This doesn't appear to make sense - In your reply above you said it's the I-864 that requires the documentation. Yet in this reply you make the leap to it also being required for the I-134?

Don't get me wrong, it's always better to supply too much evidence/documentation...but I'm seeing this requirement of proof of US citizenship posted a lot recently...but no one is telling me where this requirement is listed?

Thanks again,

adam

Perhaps this line of thinking will help the argument.

The sponsor certifies in item 1 under penalty of perjury that they are eligible to be a sponsor by being a US citizen, an LPR, or lawfully admitted non-immigrant. While it is never stated, is it reasonable to assume that the person reviewing the form will want to have proof that the sponsor meets the requirement?

If so, as a petitioner wanting to have their S.O. issued a visa as soon as possible, I would want to provide that proof rather than getting an RFE which would delay the processing.

You know - the form itself only asks for the certificate number from the Naturalization certificate.

Anecdotally, I've never noticed what a naturalized USC sponsor might do with this form.

Personally, I'd be more comfortable (as the beneficiary) if I had a copy of the Natz certificate.

But the instructions only ask for the number.

Interesting.

**edited to add I have just re-read Adam's post and he states his sponsor's affidavit was accepted without a copy of the certificate. I guess the CO's at London can read.**

Edited November 27, 2009 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,617]

See this post for comments from a recent Naples Consulate interviewee regarding the CO's being more diligent regarding the affidavit of support: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...t&p=3519272

Very good.

We should note that that information pertains to the I-864, for which the State Department does issue more official guidance.

Consulates continue to operate under random and widely differing variances of financial proof for the hybrid K1 (which is the OP's query).

Yes, there are wide variances as to how things are handled at Consulates and the to best of my information, even within Consulates from one officer to another. This may or may not BE random but I can understand how they may seem so. I guess I'm still missing your point unless it's just to bust my chops per your usual routine.

Maybe we should ask Tay if this interchange qualifies as an attack on a member. It think I'll report my own post and see.