>< freaking out.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I have to disagree with the post above. If you're laid off and collecting unemployment insurance the money is counted as income. It begs the question what's the difference between I-134 and I-864 when it comes to being employed. Ive read on VJ where the petitioner has been laid off after the K1 got the VISA, got married, filed for the I-485, I-864, went to the AOS interview unemployed and was approved. The question "what happens if I lose my job during the process?" comes up a lot. If there's a specific forum on it in VJ I would refer to it. If I was in your shoes and my K1 was having her VISA interview and I unexpectedly got a pink slip from my job I would tell her/him that if the CO asks where I work and what I did to stick to what I put on the petition and let it go at that. I have never heard of the Embassy during a K1 interview to re verify the employment status of the petitioner.

Happy New Year from Minnesota

The OP never mentioned collecting unemployment benefits, but I assume he's eligible for them, like most people who've been laid off. Yes, unemployment benefits do count as income, and the payments are usually significantly less than the regular wages of the person collecting them.

The difference between the I-134 and the I-864 is standards and enforcement. There are strict standards for judging whether an I-864 sponsor has met the minimum requirements. There are no standards for the I-134 - it's entirely up to the judgment of the consular officer, though many consulates do use the I-864 standards as a basis. The I-864 is an enforceable contract between the sponsor and the US government. The I-134 is not enforceable, and is little more than a cover sheet for the financial evidence the consulate asks for.

Collecting unemployment benefits is not the same as having a job. The consular officer knows that the payments are limited by amount and duration, and that the benefits are going to eventually run out. The consular officer is not required to presume that the sponsor will be gainfully employed before the unemployment benefits run out, nor that the sponsor's income will continue to meet the minimum requirements. It's the responsibility of the sponsor to prove to the consulate's satisfaction, using the documents they submit, that they will continue to meet the minimum requirements for the foreseeable future. If the unemployment benefits alone do not meet these requirements, the sponsor should submit documentation to convince the consular officer that the unemployment is temporary. The OP mentioned that this is "like seasonal work". If he can demonstrate this to the consular officer by showing that he's been laid off and re-hired on a fairly regular basis, then the CO will probably not be concerned about it.

His unemployment is a material factor in weighing the "public charge" requirements for the K1 visa. If the CO discovers this fact, and believes that it was intentionally withheld, either because it wasn't revealed in the affidavit of support documents, or because the beneficiary indicated the sponsor was working during the interview, then the CO could presume that a material misrepresentation had been made, and deny the visa. If the material misrepresentation was made by the sponsor, then the sponsor could be held legally responsible (i.e., charges could be brought against him). If the material misrepresentation was made by the beneficiary, then she could be banned from ever entering the US.

You should never withhold material information from the consulate. The results can be disastrous. All the OP needs to do is convince the CO that he has met the minimum income requirements in the past, and that he will continue to do so in the future. All he should need is a simple statement from his employer that his current period of unemployment is typical for his job, and that he will return to work. As a backup, he can also provide a co-sponsor.

[Chris_Жанна 11]

The OP never mentioned collecting unemployment benefits, but I assume he's eligible for them, like most people who've been laid off. Yes, unemployment benefits do count as income, and the payments are usually significantly less than the regular wages of the person collecting them.

The difference between the I-134 and the I-864 is standards and enforcement. There are strict standards for judging whether an I-864 sponsor has met the minimum requirements. There are no standards for the I-134 - it's entirely up to the judgment of the consular officer, though many consulates do use the I-864 standards as a basis. The I-864 is an enforceable contract between the sponsor and the US government. The I-134 is not enforceable, and is little more than a cover sheet for the financial evidence the consulate asks for.

Collecting unemployment benefits is not the same as having a job. The consular officer knows that the payments are limited by amount and duration, and that the benefits are going to eventually run out. The consular officer is not required to presume that the sponsor will be gainfully employed before the unemployment benefits run out, nor that the sponsor's income will continue to meet the minimum requirements. It's the responsibility of the sponsor to prove to the consulate's satisfaction, using the documents they submit, that they will continue to meet the minimum requirements for the foreseeable future. If the unemployment benefits alone do not meet these requirements, the sponsor should submit documentation to convince the consular officer that the unemployment is temporary. The OP mentioned that this is "like seasonal work". If he can demonstrate this to the consular officer by showing that he's been laid off and re-hired on a fairly regular basis, then the CO will probably not be concerned about it.

His unemployment is a material factor in weighing the "public charge" requirements for the K1 visa. If the CO discovers this fact, and believes that it was intentionally withheld, either because it wasn't revealed in the affidavit of support documents, or because the beneficiary indicated the sponsor was working during the interview, then the CO could presume that a material misrepresentation had been made, and deny the visa. If the material misrepresentation was made by the sponsor, then the sponsor could be held legally responsible (i.e., charges could be brought against him). If the material misrepresentation was made by the beneficiary, then she could be banned from ever entering the US.

You should never withhold material information from the consulate. The results can be disastrous. All the OP needs to do is convince the CO that he has met the minimum income requirements in the past, and that he will continue to do so in the future. All he should need is a simple statement from his employer that his current period of unemployment is typical for his job, and that he will return to work. As a backup, he can also provide a co-sponsor.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

OK Here is the deal. my fiancee has her interview date for her k1 visa for the 27th of next month. but i just got laid off but with a return to work date. or lack of work. so should i be worried is this gonna matter. will they even look. my work has alrdy sent all the info of how long i have worked there. so should i be freaking out?

no. You have a return to work date. You are still employed there ("employed" is not the same as "working", the I-134 asks about employment) you are just on an unpaid vacation. File for unemployment and you will be on a paid vacation and most states, if you have a return to work date, do not require you to look for other work. You still have the same "current annual income". Don't worry about it.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The OP never mentioned collecting unemployment benefits, but I assume he's eligible for them, like most people who've been laid off. Yes, unemployment benefits do count as income, and the payments are usually significantly less than the regular wages of the person collecting them.

The difference between the I-134 and the I-864 is standards and enforcement. There are strict standards for judging whether an I-864 sponsor has met the minimum requirements. There are no standards for the I-134 - it's entirely up to the judgment of the consular officer, though many consulates do use the I-864 standards as a basis. The I-864 is an enforceable contract between the sponsor and the US government. The I-134 is not enforceable, and is little more than a cover sheet for the financial evidence the consulate asks for.

Collecting unemployment benefits is not the same as having a job. The consular officer knows that the payments are limited by amount and duration, and that the benefits are going to eventually run out. The consular officer is not required to presume that the sponsor will be gainfully employed before the unemployment benefits run out, nor that the sponsor's income will continue to meet the minimum requirements. It's the responsibility of the sponsor to prove to the consulate's satisfaction, using the documents they submit, that they will continue to meet the minimum requirements for the foreseeable future. If the unemployment benefits alone do not meet these requirements, the sponsor should submit documentation to convince the consular officer that the unemployment is temporary. The OP mentioned that this is "like seasonal work". If he can demonstrate this to the consular officer by showing that he's been laid off and re-hired on a fairly regular basis, then the CO will probably not be concerned about it.

His unemployment is a material factor in weighing the "public charge" requirements for the K1 visa. If the CO discovers this fact, and believes that it was intentionally withheld, either because it wasn't revealed in the affidavit of support documents, or because the beneficiary indicated the sponsor was working during the interview, then the CO could presume that a material misrepresentation had been made, and deny the visa. If the material misrepresentation was made by the sponsor, then the sponsor could be held legally responsible (i.e., charges could be brought against him). If the material misrepresentation was made by the beneficiary, then she could be banned from ever entering the US.

You should never withhold material information from the consulate. The results can be disastrous. All the OP needs to do is convince the CO that he has met the minimum income requirements in the past, and that he will continue to do so in the future. All he should need is a simple statement from his employer that his current period of unemployment is typical for his job, and that he will return to work. As a backup, he can also provide a co-sponsor.

Congratulations on your wedding Jim.

I disagree, the OP states he has a return to work date. He is on a brief unpaid vacation. If necessary he can send a copy of his return to work information which the employer would have to provide to the state. As long as he has this he can still claim to be employed by the company.

at the interview I would not bring it up unless asked and then have the document to show he still has a job

[rebeccajo 14]

Moving to consular forums where the issue lies.

[Shad and Dani 3]

Everything is all good. Just tell her not to offer up the fact that you have been laid off. Good luck!

[Guitarlo 2]

The OP never mentioned collecting unemployment benefits, but I assume he's eligible for them, like most people who've been laid off. Yes, unemployment benefits do count as income, and the payments are usually significantly less than the regular wages of the person collecting them.

The difference between the I-134 and the I-864 is standards and enforcement. There are strict standards for judging whether an I-864 sponsor has met the minimum requirements. There are no standards for the I-134 - it's entirely up to the judgment of the consular officer, though many consulates do use the I-864 standards as a basis. The I-864 is an enforceable contract between the sponsor and the US government. The I-134 is not enforceable, and is little more than a cover sheet for the financial evidence the consulate asks for.

Collecting unemployment benefits is not the same as having a job. The consular officer knows that the payments are limited by amount and duration, and that the benefits are going to eventually run out. The consular officer is not required to presume that the sponsor will be gainfully employed before the unemployment benefits run out, nor that the sponsor's income will continue to meet the minimum requirements. It's the responsibility of the sponsor to prove to the consulate's satisfaction, using the documents they submit, that they will continue to meet the minimum requirements for the foreseeable future. If the unemployment benefits alone do not meet these requirements, the sponsor should submit documentation to convince the consular officer that the unemployment is temporary. The OP mentioned that this is "like seasonal work". If he can demonstrate this to the consular officer by showing that he's been laid off and re-hired on a fairly regular basis, then the CO will probably not be concerned about it.

His unemployment is a material factor in weighing the "public charge" requirements for the K1 visa. If the CO discovers this fact, and believes that it was intentionally withheld, either because it wasn't revealed in the affidavit of support documents, or because the beneficiary indicated the sponsor was working during the interview, then the CO could presume that a material misrepresentation had been made, and deny the visa. If the material misrepresentation was made by the sponsor, then the sponsor could be held legally responsible (i.e., charges could be brought against him). If the material misrepresentation was made by the beneficiary, then she could be banned from ever entering the US.

You should never withhold material information from the consulate. The results can be disastrous. All the OP needs to do is convince the CO that he has met the minimum income requirements in the past, and that he will continue to do so in the future. All he should need is a simple statement from his employer that his current period of unemployment is typical for his job, and that he will return to work. As a backup, he can also provide a co-sponsor.

Thanks for providing a more detail explanation. You know more about it than me.

I hope for all concerned the CO only asks the basic "how well do you know your future spouse" type questions e.g. What does he do for a living? Which is a different question than does he have a job? My wife was asked what I did for a living, which could have meant do I have a job? or what's my trade? as part of a general how well did she know me. The CO at her interview did not drill any deeper into it like - IS HE EMPLOYED TODAY? The types of interview questions are posted here on VJ.

Happy New Year from Minnesota

[sjr09 155]

Somtimes things are better left unsaid!!!!!!!!!! just roll with it buddy!!

Bad advice!

[sachinky 465]

The 129F petition is adjudicated at the USCIS level. The 134 Affidavit of Support is adjudicated at the consulate/interview level.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Congratulations on your wedding Jim.

I disagree, the OP states he has a return to work date. He is on a brief unpaid vacation. If necessary he can send a copy of his return to work information which the employer would have to provide to the state. As long as he has this he can still claim to be employed by the company.

at the interview I would not bring it up unless asked and then have the document to show he still has a job

Thanks, Gary!

This might vary from one state to another, and I'm certainly not familiar with the laws of every state. I collected unemployment benefits only one time in my life. At that time, in order to be eligible I had to be unemployed. "Unpaid vacation" did not qualify. However, having a return-to-work date did not necessarily disqualify someone either. As long as their employment was terminated when they were laid off, and they were re-hired at the end of the period of unemployment (as opposed to simply returning to work), then they qualified for the benefits. Note that this was many years ago, and it was not in California, where I currently live. The laws in California state that a person is unemployed if they are not performing any services or collecting any wages, even if they maintain the employer/employee relationship. This means that someone in California is defined as "unemployed", even if they are only taking an unpaid leave of absence, and they are eligible for benefits.

And this is where the quandary lies...

If a person is defined as "unemployed" under the laws of their state, and qualified to collect unemployment insurance benefits, can they then claim to be "employed" for the purpose of sponsoring an immigrant?

This also brings up the question of how much weight will a consular officer give to that letter with the return-to-work date. I have a few friends who received a similar letter when they were laid off this past year. Their employer subsequently decided to close the facility they were working in, and never called anyone back to work. One of my friends decided to consult with a lawyer, who essentially told him that letter indicated the intentions of his employer at the time he was laid off, but wasn't an enforceable contract. There was nothing he could do except look for another job. I guess the situation might depend very much on what that letter said, and what laws (or union agreements) the employer was bound by. I wouldn't expect a CO to be privy to any of the legal requirements (or lack thereof), and it would be up to the sponsor to convince the CO that the employment actually WILL resume on the date indicated.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Thanks, Gary!

This might vary from one state to another, and I'm certainly not familiar with the laws of every state. I collected unemployment benefits only one time in my life. At that time, in order to be eligible I had to be unemployed. "Unpaid vacation" did not qualify. However, having a return-to-work date did not necessarily disqualify someone either. As long as their employment was terminated when they were laid off, and they were re-hired at the end of the period of unemployment (as opposed to simply returning to work), then they qualified for the benefits. Note that this was many years ago, and it was not in California, where I currently live. The laws in California state that a person is unemployed if they are not performing any services or collecting any wages, even if they maintain the employer/employee relationship. This means that someone in California is defined as "unemployed", even if they are only taking an unpaid leave of absence, and they are eligible for benefits.

And this is where the quandary lies...

If a person is defined as "unemployed" under the laws of their state, and qualified to collect unemployment insurance benefits, can they then claim to be "employed" for the purpose of sponsoring an immigrant?

This also brings up the question of how much weight will a consular officer give to that letter with the return-to-work date. I have a few friends who received a similar letter when they were laid off this past year. Their employer subsequently decided to close the facility they were working in, and never called anyone back to work. One of my friends decided to consult with a lawyer, who essentially told him that letter indicated the intentions of his employer at the time he was laid off, but wasn't an enforceable contract. There was nothing he could do except look for another job. I guess the situation might depend very much on what that letter said, and what laws (or union agreements) the employer was bound by. I wouldn't expect a CO to be privy to any of the legal requirements (or lack thereof), and it would be up to the sponsor to convince the CO that the employment actually WILL resume on the date indicated.

sure, state laws can make a difference. Typically, though maybe notfor all states, if the employee has a definitive 2retrun to work date" this must be reported by the employer to the state. I would get a copy of THAT letter, from the state (you should be able to request it from the Dept. of labor, or whoever handles such things) This is an official, legal, filed document, not just a letter from the boss to the employee. Generally such a return to work date exempts the employee from searching for work during his period of not working, often called "furlough".

Though I have never collected unemployment myself, I am in the construction trade in Vermont and that means seasonal layoffs every winter. There are official forms we use to report dates of furlough and return to work dates. I am presuming since the OP has said he has a "return to work" date, then his state is similar. I have worked with many states UI rules and they are similar but I cannot comment for all 50 states.