Self-sponsorship for the I-134?

[MelissaJulian 30]

Not sure if this is the right forum for this -- hopefully someone will come along and move it if it is.

I think I read on VJ that sometimes K1 people can self-sponsor -- is this true? It's not that I can't sponsor my fiance -- I make more than 125% of the poverty line for two people -- but he seems eager to take the burden on himself. What's the minimum to do this? Would 100k be enough? Would this look bad when we did AOS? My only worry is that it would look like he's buying his way into America, or that I don't care enough to merge our financial lives, and that it could cause problems during AOS.

If there's anyone out there who has done self-sponsorship through London I would love to hear about it!

[Bernie C 24]

Below is a link to another topic from last August discussing this and London. Hope it works!

If not, just type in self sponsership in the search field and you will see some from the search list that comes up.

My link

[MelissaJulian 30]

Thanks Bernie -- that was SO helpful! If what that thread says is right, he should have enough with 100k.

[bakofoil 27]

If you can sponsor him and have all the check boxes ticked the way USCIS and the embassy like them to be, then why wouldn't you?

Seems to me that you are creating a complication where there isn't one by having him self-sponsor. It is the 21st century and it's ok for a woman to be able to support a man, unless he just likes to wave his significant wad around of course.

edit: sorry, I got stuck in the wrong century.

Edited May 3, 2010 by bakofoil

[MelissaJulian 30]

I don't have a problem with sponsoring him at all and I agree that it's fine for the woman to be the breadwinner. He is pretty set on being the one who will provide the financial support, before and after the process. I suppose I can do an I-134 for him to bring with him to the interview just in case they don't accept his self-sponsorship. He's already spoken to his solicitors about how to release funds from his trust for this so that he will have access to liquid assets. I'll try to convince him to take my I-134 too.

[JulianMelissa 52]

Speaking as the, ahem, 'beneficiary' here, I think this is a bit more than just ticking boxes to make the embassy bureaucrats happy. As my better half says, I feel it necessary to bring my support to bear both during and after this process, call me old fashioned. If this means a bit more complication then I'm happy to incur it. Since money should not be an obstacle in our (my) case, self-sponsorship seems a reasonable course.

[bakofoil 27]

Ahh, but there is no 'ahem' about this. You may well have the funds to self-sponsor through London, but like it or not, you ARE the beneficiary of this visa application and your eligibility for K1 is contingent on having your USC fiancee to petition for you in the first place.

If being a beneficiary of your fiancee upsets your sensibilities so much, why not use your financial independence to pursue an investment route to a US visa?

[JulianMelissa 52]

Yes I see your point. I suppose 'investment' would be a good alternative were it not for the fact that there's just so very little worth investing in the US these days, isn't there? Furthermore, if I understand self-sponsorship correctly, it seems like they have 'beneficiary' the wrong way 'round in this case.

[bakofoil 27]

Furthermore, if I understand self-sponsorship correctly, it seems like they have 'beneficiary' the wrong way 'round in this case.

Not really, since your self-sponsorship is not required. Your petitioner already qualifies as your financial sponsor.

[JulianMelissa 52]

The distinction seems important to you...are you the American half of your relationship?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Self-sponsorship is a misnomer. The US citizen petitioner will be the sponsor, even if the beneficiary/immigrant is paying all of the bills. The US Embassy in London will allow a K1 or K3 beneficiary to provide their own financial evidence as assurance they won't become a public charge in the US. When they apply for AOS, the income of the immigrant can be used to help the sponsor qualify (under certain conditions), but the US citizen will still be the primary sponsor.

I think the OP's fiance is looking for a way to avoid putting his future wife on the hook for his support. I think that's commendable, but I don't think it's possible. The US citizen who filed the petition will always be the primary sponsor.

[bakofoil 27]

The distinction seems important to you...are you the American half of your relationship?

The distinction is important because your fiancee has to submit an affidavit of support regardless of whether she qualifies to support you or not. In your particular case, while the embassy officials may commend you for your commitment to take care of your USC partner, there is no benefit to providing an affadivit of self-support as they will still deem your financial status superfluous to requirements.

In a similar way, if you like, to you not feeling any benefit in investing in the US economy.

[MelissaJulian 30]

I understand that I will have to "be there" for the I-864, but surely we can just have him self-sponsor for the I-134? I feel more comfortable knowing that he has his money to fall back on should anything go wrong between us once he's here. Or am I just getting confused? I *think* I understand about how I'm "on the hook" with the I-864 in a way I'm not with the I-134. But surely if something DID go wrong, wouldn't it show USCIS that he didn't need my money and shouldn't be allowed to sue me for support if we relied on his money in the first place? Not that I think something will go wrong, and it's not like he needs my money anyway.

bakofoil -- I don't understand why you seem to have an issue with my fiance being old-fashioned with money, and why you said he should just get an investors' visa. He loves me very much -- that is why we are going for the fiance visa. He wants to come here to marry me and coming to America is just a side effect of wanting to be with me. If I lived in Peru he would go to Peru. If I lived in Zurich he would go there. I believe a woman's place is wherever she wants to be, whether the home or the boardroom. For me, I am choosing a more traditional path. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. I consider myself to be a feminist, and in my definition of feminism housewife is a perfectly respectable life path.

[Boiler 45,486]

The I 134 is unenforcable

I self sponsored, just easier.

[MelissaJulian 30]

Thanks, boiler. I appreciate hearing unopinionated advice on this, especially from someone who has done it themselves. I think we are going to go ahead with the self-sponsorship for the I-134. I had no idea people would have such strong opinions about it.