How do you stop the K-1 Visa processing?

[Isaac and Hilda 0]

You have already waited for 3 months. You don't wanna start afresh because the K3 takes almost the same time. I suggest you hung in there. You two will be together soon!!!

[Fandango 1,439]

Here's the deal: K-3 CR1 still requires time apart AND a sponsor. Sounds like your fiancee needs to convince someone in her family to petition you, or contemplate moving to you. Expecting any other route to circumvent the wait and financial reqs is pointless. Also, even asking this site for a co sponsor is too ludicrous for words.

Good luck, though.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[Darnell 8,478]

#######? If someone here would be willing to step forward and help us out that would be great.

[Fandango 1,439]

#######? If someone here would be willing to step forward and help us out that would be great.

I'm sure it would, wouldn't it?

[reeses16 8]

I'm a little confused as to who is asking, Schmoopy or SuicideBlonde (non USC & US of the same couple???).

Anyway, Darnell is correct its about DOCUMENTATION. I'm sure there is a way to document SSDI income and any taxes that were paid. I don't know the rules about SSDI, but I'm sure you can visit the www.irs.gov and print out a brief statement on whether this income is taxable. If it is include the tax transcripts, if its not, include the monthly deposits or check stubs.

Is it also a concern that the SSDI is less than the amount you need to meet 125% of the poverty guideline? If so, you can show assets 3 times the amount of the income shortfall to satisfy the I-864 (Read the instructions, paying close attention to Part 7, points 26-29). For example, if the SSDI/year was $1000 short of the 125% poverty mark, you would only have to show a minimum of $3000 in assets (property, cash, stocks, etc). I'm not sure if your embassy requires both the I-134& I-864, but even if it does not I would include this form with a brief note stating that the I-864 allows for a more complete picture of your financial situation, and if your K1 is approved you will have to complete a I-864 in order to complete AOS and the I-864 will superceed the I-134. You have to make the best case you can for your petition within your circumstances.

It's better to continue with the K1, you're closer to finishing that process than would be if you started the CR-1. You can cancel the K1, but you won't get your money back...so all you'll really have is a longer, more expensive wait. The I-134 and I-864 will still play a role in whether or not a visa is issued. Your income problem is not solved by changing visa types.

Edited July 20, 2010 by reeses16

[newlyweds2010 208]

Additionally, how would she come into the US? as a tourist under the VWP? and then you two get married and she stays and adjusts status? that would be immigration fraud, and the USCIS officer at the interview will totally bbq you, especially if he gets to see that you already sent a petition for a K1 visa and later you cancelled it.

or you first get married, then she goes back to Europe and then you file for CR-1? still, there would be the problem of coming here in the meantime, bc if it's true that you can travel while the petition is pending, it's completely up to the IO to let her in.

ah, in any case you'd need a sponsor to adjust status if your income is lower than the poverty guidelines no matter what visa you choose.

since you have invested time and money in this already, I'd suggest to follow the K1 path, you'll be approved soon.

best of luck.

[SuicideBlonde 0]

Hi,

Yes, schmoopy is my fiancee. She is the U.S. petitioner. I am in Dublin, Ireland. We already checked with the Dublin embassy earlier this year and they said that I-134 self-sponsorship is completely out of their hands and up to the Department of State. They emphasized the importance of having a sponsor in our particular case. We already fleshed out the income requirements for us in the following thread and established that we would need $22850 (125% of the guidelines minus her SSDI times 3) for the K-1, if self-sponsorship would be allowed. The amount would be the same for the K-3 according to people in that thread so we would be good either way. I will check on K-3 specifics today just to be on the safe side. We don't know anyone in the U.S. who would be willing to sponsor, so that option is out. Don't worry about my outrageous question in that regard as it was mainly meant to elicit a response and consequently a discussion (although it would certainly be nice to have a saviour step up and save the day for us ), which it did. Many thanks for your replies.

@Tater&#######: why do you write "Point short, you'd be denied regardless if that's your real concern. If your real concern is time and you just want to be together than stay on the path you're on. It's the best one."

How would we be denied with a K-3?

[Moonandstar 6]

Hi,

Yes, schmoopy is my fiancee. She is the U.S. petitioner. I am in Dublin, Ireland. We already checked with the Dublin embassy earlier this year and they said that I-134 self-sponsorship is completely out of their hands and up to the Department of State. They emphasized the importance of having a sponsor in our particular case. We already fleshed out the income requirements for us in the following thread and established that we would need $22850 (125% of the guidelines minus her SSDI times 3) for the K-1, if self-sponsorship would be allowed. The amount would be the same for the K-3 according to people in that thread so we would be good either way. I will check on K-3 specifics today just to be on the safe side. We don't know anyone in the U.S. who would be willing to sponsor, so that option is out. Don't worry about my outrageous question in that regard as it was mainly meant to elicit a response and consequently a discussion (although it would certainly be nice to have a saviour step up and save the day for us ), which it did. Many thanks for your replies.

@Tater&#######: why do you write "Point short, you'd be denied regardless if that's your real concern. If your real concern is time and you just want to be together than stay on the path you're on. It's the best one."

How would we be denied with a K-3?

I think he meant that if you did have financial problems (lets be clear, you CANNOT SELF-SPONSOR under any circumstances- It must be a USC that sponsors you) you would be denied for that reason regardless of which visa path you took. The requirements are the same for all visas.

And for the record, do NOT do K-3. From the posts ive seen from you two you guys still have ALOT of research left to be done, so get studying, and study hard. Read the same stuff not once, not twice, but at least 3 TIMES, if not more. For me i often found stuff i missed the 1st/2nd times around.

Besides, last i heard the K-3 was being phased out- i bet you heard K-3 is faster than CR-1 eh? WRONG, that information is old. Now Cr-1s are making it out FASTER (not to mention ALOT cheaper/easier) than K-3s, so it may or may not even be an option anymore. A person in their right mind WILL want to go CR-1, rather than K-3.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Moonandstar

[Carol and Bruno 0]

I think he meant that if you did have financial problems (lets be clear, you CANNOT SELF-SPONSOR under any circumstances- It must be a USC that sponsors you) you would be denied for that reason regardless of which visa path you took. The requirements are the same for all visas.

And for the record, do NOT do K-3. From the posts ive seen from you two you guys still have ALOT of research left to be done, so get studying, and study hard. Read the same stuff not once, not twice, but at least 3 TIMES, if not more. For me i often found stuff i missed the 1st/2nd times around.

Besides, last i heard the K-3 was being phased out- i bet you heard K-3 is faster than CR-1 eh? WRONG, that information is old. Now Cr-1s are making it out FASTER (not to mention ALOT cheaper/easier) than K-3s, so it may or may not even be an option anymore. A person in their right mind WILL want to go CR-1, rather than K-3.

Since only the USC can self-sponsor, is it an option to have the $28K transferred to her bank account for the purpose of sponsoring him?

[lesleysizeland 0]

Hi,

Yes, schmoopy is my fiancee. She is the U.S. petitioner. I am in Dublin, Ireland. We already checked with the Dublin embassy earlier this year and they said that I-134 self-sponsorship is completely out of their hands and up to the Department of State. They emphasized the importance of having a sponsor in our particular case. We already fleshed out the income requirements for us in the following thread and established that we would need $22850 (125% of the guidelines minus her SSDI times 3) for the K-1, if self-sponsorship would be allowed. The amount would be the same for the K-3 according to people in that thread so we would be good either way. I will check on K-3 specifics today just to be on the safe side. We don't know anyone in the U.S. who would be willing to sponsor, so that option is out. Don't worry about my outrageous question in that regard as it was mainly meant to elicit a response and consequently a discussion (although it would certainly be nice to have a saviour step up and save the day for us ), which it did. Many thanks for your replies.

@Tater&#######: why do you write "Point short, you'd be denied regardless if that's your real concern. If your real concern is time and you just want to be together than stay on the path you're on. It's the best one."

How would we be denied with a K-3?

If you get caught out coming to the States and then marrying you are committing fraud, if you do get caught out you will screw up all of your chances of getting a visa anyway. You could be denied the K3 on the money ground too, i know someone who went the K3 route and her (US Husband) was a student so his father had to co-sponsor. The option of moving your money to her account would be a good idea. What about drawing up a contract and putting her name on your condo but ensuring if you split up she cannot reap any benefit from the sale etc? No sure if you can do that but you could look into it.

I think you guys really need to read over everything a lot more. I saw a post by schmoopy stating she didnt want to marry you, she couldn't trust you etc etc etc, i think you guys have to work out everything together and maybe not post things like that on here, it makes your relationship look unreal (just my opinion). Dont get me wrong, this process brings out the worst in people, do you know how many times i thought 'i cant do this anymore' a 2 year long distance relationship is depressing but my fiance is everything to me and any problems we did have i did not post all over VJ!

[SuicideBlonde 0]

Since only the USC can self-sponsor, is it an option to have the $28K transferred to her bank account for the purpose of sponsoring him?

@Carol and Bruno: that was the general plan back when I opened this thread: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/252648-federal-poverty-guidelines/. However, it was seriously advised against as putting three times her annual income into her account would raise a red flag with USCIS. Even if that assertion would be wrong, it would be pointless to move the money into her account now as the money needs be "seasoned", i.e. it needs to have been in the same account for at least 6 months before it can be used towards the I-134. In that regard the long delay towards NOA2 is a blessing as the money did not get into my U.S. bank account until March. Given that everyone says to stick with the K-1 we should probably do just that. We will investigate the CR-1 option though. Someone here pointed out that we should be able to use my personal assets towards the K-1, given that it is all in the U.S. (I've owned the house for 3 years now). It's unfortunate that this is such a grey area. It would make sense, to me at least, to allow the petitioner and the beneficiary to prove that their combined income would ensure that neither of them are at risk of becoming a burden to the State. Bureaucracy should not stand in the way of the heart.

[MRStee 19]

I mean no harm by my post but here it is:

You have been given alot of sound advice here and it seems like you are still hell bent on doing a K-3 even though members have told you that it has been phased out and to continue on the K-1 path. You are in such a rush to do things, but you need to understand that nothing with the government comes fast or easy.

Personally, I would rather take the time to read the guides, do some investigating, listen to other members here and find out what is what. If you don't make sound decisions you may wind up banning yourself from the USA and then where will that leave you? Instead of typing response after response, re-read what others have said. We are here to help but if you don't want to listen, then a bad judgement call may wind up seperating you two for a lifetime.

Again, just an opinion.. best of luck on whatever you decide.

Edited July 20, 2010 by MRStee

[MRStee 19]

@Carol and Bruno: that was the general plan back when I opened this thread: http://www.visajourn...rty-guidelines/. However, it was seriously advised against as putting three times her annual income into her account would raise a red flag with USCIS. Even if that assertion would be wrong, it would be pointless to move the money into her account now as the money needs be "seasoned", i.e. it needs to have been in the same account for at least 6 months before it can be used towards the I-134. In that regard the long delay towards NOA2 is a blessing as the money did not get into my U.S. bank account until March. Given that everyone says to stick with the K-1 we should probably do just that. We will investigate the CR-1 option though. Someone here pointed out that we should be able to use my personal assets towards the K-1, given that it is all in the U.S. (I've owned the house for 3 years now). It's unfortunate that this is such a grey area. It would make sense, to me at least, to allow the petitioner and the beneficiary to prove that their combined income would ensure that neither of them are at risk of becoming a burden to the State. Bureaucracy should not stand in the way of the heart.

It shouldn't but in this game called life and dealing with the government it does at times. It's up to us to decide to play by their "rules" or we get nothing....

[Terry Martin 1]

Yeah, I agree with Ryna and Tater. Just wait it out - you've already invested this much time and you're just going to create more headache and waiting for yourself by going through the process to cancel it and then starting from scratch.

[New Beginnings 32]

@Carol and Bruno: that was the general plan back when I opened this thread: http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/252648-federal-poverty-guidelines/. However, it was seriously advised against as putting three times her annual income into her account would raise a red flag with USCIS. Even if that assertion would be wrong, it would be pointless to move the money into her account now as the money needs be "seasoned", i.e. it needs to have been in the same account for at least 6 months before it can be used towards the I-134. In that regard the long delay towards NOA2 is a blessing as the money did not get into my U.S. bank account until March. Given that everyone says to stick with the K-1 we should probably do just that. We will investigate the CR-1 option though. Someone here pointed out that we should be able to use my personal assets towards the K-1, given that it is all in the U.S. (I've owned the house for 3 years now). It's unfortunate that this is such a grey area. It would make sense, to me at least, to allow the petitioner and the beneficiary to prove that their combined income would ensure that neither of them are at risk of becoming a burden to the State. Bureaucracy should not stand in the way of the heart.

Yes it should when taxpayers could wind up having to pay for your heart. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I don't think it's a good idea when someone can barely support themselves to then bring another person who will be dependent on their income for at least a few months. I hope everyone here who needs a co-sponsor is able to find one willing to help out. But I don't want my tax dollars to become the co-sponsor for people who weren't financially able to support themselves.