100% vs. 125% of poverty for USEM

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Due to a recent discussion on here, I could not get a definitive answer on the 125% of poverty level requirement for K-1 applicants. To wit, where on the USEM website is it spelled out? The I-134 doesn't list any minimum incomes, nor does it list any percentages, but most folks go with the wisdom that you need to have the 125% required by the I-864. Good advice, since shortly after the immigrant arrives, you will be held to the standards of the I-864. But I wanted more info on this, so I emailed USEM. Here's what I got in return. Not exactly all the answers I asked, but it's what I like, fact vs. supposition.

My email to them:

I am trying to find an answer to a question I have about income required for a K-1 visa, and the assets needed if said income is not sufficient.

The I-134 does not have any specific dollar or percentage amounts (in relation to the US poverty guidelines). I have been told that USEM requires the petitioner to have income at least 125% of poverty income, just as the I-864 does when filing for AOS once the immigrant has arrived in the US. Is this true? And if so, where on the USEM website is this spelled out?

Also, assuming that the 125% sponsor income IS a requirement to pass the interview, and if the sponsor makes LESS than 125% as proven by income tax returns, he/she is allowed to make up the difference in assets. The I-864 instructions say that the amount needed is 3 times the difference between income and 125% point for spouses and children, 5 times for all others. But is a fiance considered as a spouse (so 3X needed), or is that considered others (5X needed)?

And most importantly, is there anywhere on the USEM website that outlines these requirements, or is it just a decision made by the CO at the time of the interview?

Thank you for your time and patience in answering my inquiries.

Their answer:

Petitioners in fiancé(e) (K1/K2) nonimmigrant visa cases are generally expected to provide the adequacy of their own financial resources. This is to ensure that an alien, after admission into the United States, will not become primarily dependent on the U.S. Government for subsistence.

While our immigration law does not disallow joint sponsorships for K nonimmigrant visa applicants, they are not legally bound to address the financial needs of the applicants. Therefore, they are not always sufficiently credible to overcome the public charge provisions of INA Section 212(a)(4).

We may consider the petitioner’s assets to make up for any shortfall in his income. The assets may include, but are not limited to: (1) bank accounts showing sustained balance over time, (2) stocks and bonds indicating present cash value or expected earnings, and (3) personal property ownership and real estate investments in the form of a title deed or equivalent or certified copies. The assets must be available in the United States and must be readily convertible to cash within one year. However, if the income from these assets is derived from sources outside of the United States, a statement must be provided as to how the income is to be transferred to the U.S.

Please note that the poverty guideline for the contiguous United States as of 2013 is at 100%. The normal minimum for a family-based petition at 125%, does not apply for K visa applicants.

For information about financial sponsorship guidelines, the petitioner may visit the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website athttp://www.uscis.gov.

So while I did not get a definitive answer on the 3X vs 5X question, they did state that USEM does not used the 125% mark for K visa applicants.

[Hank_ 9,174]

Well that is interesting on the 100% versus 125%. Since day one of me being here on VJ I have read numerous posts that USEM uses the 125% requirement. Seems I even read of a couple having issues because of not reaching the 125% recently.... dang old timers...

As for the 3X versus 5X that I actually read on the USEM website and have linked it in during other postings in the past but silly me I didn't bookmark it. I know we have yakked on this before, just haven't done a serious search to fine it again. It is out there.... trust me... I'm with the government

Edited September 3, 2013 by Hank_

[stevie b 141]

Due to a recent discussion on here, I could not get a definitive answer on the 125% of poverty level requirement for K-1 applicants. To wit, where on the USEM website is it spelled out? The I-134 doesn't list any minimum incomes, nor does it list any percentages, but most folks go with the wisdom that you need to have the 125% required by the I-864. Good advice, since shortly after the immigrant arrives, you will be held to the standards of the I-864. But I wanted more info on this, so I emailed USEM. Here's what I got in return. Not exactly all the answers I asked, but it's what I like, fact vs. supposition.

My email to them:

Their answer:

So while I did not get a definitive answer on the 3X vs 5X question, they did state that USEM does not used the 125% mark for K visa applicants.

I think I have been back and forth with HANK on this one.

basically the 134 requirements, if you read them, are at the DISCRETION of the interviewing officer. They are NOT required to accept a cosponsor, but many do.. this is embassy specific. This is why they repeatedly use the word "may".

You will eventually need the 125% .. PERIOD. the 864 is required for adjustment. the 134 is more like a promissory note leading to the 864.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

You will eventually need the 125% .. PERIOD. the 864 is required for adjustment. the 134 is more like a promissory note leading to the 864.

I agree. As I said in sentence #2.

But there is still some discrepancy on whether a fiance is considered a spouse. If so, and a sponsor is under the 125% mark, then only 3X the difference between income and 125% need be shown. If a fiance is treated as "other family member" such as parent or sibling, then the asset requirement jumps to 5X. So I wanted to see how the USEM judged during the interview process. Based on their reply, there IS NO 3X, 5X, or even 125% judgement used during their part of the process. That all comes into play with the I-864 after marriage, so the asset gap then becomes 3X.

As long as you meet the 100% poverty guideline, you shouldn't have any issues with USEM approving you based on money.

[stevie b 141]

I agree. As I said in sentence #2.

But there is still some discrepancy on whether a fiance is considered a spouse. If so, and a sponsor is under the 125% mark, then only 3X the difference between income and 125% need be shown. If a fiance is treated as "other family member" such as parent or sibling, then the asset requirement jumps to 5X. So I wanted to see how the USEM judged during the interview process. Based on their reply, there IS NO 3X, 5X, or even 125% judgement used during their part of the process. That all comes into play with the I-864 after marriage, so the asset gap then becomes 3X.

As long as you meet the 100% poverty guideline, you shouldn't have any issues with USEM approving you based on money.

To make those conclusions, you would have to know how the interviewer perceives the process.

If you want to risk it, go ahead and do it. the worst thing that will happen is a rejection or a request for a cosponsor which you will I am sure have lined up already, creating at least a month's delay due to the need for original signature.

I find it dangerous to flirt with loopholes on this topic due to the fact that within six months of the interview (give or take) that you will have to have the 125% anyway for a spouse

[Bugs 455]

They leave it semi-vague because it is a judgement call at the discretion of the interviewing officer. The purpose of the 134, as well as the supporting documentation (tax forms, employment letter, bank assets, etc) in relation to the K-1 is to just provide this officer with assurance that the hard requirements of the 864 will be met. So in essence, they are helping ensure the prevention of any future problems with income and assets when the AOS is filed stateside.

So we cannot really go by a black and white technical set of requirements here. What we have to go by is what the observed trends from COs on this, from interview reviews and testimonials. And such has demonstrated that they tend to want 125% and usually do not accept co-sponsors.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

But do they use the I-134 to ensure the I-864? Not if the I-134 needs only show 100% and the I-864 is 125%. I mean, that was a quoted reply from USEM, not just a member supposing-so based on hearsay.

"The normal minimum for a family-based petition at 125%, does not apply for K visa applicants." So either the person answering email is wacko, or the COs are just doing whatever they please in determining financial status. What would be neat is if we could get an upcoming interviewee to ask the question of their CO: " What is the minimum income level required here at USEM to fulfill the requirement for a visa? Is it 100% or 125%?" That might provide some weight, and would clear up any rumors.

[Bugs 455]

But do they use the I-134 to ensure the I-864? Not if the I-134 needs only show 100% and the I-864 is 125%. I mean, that was a quoted reply from USEM, not just a member supposing-so based on hearsay.

"The normal minimum for a family-based petition at 125%, does not apply for K visa applicants." So either the person answering email is wacko, or the COs are just doing whatever they please in determining financial status. What would be neat is if we could get an upcoming interviewee to ask the question of their CO: " What is the minimum income level required here at USEM to fulfill the requirement for a visa? Is it 100% or 125%?" That might provide some weight, and would clear up any rumors.

Like I say, there is no hard set "requirement", but based on testimonials, COs usually like 125%.

Which, in my opinion, is good. Because if you don't meet it, you won't pass the AOS anyways.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Like I say, there is no hard set "requirement", but based on testimonials, COs usually like 125%.

Which, in my opinion, is good. Because if you don't meet it, you won't pass the AOS anyways.

Sure you'll pass, cuz once you get here and get married, if you don't meet 125%, you need only have 3X the difference in assets, or have a co-sponsor. Two things which USEM usually don't take into account.

For example, say I have a HH of 2, and make $18,000 this year. If USEM uses 100%, my fiance gets a visa. Then she gets here, we get married, and now I must make $19,387. My deficit is $1,387, so 3X that is needed in assets, or $4,161. So I can show USCIC that my house has $10,000 in equity in it, and I can file without a co-sponsor, nor do I need to have any extra cash on hand. It's a HUGE difference, in reality.

[Bugs 455]

Sure you'll pass, cuz once you get here and get married, if you don't meet 125%, you need only have 3X the difference in assets, or have a co-sponsor. Two things which USEM usually don't take into account.

For example, say I have a HH of 2, and make $18,000 this year. If USEM uses 100%, my fiance gets a visa. Then she gets here, we get married, and now I must make $19,387. My deficit is $1,387, so 3X that is needed in assets, or $4,161. So I can show USCIC that my house has $10,000 in equity in it, and I can file without a co-sponsor, nor do I need to have any extra cash on hand. It's a HUGE difference, in reality.

I'm talking about the AOS. The AOS doesn't care what the USEM approved or didn't approve. If you pass the USEM on 100% but don't pass the AOS due to their 125% requirement, then the USEM failed their job in anticipating any potential problems in the area of support requirements. This is why many COs like it to be 125%. As for the difference of the 125% being made up by assets, I think both accept this.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I'm talking about AOS, as well. That part of the process is separate from the USEM process, of course. My $$ illustration above shows that a person earning less than 125% can easily get a visa by having more than 100% poverty level, yet still have enough to pass the income requirements during AOS process. USEM did not fail by allowing someone to come over with 100% of the poverty level in income.

[Juliet and Steve 93]

You present a good argument DavenRoxy and I only find one problem with it.

That problem is that in matters of law, especially involving governmental agencies like the IRS (and Consular officials making decisions are indeed acting similar to IRS officials) is that they can act as demigods. They can act and decide and while Americans like to make believe that we live in a land run by Rule of Law, in reality we don't--certainly not in the case of consular matters.

It's simple to prove this too. Simply try to file a lawsuit against an Embassy or Consular Official for acting in violation of law. One could try but the case would simply be thrown out of Federal Courts. In fact the Consul (acting through his/her agent) is immune from law.. It's that simple.

One can make clever arguments till hell freezes over, and I don't mean to belittle your argument--it sounds relevant and material--but since you can never enforce "Rule of Law" in this case your argument simply doesn't matter. This may sound harsh but this is how I see it. And I see America in the throes of decline moving more and more away from being always in accordance with Rule of Law--this move away from Rule of Law is common when looking at the historical fall of Empires.

Yes, for most this will elicit a roll of eyes, or a drawn out yawn--such is life. For those who are inclined to see the relevance of my viewpoint see the following article in Martin Armstrong's blog:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/

Lack of a Rule of Law Destroys Businesess

Still it's a good point DavenRoxy and I'll do my best to have you appointed to the next available judge spot in the Supreme Court.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Juliet and Steve

[Hank_ 9,174]

You present a good argument DavenRoxy and I only find one problem with it.

That problem is that in matters of law, especially involving governmental agencies like the IRS (and Consular officials making decisions are indeed acting similar to IRS officials) is that they can act as demigods. They can act and decide and while Americans like to make believe that we live in a land run by Rule of Law, in reality we don't--certainly not in the case of consular matters.

It's simple to prove this too. Simply try to file a lawsuit against an Embassy or Consular Official for acting in violation of law. One could try but the case would simply be thrown out of Federal Courts. In fact the Consul (acting through his/her agent) is immune from law.. It's that simple.

One can make clever arguments till hell freezes over, and I don't mean to belittle your argument--it sounds relevant and material--but since you can never enforce "Rule of Law" in this case your argument simply doesn't matter. This may sound harsh but this is how I see it. And I see America in the throes of decline moving more and more away from being always in accordance with Rule of Law--this move away from Rule of Law is common when looking at the historical fall of Empires.

Yes, for most this will elicit a roll of eyes, or a drawn out yawn--such is life. For those who are inclined to see the relevance of my viewpoint see the following article in Martin Armstrong's blog:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog/

Lack of a Rule of Law Destroys Businesess

Still it's a good point DavenRoxy and I'll do my best to have you appointed to the next available judge spot in the Supreme Court.

One thing to remembered is that the embassy decision is not regarding a USC, it's about a foreign national applying for a visa. U.S. law does not apply to foreigners in foreign countries. Even with USCIS their decisions regarding AOS in not about a USC either, the foreign national is applying for adjustment of status.

The country may be going to hell in a hand basket, but for all that are trying to navigate this visa process... following the "rules" is the only way it will get 'er done.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

The country may be going to hell in a hand basket, but for all that are trying to navigate this visa process... following the "rules" is the only way it will get 'er done.

If only that were true... Imagine what would happen to the visa processing times in this country if suddenly all the illegals were forced to become legal. Following the rules is how a select few have chosen to do it. And now that I am one of that crowd, I fully understand why people sneak across the borders every day.

Unfortunately, we will never know the truth about the 100% thing unless/until someone comes forward who made just above the 100% level and got approved. In the big scheme of things, it probably doesn't matter. But the rumors surrounding this "mysterious visa journey" bug me. There are many. And unfortunately, not much can be done to disprove them. But I have tried.

[Hank_ 9,174]

Living not all that far from the border I have a harder attitude; ... they can get their A$$es back around the border and enter legally also... or don't enter!

My grandpa came her legally, my wife is her legally. Anyone else - round them up and herd them back around the border the same way they came... sort of like a cattle drive.