Anyone ever completed a I-134 form?

[mikelowe 0]

So I've been reading about the I-134 form, but I wanted to know if anyone has had any luck with it? It's supposed to be the Visitor Visa sponsorship form techically caleld the "Affidavit of Support" form. Has anyone used it and had any luck? I'd appreciate any information.

 

Thanks,

[Boiler 45,939]

Used for the K1 Fiancee Visa.

 

Not enforceable, pretty meaningless. Can be a negative.

[geowrian 22,338]

You cannot sponsor a tourist visa. This myth will never die.

[mikelowe 0]

53 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Used for the K1 Fiancee Visa.

 

Not enforceable, pretty meaningless. Can be a negative.

I thought that was the I-1864

[mikelowe 0]

11 minutes ago, geowrian said:

You cannot sponsor a tourist visa. This myth will never die.

So why is this still active? https://www.uscis.gov/i-134

 

I've read other places that it's not mandatory but helps.

[geowrian 22,338]

5 minutes ago, mikelowe said:

I thought that was the I-1864

Immigrant visas (not a K-1) use the I-864. Definitely not a tourist visa.

 

Just now, mikelowe said:

So why is this still active? https://www.uscis.gov/i-134

 

I've read other places that it's not mandatory but helps.

Because it is used...just not for a tourist visa.

Myths, sorry.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

Hm, I know people from my home country who have successfully applied for tourist visas with family or friends in the US using the I134 to support the application. Whether or not that’s the reason they were successful, none but the CO will know. Clearly didn’t hurt them though

 

Incidentally it is also the form used for those DV lottery winners who need an affidavit of support before they can be granted a visa. I864 used for other immigrant visas is not used for DV (I don’t know why but that’s how it is).

[jan22 3,056]

The I-134 used to be the Affidavit of Support for all immigrant visas.  It was deemed by the courts to be insufficient to meet the requirement of a legally binding contract and was, therefore, unenforceable. The I-864 was developed as the legally binding contract required for all family and work-related  immigrant visas.

 

It is still used for the K-1, as an indication that the petitioner will be able to meet the I-864 requirements when the Adjustment of Status is filed after the marriage, when the K-1 turns into a family-based IV. 

 

While DV applicants must prove they are not goIng to be publIc charges in the US by relying on government funding, there is no requirement in the DV legislation for a legally-binding Affidavit of Support.  This is because the entire DV program is based on diversifying the immigrant population by providing a pathway to US immigration when there is no family or work connection available for immigration. An applicant can show sufficient personal funds, a job offer, a work history that shows the likelihood of future US employment, or a combination of such things that satisfy the consular officer.  The I-134 is one option that shows there may be financial support available to the DV applicant to get settled in the US.  Some (Many?) Embassies advise all of their DV applicants to bring/submit an I-134.  Even though not legally required, given experiences with previous DV applicants and previous visa adjudications, it helps an applicant come better prepared for the interview and visa approval.  This is critIcal, given the short time frame for processing DVs and the possible disasterous consequences for the applicant if they need to ask for additional documents that might take time to gather.

 

The reason the myth about an I-134 being of help to a non-immigrant visa applicant -- which it isn't since it is not a requirement and isn't legally binding -- is that some people present them and are approved when they thought they were likely not going to get a visa.  It becomes a cause-and-effect situation in their minds, i.e., I presented an I-134 and got a visa; therefore, the I-134 was the reason I was approved.  The problem with this circular logic is that there is no way to convinvce anyone that the visa would have also been issued without the I-134.  Thus, the idea of it helping continues to be promoted.

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

Just FYI, it’s a minority of consulates who suggest an I134 for DV, though many of the DV AOS applicants (a small % of the total) use it; many of these are on F1 visas. For CP DV an I134 is often only presented on a 221g request by the consulate if the applicant has been otherwise unable to satisfy the requirement of overcoming public charge concerns. (Btw, past research has shown DV applicants tend to be higher educated on average and get higher-level jobs than family related visa beneficiaries, which could also be why requests for affidavits are relatively rare.)

 

the “myth” of I134 and tourist visa applications is certainly propagated by some legal websites. For example https://www.***removed***/visitor-visa/affidavit-of-support-form-134-tips.html says “While not absolutely mandatory, this form is highly recommended for sponsoring the visitors visa”.

Edited December 2, 2017 by SusieQQQ

[Boiler 45,939]

11 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

Just FYI, it’s a minority of consulates who suggest an I134 for DV, though many of the DV AOS applicants (a small % of the total) use it; many of these are on F1 visas. For CP DV an I134 is often only presented on a 221g request by the consulate if the applicant has been otherwise unable to satisfy the requirement of overcoming public charge concerns. (Btw, past research has shown DV applicants tend to be higher educated on average and get higher-level jobs than family related visa beneficiaries, which could also be why requests for affidavits are relatively rare.)

 

the “myth” of I134 and tourist visa applications is certainly propagated by some legal websites. For example https://www.***removed***/visitor-visa/affidavit-of-support-form-134-tips.html says “While not absolutely mandatory, this form is highly recommended for sponsoring the visitors visa”.

That site seems mainly focussed on selling medical insurance to Indians., 

[SusieQQQ 11,587]

58 minutes ago, Boiler said:

That site seems mainly focussed on selling medical insurance to Indians., 

I’ve seen it referenced a number of times in immigration forums, and it describes itself as “ a premier resource of comprehensive information about U.S. legal immigration”. Regardless of what you or I think about that claim, if most of its website visitors believe that and it tells them they should preferably use an I134, you can understand why the myth continues to get propagated.

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

20 hours ago, jan22 said:

The I-134 used to be the Affidavit of Support for all immigrant visas.  It was deemed by the courts to be insufficient to meet the requirement of a legally binding contract and was, therefore, unenforceable. The I-864 was developed as the legally binding contract required for all family and work-related  immigrant visas.

 

The US embassy in Manila Philippines has not asked for the I-134 for over two years now. 

[jan22 3,056]

6 hours ago, Chris Duffy said:

The US embassy in Manila Philippines has not asked for the I-134 for over two years now. 

It stopped being the required form for IVs in the late 1990's.  

[Chris Duffy 1,257]

1 hour ago, jan22 said:

It stopped being the required form for IVs in the late 1990's.  

Who told you it was not required since the late 1990's?

 

It been required for sure since 2006 up until about two years ago.

 

I am talking for K1's visas, not Tourist

Edited December 3, 2017 by Chris Duffy

[payxibka 10,047]

Well obviously the previous poster was not speaking about K-1's

Edited December 3, 2017 by payxibka