affidavit of support (I-134)

[snickers450 2]

hey guys good day to everyone..i just have a quick question for you guys..i know that you guys can help me..ok, here it is..first, do i need to have the affidavit of support notarized (I-134)..second, does my fiancee needs to pay for her application first before having her medical screening done?..or vice versa..pls help guys..we are on these very confusing/crucial..im hoping you guys can help..thanks a lot and god speed..

[OutbackJack 0]

Your I-134, as per the instructions attached does not required a notary. It notes, Signing I-134 is under penalty of perjury, and therefore does not require a notary and your signature to be notarized. However, a notary can be cheap or free from a bank or city hall. That isn't to say it's required per the instructions. Hopefully someone is more knowledgeable on the medical screening to provide an answer, hope that helps all the best

[payxibka 10,047]

moving to:

US Embassy and Consulate Discussion

This is the place to post your experiences or questions related to this last step before moving to the US. Topics relating to I-134's, packets sent from consulate and medical & police certificates should be posted here.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The I-134 does not need to be notarized.

A previous poster provided a link to the 'official' I-134 instructions. For the most, you should ignore those instructions. They were produced by USCIS, and are a vestige of an era when USCIS used the I-134 as their primary affidavit of support. USCIS rarely uses the I-134 anymore, but US consulates still use it for certain types of non-immigrant visas, including K1's. Each consulate can establish it's own requirements for the I-134, and those requirements often differ dramatically from the requirements in the USCIS instructions for the form. The form itself is self-explanatory, and no instructions are required. The consulate will tell you what additional documents or evidence they expect with the form. You should provide what the consulate requires, and not what the USCIS instructions indicate.

I don't know the specific procedures in Manila, but my wife didn't need to pay the visa fee before completing the medical. She just needed a copy of the interview appointment letter, and paid the medical fees.

[ryanrec 0]

The I-134 does not need to be notarized.

A previous poster provided a link to the 'official' I-134 instructions. For the most, you should ignore those instructions. They were produced by USCIS, and are a vestige of an era when USCIS used the I-134 as their primary affidavit of support. USCIS rarely uses the I-134 anymore, but US consulates still use it for certain types of non-immigrant visas, including K1's. Each consulate can establish it's own requirements for the I-134, and those requirements often differ dramatically from the requirements in the USCIS instructions for the form. The form itself is self-explanatory, and no instructions are required. The consulate will tell you what additional documents or evidence they expect with the form. You should provide what the consulate requires, and not what the USCIS instructions indicate.

I don't know the specific procedures in Manila, but my wife didn't need to pay the visa fee before completing the medical. She just needed a copy of the interview appointment letter, and paid the medical fees.

So according to you, the consulate can do whatever they want and go against Laws such as Section 212(a)(4) of the INA? Some consulate could make the requirements 1000% or 10000% of the poverty line. Or did I mis read your statment?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

So according to you, the consulate can do whatever they want and go against Laws such as Section 212(a)(4) of the INA? Some consulate could make the requirements 1000% or 10000% of the poverty line. Or did I mis read your statment?

Absolutely. 212(a)(4)(B)(2) cites section 213A. The I-134 does not meet the requirements of section 213A. Nowhere on the form does it describe the contractual obligations of the sponsor, nor the income thresholds they have to meet, as required in INA 213A. This is why the I-134 has repeatedly been held unenforceable in court, and why the INA was revised in 1996 to include section 213A. The I-864 is the only affidavit currently in use by USCIS that meets the requirements of 213A.

The consular officer does apply INA 212(a)(4), but they do not apply INA 212(a)(4)(B)(2) when asking a K1 sponsor to submit an I-134. This means the consulate has all of the discretion implied by 212(a)(4)(A) - "in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa".

DoS policy specifically disallows a consular officer from asking for an I-864 for a K visa. See FAM 40.41 N11.7, page 37:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

A few consulates have recently decided that this section of the Foreign Affairs Manual doesn't apply to co-sponsors in a K-1 visa case, and have been requiring I-864's for co-sponsors. However, the majority follow the FAM and require an I-134. Nowhere on the I-134 does it state what the income requirements are for an eligible sponsor.

Anyway, a consular officer can deny a visa but he cannot revoke the approval of a petition - only USCIS can do that. The only thing a consular officer can do is return a petition to USCIS with the recommendation that the approval be revoked. If he actually denied a visa after attempting to subject the sponsor to an income threshold requirement of 1000% of the poverty guidelines then there is no way that USCIS would concur, and revoke the approval of the petition. Consular officers follow the guidance in the FAM, and the policies established by the consulate. Most follow the guidelines for the I-864.

So, could a consular officer require 1000% of the poverty guidelines? Yes. Would they? No way.

[ryanrec 0]

Absolutely. 212(a)(4)(B)(2) cites section 213A. The I-134 does not meet the requirements of section 213A. Nowhere on the form does it describe the contractual obligations of the sponsor, nor the income thresholds they have to meet, as required in INA 213A. This is why the I-134 has repeatedly been held unenforceable in court, and why the INA was revised in 1996 to include section 213A. The I-864 is the only affidavit currently in use by USCIS that meets the requirements of 213A.

The consular officer does apply INA 212(a)(4), but they do not apply INA 212(a)(4)(B)(2) when asking a K1 sponsor to submit an I-134. This means the consulate has all of the discretion implied by 212(a)(4)(A) - "in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa".

DoS policy specifically disallows a consular officer from asking for an I-864 for a K visa. See FAM 40.41 N11.7, page 37:

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

A few consulates have recently decided that this section of the Foreign Affairs Manual doesn't apply to co-sponsors in a K-1 visa case, and have been requiring I-864's for co-sponsors. However, the majority follow the FAM and require an I-134. Nowhere on the I-134 does it state what the income requirements are for an eligible sponsor.

Anyway, a consular officer can deny a visa but he cannot revoke the approval of a petition - only USCIS can do that. The only thing a consular officer can do is return a petition to USCIS with the recommendation that the approval be revoked. If he actually denied a visa after attempting to subject the sponsor to an income threshold requirement of 1000% of the poverty guidelines then there is no way that USCIS would concur, and revoke the approval of the petition. Consular officers follow the guidance in the FAM, and the policies established by the consulate. Most follow the guidelines for the I-864.

So, could a consular officer require 1000% of the poverty guidelines? Yes. Would they? No way.

Wow Interesting! The State Department's website quotes the following: Should K-1 fiancé(e) visa applicants use the I-864 or the I-134?

Since fiancé(e)s are nonimmigrant visa applicants, they should use the I-134. They will need to submit an I-864 to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) when they adjust status to conditional immigrant in the United States after they are married.

Do the same income requirements apply to all immigrant visa applicants even if they use the I-134?

No. The 125 percent minimum income requirement, the most recent year's tax return and other requirements only apply when an I-864 is needed. Applicants using the I-134 will need to show that their sponsor's income is 100 percent of federal poverty guidelines as required under Section 212(a)(4) of the INA.

This is from http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_2994.html

You seem to be a subject matter expert. Do you know how assets play into the decision? Is there a formula they use for assets? Thanks again!

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Wow Interesting! The State Department's website quotes the following: Should K-1 fiancé(e) visa applicants use the I-864 or the I-134?

Since fiancé(e)s are nonimmigrant visa applicants, they should use the I-134. They will need to submit an I-864 to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) when they adjust status to conditional immigrant in the United States after they are married.

Do the same income requirements apply to all immigrant visa applicants even if they use the I-134?

No. The 125 percent minimum income requirement, the most recent year's tax return and other requirements only apply when an I-864 is needed. Applicants using the I-134 will need to show that their sponsor's income is 100 percent of federal poverty guidelines as required under Section 212(a)(4) of the INA.

This is from http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_2994.html

You seem to be a subject matter expert. Do you know how assets play into the decision? Is there a formula they use for assets? Thanks again!

For what it's worth, the general guidance on the State Department's travel site (which you provided a link to) is not followed at most consulates. Most use the 125% threshold. This makes sense, if you think about it. Why would they allow someone to come to the US on a K visa with a sponsor who was above the 100% threshold and below the 125% threshold, knowing full well they won't be qualified to sponsor their new spouse for adjustment of status after they are married? The FAM specifically points out that the sponsor is going to have to submit an I-864 with the AOS petition.

Since the consulate has discretion, they can apply whatever standard they like, but most are simply looking for some assurance that the beneficiary has a well qualified sponsor, and that the sponsor will be available to sign a legally binding affidavit of support when it's time to adjust status. They can't apply the exact same standards with the I-134 as they would with an I-864 because it just isn't possible. For example, an I-864 allows for sponsors to combine income if they are relatives living in the same household. The I-864A is provided for this. There is no corresponding I-134A, so consulates can't really consider combining income from multiple sponsors. In general, though, they tend to apply the same standards as the I-864 when possible.

The I-864 standard for assets is that they are valued at a 3:1 ratio for someone sponsoring their spouse or minor child, and 5:1 for everyone else. The petitioner of a K1 visa is usually considered a spouse for the purpose of valuing assets. For example, if the petitioner is $4000 short on qualifying income, and intends to use assets to qualify, they would need $12000 in assets. This is described in part 7, section 29 of the I-864 instructions.

[ryanrec 0]

For what it's worth, the general guidance on the State Department's travel site (which you provided a link to) is not followed at most consulates. Most use the 125% threshold. This makes sense, if you think about it. Why would they allow someone to come to the US on a K visa with a sponsor who was above the 100% threshold and below the 125% threshold, knowing full well they won't be qualified to sponsor their new spouse for adjustment of status after they are married? The FAM specifically points out that the sponsor is going to have to submit an I-864 with the AOS petition.

Since the consulate has discretion, they can apply whatever standard they like, but most are simply looking for some assurance that the beneficiary has a well qualified sponsor, and that the sponsor will be available to sign a legally binding affidavit of support when it's time to adjust status. They can't apply the exact same standards with the I-134 as they would with an I-864 because it just isn't possible. For example, an I-864 allows for sponsors to combine income if they are relatives living in the same household. The I-864A is provided for this. There is no corresponding I-134A, so consulates can't really consider combining income from multiple sponsors. In general, though, they tend to apply the same standards as the I-864 when possible.

The I-864 standard for assets is that they are valued at a 3:1 ratio for someone sponsoring their spouse or minor child, and 5:1 for everyone else. The petitioner of a K1 visa is usually considered a spouse for the purpose of valuing assets. For example, if the petitioner is $4000 short on qualifying income, and intends to use assets to qualify, they would need $12000 in assets. This is described in part 7, section 29 of the I-864 instructions.

Thanks for the info. The State Department website should reflect that each Consulate has discretion on what was percentage they would use for income/assets.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Thanks for the info. The State Department website should reflect that each Consulate has discretion on what was percentage they would use for income/assets.

Yep, they should. While they're at it, they should tell K1 visa applicants that the consequences of not adequately convincing a consular officer that they have a legitimate relationship is a potential lifetime ban from the US for fraud.

Seriously, while they do have discretion, they aren't going to be completely fabricating arbitrary income thresholds that sponsors have to meet. As I said, they can't revoke the approval of the petition - only USCIS can do that. As long as there's a valid petition, the alien remains potentially eligible for a visa. If they're going to use 212(a)(4) as a basis for denial then they need to be reasonably certain it will pass muster with USCIS. Otherwise, they're going to be seeing the beneficiary again after USCIS reaffirms the petition. I doubt the consulate enjoys playing ping pong with an approved petition. This is why they will usually apply the same income standards that USCIS uses for the I-864. They just don't apply them in the same way.

For example, they could refuse to accept evidence of current income, and deny based on the previous year's tax return alone. Some consulates will refuse to accept a co-sponsor for a K visa, or (in the case of Manila) apply arbitrary rules for whom they will accept as a co-sponsor. This is where the consular officer is exercising their discretion. The petitioner doesn't clearly qualify on their own, and the CO isn't particularly interested in accepting additional evidence that would help them qualify by the skin of their teeth. This sort of harsh discretion is generally more common at high fraud consulates.

[ryanrec 0]

Yep, they should. While they're at it, they should tell K1 visa applicants that the consequences of not adequately convincing a consular officer that they have a legitimate relationship is a potential lifetime ban from the US for fraud.

Seriously, while they do have discretion, they aren't going to be completely fabricating arbitrary income thresholds that sponsors have to meet. As I said, they can't revoke the approval of the petition - only USCIS can do that. As long as there's a valid petition, the alien remains potentially eligible for a visa. If they're going to use 212(a)(4) as a basis for denial then they need to be reasonably certain it will pass muster with USCIS. Otherwise, they're going to be seeing the beneficiary again after USCIS reaffirms the petition. I doubt the consulate enjoys playing ping pong with an approved petition. This is why they will usually apply the same income standards that USCIS uses for the I-864. They just don't apply them in the same way.

For example, they could refuse to accept evidence of current income, and deny based on the previous year's tax return alone. Some consulates will refuse to accept a co-sponsor for a K visa, or (in the case of Manila) apply arbitrary rules for whom they will accept as a co-sponsor. This is where the consular officer is exercising their discretion. The petitioner doesn't clearly qualify on their own, and the CO isn't particularly interested in accepting additional evidence that would help them qualify by the skin of their teeth. This sort of harsh discretion is generally more common at high fraud consulates.

I read throught the FAM sections that you sent me. I also read through the I-864 instructions. The I-864 looks straightforward to me. If your last years tax return is at least the 125% threshold, then you are good to go at that point. If not, you can submit three years tax returns and/or asset statements/records.

We should be fine because even though I don't work right now my income exceeds the 125 % with dividend income and VA disability. I sent my Fiancee by FEDEX about 40 pages of supporting financial documents to include three year tax returns, my deed on the house since it is mortgage free, my investment and bank statements. Hopefully the CO will just look at the I-134 and the last years tax return. I am sure he will ask my Fiancee about my employment status and how I am able to not work and earn income.

Thanks again

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I read throught the FAM sections that you sent me. I also read through the I-864 instructions. The I-864 looks straightforward to me. If your last years tax return is at least the 125% threshold, then you are good to go at that point. If not, you can submit three years tax returns and/or asset statements/records.

Yep. The income requirements are clearly spelled out, as are your options for qualifying if your income is not sufficient, as well as your options for joining sponsors. The contract portion of the form is straightforward, easy to understand, and legally binding, as required by INA 213A.

We should be fine because even though I don't work right now my income exceeds the 125 % with dividend income and VA disability. I sent my Fiancee by FEDEX about 40 pages of supporting financial documents to include three year tax returns, my deed on the house since it is mortgage free, my investment and bank statements. Hopefully the CO will just look at the I-134 and the last years tax return. I am sure he will ask my Fiancee about my employment status and how I am able to not work and earn income.

Thanks again

Yep, it sounds like you're fine.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Hey guys...thanks for the interesting discussion. Bookmarked!