Is my co-sponsor able to co-sponsor?

[Audy_Rob 26]

I think this is what you are looking for about the I-134. Without the case law cited striking down the enforceability of the I-134, I would take the following thread with a grain of salt.

Sorry, I got the VJ member's name wrong but right country for the fiancee.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/252901-how-long-are-the-obligations-for-i-134/

Good luck

Edited May 1, 2010 by Audy_Rob

[pushbrk 12,898]

Google "I-134 not legally binding" and "I-134 not legally enforceable".

The last two versions of the I-134 have the notary section removed and language changed to indicate signature under penalty of perjury.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

For those interested in the history behind the two affidavits of support, there is a nice article on the ILW website:

Origin & Evolution: Ten Years Of The Affidavit Of Support Under IIRIRA

The specific case cited in the article is San Diego County v. Viloria, 1969, though a couple of other cases are noted in footnote 4. Basically, the ruling was the I-134 was not written in the form of a contract, but more in the form of a declaration to be used by a consular officer in determining whether the applicant would become a public charge. The I-134 doesn't specifically define the contractual obligations that should be binding on the sponsor, such as the liability to reimburse the government if the applicant should collect means tested benefits. This makes the I-134 useful as a pre-screening tool in determining the likelihood of an applicant becoming a public charge without actually imposing any responsibility on the sponsor, which is why consulates still use it for certain non-immigrant visas.

The government still wanted the sponsor to be contractually bound to support an immigrant, so they spelled out the requirements for a new affidavit in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Section 551 of the act described the requirements of the affidavit, which went into effect December 19, 1997.

[Audy_Rob 26]

...This makes the I-134 useful as a pre-screening tool in determining the likelihood of an applicant becoming a public charge without actually imposing any responsibility on the sponsor, which is why consulates still use it for certain non-immigrant visas.

But what possible reason would the Embassy/Consulates have for using the I-134 when the I-864 is so readily available?

[mspain 1]

Thanks for all the replies. This is so interesting. Although it really is overcomplicating things for most people....

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

But what possible reason would the Embassy/Consulates have for using the I-134 when the I-864 is so readily available?

Because the I-864 is a binding contract. This puts the sponsor in the somewhat precarious position of being OBLIGATED to provide support for someone who is technically not an immigrant. A K1 visa holder does not become an immigrant until they arrive in the US, get married, and apply to adjust from non-immigrant status to immigrant status. Signing an I-864 for a non-immigrant would be similar to signing the loan contract before you've agreed to buy the car.

An IR1/CR1 applicant, on the other hand, is applying for immigrant status when they apply for the visa, so a binding contract is needed.

The consulates already had policies in place for making the public charge determination for a non-immigrant based on the I-134 and supporting evidence, which is probably why they decided to continue using the form.

[pushbrk 12,898]

But what possible reason would the Embassy/Consulates have for using the I-134 when the I-864 is so readily available?

As a tool. Conoffs are forbidden by law to use the I-864 for K visa cases BECAUSE it binds the sponsor prematurely.

[Audy_Rob 26]

Ben Hart wrote an article and published it on the internet. It is his opinion that the I-134 was kept as a means to phase out joint sponsorship since the I-134 has no provisions for joint sponsorship as does the I-864.

[pushbrk 12,898]

Ben Hart wrote an article and published it on the internet. It is his opinion that the I-134 was kept as a means to phase out joint sponsorship since the I-134 has no provisions for joint sponsorship as does the I-864.

Ben sounds like somebody who needs to Google, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Ben Hart wrote an article and published it on the internet. It is his opinion that the I-134 was kept as a means to phase out joint sponsorship since the I-134 has no provisions for joint sponsorship as does the I-864.

I presume he means joint sponsorship for K visas, since it has no effect on joint sponsorship for immigrant visas.

It's an interesting theory. If it were true, then it hasn't panned out that way. Many consulates still accept joint sponsors with the I-134. It's true that the I-134 doesn't specifically allow for joint sponsorship, but it also doesn't specifically forbid it. In fact, the I-134 is almost completely devoid of specifics of any kind. It's vague and ambiguous about what sort of income evidence is needed. It doesn't specify what the minimum income requirements are, or how it will be determined if the sponsor meets those requirements. It lacks the concept of "household size", and differs dramatically from the I-864 in how dependents are declared. This leaves the determination almost entirely up to the discretion of the consulate, which is actually what the law specifies for a non-immigrant visa.

If it were the goal of the Department of State to phase out joint sponsors for K visas, they could do that with a policy memorandum. The law gives them that discretion.

[Audy_Rob 26]

I presume he means joint sponsorship for K visas, since it has no effect on joint sponsorship for immigrant visas.

It's an interesting theory. If it were true, then it hasn't panned out that way. Many consulates still accept joint sponsors with the I-134. It's true that the I-134 doesn't specifically allow for joint sponsorship, but it also doesn't specifically forbid it. In fact, the I-134 is almost completely devoid of specifics of any kind. It's vague and ambiguous about what sort of income evidence is needed. It doesn't specify what the minimum income requirements are, or how it will be determined if the sponsor meets those requirements. It lacks the concept of "household size", and differs dramatically from the I-864 in how dependents are declared. This leaves the determination almost entirely up to the discretion of the consulate, which is actually what the law specifies for a non-immigrant visa.

If it were the goal of the Department of State to phase out joint sponsors for K visas, they could do that with a policy memorandum. The law gives them that discretion.

I agree wholeheartedly about the many failings, differences and unspecified matters from the I-134. It does not specify how to calculate household size and people apply their own definitions which suit their argument for the moment. It does not specify how assets should be applied as a level of income or even if they can apply assets.

I had first read a sentiment that pervaded this web site that the K-1 visa does not allow a joint sponsor. Now I see an entirely opposite atmosphere where everyone assumes the K-1 allows joint sponsorship, furthermore embassies, Argentina and Bangladesh have asked members to go back and find joint sponsors rather than deny.