I-134 Affidavit of Support

[moleary 2]

Here's some more reading on this issue.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs461/

I really have no dog in this fight, as we are beyond that stage. I can just offer two things...first Ciudad Juarez took my I-134, and nothing else - no supporting documentation, of which I had everything. They asked for the form only. That was last month. But, it is true that their instructions only say that the USC must provide proof of solvency.

The second thing I would offer is that none of the links to threads or off-site PDFs are relevant to the current revision. The most recent reference (2007) cited is a year older than the previous I-134 revision (Oct '08), with the most recent revision being May '10. I'm thinking I read somewhere that with the previous revision the I-134 did become legally binding.

I'm really only interested in what's true, so I just hope that what I had to offer here helped. What happened at CDJ doesn't count as true or not true. It's just what happened

[Mandy & Kevin 0]

Wow, looks like I missed agood discussion on my Affidavit of Support, Now here is my take on it after a great response.

First, the two biggest idiots in the world can make a binding contract by each one signing an agreement. That means nothing in a Court of Law, that's why the Court ssystem is full. The I-134, is not even required to be Notarized.

I find it hard to believe that after a Marriage, which is a written contract, and the wife decides to go for a Divorce and it is granted, Divorce is another written contract which cancels all legal obligations between the two, except for property and depending on what state you live in Alimony. It would seem to be after a seperation of ties at that degree, you or your co-sponsor have any legal responsiblity for the beneficiary. Why?? She is a resident.

If the split happens before residency, and I may be wrong here, she faces deportation. She walked away from the marriage, that alone I woild think breaks the contract right there.

Lastly, and yes I have read read ALL the forms with an OPEN mind, and the I-134 does say she must meet the requirements by being "Means Tested" to become a Public charge. We are talking 3 main categories here, not 15 or 20. SSI, very unlikey she is disabled and able to prove it, a 2-3 year process while paying an attorney. 2nd TANF, she will not qualify for this unles she is in bad fiancial shape and she MUST have at least one kid. Lastly, Food Stamps, again you have have to meet the requirements, you can't walk in and just ask, and when you say what your previous household income was, but you aksed for a Divorce,That is a red flag. You better go in there with some very bad tax records and bank statements among more.

This issue got danced around a lot, it was not about whether I could support her, my co-sponsor is not worried about that. She is wondering, if there are ither circunstances involved, sucy as , would a co-sponsor be liable for providing a place to live for the beneficiary under any circunstance.

Again, on that binding agreement, I go with Johnny. .It's nothing but a Red Tape Guideling, there are millions of mexicans here illeagaly and you don't see the Feds coming after them in Riot gear...

Rose n' Kevin

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That person was obviously wrong too. Can you not even READ the form itself?

"4. This affidavit is made by me for the purpose of assuring the U.S. Government that the person(s) named in item (3) will not become a public charge in the United States.

5. I am willing an dable to receive, maintain, and support the person(s) named in item 3. I am ready and willing to deposit a bond, if necessary, to guarantee that such person(s) will not become a public charge during his or her stay in the United States, or to guarantee that the above named person(s) will maintain his or her nonimmigrant status, if admitted temporarily, and will depoart prior to the expiration of his or her authorized stay in the United States.

6. I understand that:

a. Form I-134 is an "undertaking' under section 213 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and I may be sused if the person named in item 3 becomes a public charge after admission to the United States; and

b. Form I-134 may be made available to any Federal, State of local agency that may receive an application from the person named in item 3 for Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families;

c. If the person in item 3 does apply for Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, my own income and assetrs may be considered in deciding the person's application. How long my income and assets may be attributed to the person named in item 3 is determined under the statutes and rules governing each specific program."

At the signature portion:

"I acknowledge that I have read "Sponsor and Alien Liability" on Page 2 of the instructions for this form, and am aware of my responsibilities as a sponsor under the Social Security Act, as amended, and the Food Stamp Act, as amended..."

Sponsor & Alien Liability from Instructions:

"Under section 213 of the Act, if the person you are sponsoring becomes a public charge, the agency that provides assistance may be able to sue you to recover the cost of the assistance.

In addition to that provision, your income and assets may be combined with the income and assets of the person you are sponsoring in determining whether that person is eligible for Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families."(With applicable citations removed)

This clearly states that the sponsor CAN BE SUED if the immigrant becomes a public charge. It is an AFFIDAVIT, and when executed it becomes BINDING. There is nothing you can show that would prove otherwise. Someone else's post here with no backup documentation doesn't mean anything.

What embassies don't require I-134? Every embassy/consulate that I've read about requires it.

Dodi,

The I-134 is a old form no longer used by USCIS. The contract portion of the form was found to be unenforceable repeatedly in court. The contract portion of the form make references to requirements contained in the instructions and the Social Security Act. A legally binding contract must include everything which the signatory is agreeing to, and not contain references to inferred requirements contained in documents which are not part of the contract. There are minor exceptions, such as when a contract defers to public law in determining whether a particular clause can be held invalid, and whether an invalid clause would invalidate the entire contract, and which state's laws shall govern the enforcement of the contract, etc. The I-134 was written by a USCIS bureaucrat, and not by a lawyer.

Congress recognized the deficiency of the I-134 as an enforceable contract, and added INA section 213A in 1996. This new section of the INA specifically spells out what the requirements are for an affidavit of support, and the I-134 did not meet these requirements. The following year USCIS produced the I-864 to address this.

US consulates still use the I-134 for non-immigrant visas because it provides a relatively concise means to determine if a sponsor is eligible, but even the Department of State recognizes the I-134 doesn't impose any enforceable obligation on the sponsor, in spite of what is written on the form itself.

Department of State instructs consular officers that the I-134 is not legally binding in the Foreign Affairs Manual, chapter 9, section 40.41 N4.6-3:

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

Because INA 212(a)(4)(C ) and INA 213A require the use of Form I-864,

Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, for so many classes of

immigrants, the use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, has been

reduced considerably. Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when

Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the applicant at

your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be

accorded the same weight as Form I-864. Form I-134 should be given

consideration as one form of evidence, however, in conjunction with the

other forms of evidence mentioned below.

Consulates continue to use the I-134 for certain non-immigrant visas, as the Foreign Affairs Manual explains:

If any of the following applicants need an Affidavit of Support to meet the

public charge requirement, they must use Form I-134, as they are not

authorized to use Form I-864:

(1) The self-petitioning spouse of a deceased U.S. citizen, and any

children of the self petitioner (see INA 204(a)(1)(A)(ii));

(2) The self-petitioning spouse of a U.S. citizen, who has been battered

by or subjected to extreme cruelty perpetrated by the spouse, and

any children of the self-petitioner (see INA 204(a)(1)(A)(iii) and

(iv));

(3) Returning resident aliens;

(4) Diversity visa applicants; and

(5) Fiancé(e)s.

[Dodi 69]

Thank you, Jim. I appreciate your answer and the information to back it up. I will concede the point.

[Peace.... 281]

That person was obviously wrong too. Can you not even READ the form itself?

"4. This affidavit is made by me for the purpose of assuring the U.S. Government that the person(s) named in item (3) will not become a public charge in the United States.

5. I am willing an dable to receive, maintain, and support the person(s) named in item 3. I am ready and willing to deposit a bond, if necessary, to guarantee that such person(s) will not become a public charge during his or her stay in the United States, or to guarantee that the above named person(s) will maintain his or her nonimmigrant status, if admitted temporarily, and will depoart prior to the expiration of his or her authorized stay in the United States.

6. I understand that:

a. Form I-134 is an "undertaking' under section 213 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and I may be sused if the person named in item 3 becomes a public charge after admission to the United States; and

b. Form I-134 may be made available to any Federal, State of local agency that may receive an application from the person named in item 3 for Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families;

c. If the person in item 3 does apply for Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, my own income and assetrs may be considered in deciding the person's application. How long my income and assets may be attributed to the person named in item 3 is determined under the statutes and rules governing each specific program."

At the signature portion:

"I acknowledge that I have read "Sponsor and Alien Liability" on Page 2 of the instructions for this form, and am aware of my responsibilities as a sponsor under the Social Security Act, as amended, and the Food Stamp Act, as amended..."

Sponsor & Alien Liability from Instructions:

"Under section 213 of the Act, if the person you are sponsoring becomes a public charge, the agency that provides assistance may be able to sue you to recover the cost of the assistance.

In addition to that provision, your income and assets may be combined with the income and assets of the person you are sponsoring in determining whether that person is eligible for Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families."(With applicable citations removed)

This clearly states that the sponsor CAN BE SUED if the immigrant becomes a public charge. It is an AFFIDAVIT, and when executed it becomes BINDING. There is nothing you can show that would prove otherwise. Someone else's post here with no backup documentation doesn't mean anything.

What embassies don't require I-134? Every embassy/consulate that I've read about requires it.

Actually, Casablanca, Morocco does not ask for the I-134 anymore just the I-824 is asked to be brought to the interview.

Edited July 28, 2010 by foreverwaiting

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Thank you, Jim. I appreciate your answer and the information to back it up. I will concede the point.

And thank you Jim for convincing Dodi!

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Actually, Casablanca, Morocco does not ask for the I-134 anymore just the I-824 is asked to be brought to the interview.

Casa isn't the only consulate doing this, apparently. In light of the clear guidance in the Foreign Affairs Manual, I'm wondering how they manage to get away with this. There are some clear problems with using an I-864 for a non-immigrant visa. The contract doesn't become enforceable until the alien becomes an immigrant by having an AOS application accepted. USCIS is going to require a separate I-864 from the primary sponsor at that time. If a joint sponsor is used for the non-immigrant visa, there is no requirement that the same joint sponsor (or any joint sponsor) be used for the AOS application. Would an I-864 submitted by a joint sponsor with a non-immigrant visa application be binding on that joint sponsor if they don't also submit an I-864 with the AOS application? The law doesn't cover this scenario.

There's also the general problem of making a binding commitment to support an alien who hasn't even applied to become an immigrant yet.

I'm waiting for the inevitable lawsuit...

[Peace.... 281]

Casa isn't the only consulate doing this, apparently. In light of the clear guidance in the Foreign Affairs Manual, I'm wondering how they manage to get away with this. There are some clear problems with using an I-864 for a non-immigrant visa. The contract doesn't become enforceable until the alien becomes an immigrant by having an AOS application accepted. USCIS is going to require a separate I-864 from the primary sponsor at that time. If a joint sponsor is used for the non-immigrant visa, there is no requirement that the same joint sponsor (or any joint sponsor) be used for the AOS application. Would an I-864 submitted by a joint sponsor with a non-immigrant visa application be binding on that joint sponsor if they don't also submit an I-864 with the AOS application? The law doesn't cover this scenario.

There's also the general problem of making a binding commitment to support an alien who hasn't even applied to become an immigrant yet.

I'm waiting for the inevitable lawsuit...

I do see your point Jim and I was wondering the same thing (re: non-immigrant visa). I am using the I-864 without a co-sponsor (using assets) to make up the difference until I am out of school and working full-time. All I know, is I was told to send it for his interview. Guess we shall see the outcome. But I do know that those who were recently interview in the last few months were required to use the form. I feel as if I should include the I-134 just in case. Have a good day...

Edited July 28, 2010 by foreverwaiting

[kontumdiary 0]

It wasn't the I-134 that scared me. It was the I-864 that did, it could be an extremely dangerous document for some. After carefully considering the I-864 and it's potential harm I took a long, long serious look at what I was doing because this was one time it had to be right. Fortunately, going on four years, it was the right move. The I-864 has never come to mind.

[Mandy & Kevin 0]

Since it's Tuesday blast-from-the-past day, here's the skinny in a thread with some input from two who rocked.

http://www.visajourn...-134-and-i-864/

Hey Johnny,

Thanks for all the great and accurate info. on my question. Is it possible to resend this link I'm unable to open, error message say's it is corrupted.

I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Kevin:thumbs:

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Hey Johnny,

Thanks for all the great and accurate info. on my question. Is it possible to resend this link I'm unable to open, error message say's it is corrupted.

I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Kevin:thumbs:

Kevin - It opens in Firefox just fine. If you want it from another source, you'll have to wait till I'm on my home PC.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Hey Johnny,

Thanks for all the great and accurate info. on my question. Is it possible to resend this link I'm unable to open, error message say's it is corrupted.

I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

Kevin:thumbs:

The forum software shortens long URL's when it displays the link text, but the URL in the link is still retained. I think you tried to copy/paste the displayed text, rather than clicking on the link. The full URL is:

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs461/

Whereas this is definitely a corrupted URL:

http://digital.libra...531/metacrs461

[Mandy & Kevin 0]

The forum software shortens long URL's when it displays the link text, but the URL in the link is still retained. I think you tried to copy/paste the displayed text, rather than clicking on the link. The full URL is:

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs461/

Whereas this is definitely a corrupted URL:

http://digital.libra...531/metacrs461

[Mandy & Kevin 0]

The forum software shortens long URL's when it displays the link text, but the URL in the link is still retained. I think you tried to copy/paste the displayed text, rather than clicking on the link. The full URL is:

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs461/

Whereas this is definitely a corrupted URL:

http://digital.libra...531/metacrs461

Yes, you are 100% correct Jim, I tried to copy & Paste, after your message I went back and jusy clicked...went straight to the UNT site where I found an excellent paper confirming what I have tried to say all along. This has been quite an excellent topic over the last few days & I think besides myslef, it will help many,

Thanks again,

Kevin

[Mandy & Kevin 0]

The forum software shortens long URL's when it displays the link text, but the URL in the link is still retained. I think you tried to copy/paste the displayed text, rather than clicking on the link. The full URL is:

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs461/

Whereas this is definitely a corrupted URL:

http://digital.libra...531/metacrs461

Thanks again Jim for letting me know the site shortens the URL's. Unfortunately, I had already done a copy and paste on two other links:

http://www.lawhelp.o...tateabbrev=/WA/

Do you have any idea how I can determine the full URL? I can't find the Post I copied them from and could use them as I am having a very hard time convincing my would be co-sponsor to sign.

Any help or direction will be greatly appreciated,

Thanks, Kevin