Self-sponsorship for the I-134?

[JulianMelissa 52]

The I 134 is unenforcable

I self sponsored, just easier.

As I thought. Yes, thank you for the straightforward advice. Even more appreciated given the amount of tainted advice present.

[bakofoil 27]

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.

I think you're being a little over-defensive and over-personalising this whole discussion. I was simply outlining your fiance's beneficiary status in the case of this particular visa application. He seemed to baulk at the idea of being thought of as such and so I simply suggested a means for him to obtain a visa without being classed as a beneficiary if the terminology upset him so much.

In short though, you clearly have nothing to worry about in terms of qualifying financially with or without his self-sponsorship.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I hope you don't think my 'advice' was tainted.

I wasn't trying to discourage you from using your fiance's assets to meet the public charge requirement. I think it's great that he is financially stable enough to do this. I was only trying to clarify that "self sponsorship" doesn't really exist.

The I-134 is no longer meant to provide any legally binding guarantee (though that was originally it's purpose). It's also not the job of the consulate to get a legally binding guarantee for a non-immigrant visa. However, since the K1 visa will eventually lead to immigration, they want some assurance that the intending immigrant won't become a public charge. They want to know that, when the time comes to apply for immigrant status, there will be somebody qualified to provide that guarantee. Your new husband's income can be used at that time to help YOU qualify, which is why the embassy in London is willing to look at his assets (many consulates won't do this, by the way).

I just wanted it to be clear that you WILL be the sponsor when he adjusts status. He cannot "self sponsor", and it's misleading to use this term. What he can do is help you qualify to be his sponsor.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

I hope you don't think my 'advice' was tainted.

I wasn't trying to discourage you from using your fiance's assets to meet the public charge requirement. I think it's great that he is financially stable enough to do this. I was only trying to clarify that "self sponsorship" doesn't really exist.

The I-134 is no longer meant to provide any legally binding guarantee (though that was originally it's purpose). It's also not the job of the consulate to get a legally binding guarantee for a non-immigrant visa. However, since the K1 visa will eventually lead to immigration, they want some assurance that the intending immigrant won't become a public charge. They want to know that, when the time comes to apply for immigrant status, there will be somebody qualified to provide that guarantee. Your new husband's income can be used at that time to help YOU qualify, which is why the embassy in London is willing to look at his assets (many consulates won't do this, by the way).

I just wanted it to be clear that you WILL be the sponsor when he adjusts status. He cannot "self sponsor", and it's misleading to use this term. What he can do is help you qualify to be his sponsor.

Concur.

In my readings - London appears to allow self-sponsorship for the I-134, so with what you posted, you should be good to go. (Every embassy/consulate has their own guidelines on this, so it's best to check with them).

However, when you get to the point of the I-864, which is enforceable, you will have to provide one, with your income, to show support of the intending immigrant. As Jim has pointed out, you can use his assets (certain requirements are required for this) to meet that level. (you quite possibly can use his entire fortune to cover the amount needed).

The only way you can "waive" the I-864 is if the immigrant can show 40 qtrs of work in the US prior to the 864 being filed. (there are other classes that waive it, but I do not think you fall under any of them).

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.

Since you are "on the hook" with the 864, you can still be sued (since your the *primary sponsor*, if he uses means tested benifits (or he tries to sue you - it has happened) and the agency tries to sue (can be Federal or State or Local)- regardless if he used his assets to make the income level. That is how it is written.

(Source of the 864 from the USCIS AFM)

[Boiler 45,402]

I can not remember how I found out you could self sponsor.

I think many more people would so so if they knew.

Not much was required I was assuming it would be the same, but it was only a few thousand which I had in my current account, he was not interested in my spreadsheet.

By the time I cam to adjust status, my wife had left work and gone back to Uni so we were going to use co mingled assets. The Officer decided it was too much hassle and just used the data she had from when she was in work.

[MelissaJulian 30]

Jim and Bobby -- I definitely don't think your advice was tainted! I'm sure I speak for Julian when I say that. I understand a bit more about the I-864 now, and I really appreciate the advice. I don't think he'd be eligible for means-tested benefits anyway so that makes me feel a bit better. I know I have to be the person who does the I-864, even if it's really mostly his money we're relying on. I have a little money put aside, but after we're married I won't have an income and it's good to know we can use his assets.

[JulianMelissa 52]

Jim and Bobby -- I definitely don't think your advice was tainted! I'm sure I speak for Julian when I say that. I understand a bit more about the I-864 now, and I really appreciate the advice. I don't think he'd be eligible for means-tested benefits anyway so that makes me feel a bit better. I know I have to be the person who does the I-864, even if it's really mostly his money we're relying on. I have a little money put aside, but after we're married I won't have an income and it's good to know we can use his assets.

Yes, 'a little money,' being the operative phrase. Once we're together again we shall have to be a bit more 'British' about saving money, won't we dear?

[MelissaJulian 30]

Thanks to everyone who answered my (our?) questions about this. I guess it's slightly unusual for VJ that it's the beneficiary who is providing the main source of financial support, so I really appreciate those who took the time to be helpful. I will make sure to come back and post about how well this goes down at the interview, whenever that may be! I'm intending to be there for the interview, so I may just smuggle in an I-134 anyway, just in case.

[Nich-Nick 3,354]

I don't know if you've looked at the London embassy website, but they do discuss using the applicants own funds.

http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/visa/iv/faffidavit.html

[tetlee 0]

I realise this is an old thread, however as this is the top google result for "i-134 self sponsor" I thought I'd chime in ...

I don't know if you've looked at the London embassy website, but they do discuss using the applicants own funds.
http://london.usembassy.gov/cons_new/visa/iv/faffidavit.html

This page has disappeared now, you can still get it via the way back when machine

Here is what the page said, I guess despite disappearing it still applies

Applicants Own Funds

An applicant who expects to be able to meet the public charge provisions of the law through personal financial resources may submit to the consular officer evidence of funds or income from one or more of the following sources:

• bank statement showing present balance of applicant's account, date account was opened, the number and amount of deposits and withdrawals during the past 12 months, and the average balance during the year. If there have been recent unusually large deposits, an explanation thereof should be given;
• proof of ownership of property or real estate, in the form of a title deed or the equivalent and a letter from a lawyer, or real estate agent showing its present valuation (any mortgages or loans against the property must be stated);
• letter or letters verifying ownership of stocks and bonds, with present market value or expected earnings indicated;
• statement from insurance company showing policies held and present case surrender value;
• proof of income from business investments or other sources.

If the financial resources are derived from a source outside the United States, a statement as to how the funds or income are to be transferred to the U.S. must be provided.