Applicants using the I-134 will need to show that their sponsor's income is 100% of federal poverty guideline

[Minya's wife 25]

Pushbrk, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this little exercise, but I'll play.

Firstly, since you do cite totality of circumstance, I don't think it matters if my personal situation fit either of your two examples. Every couple is going to have a different 'totality'. To attempt to pigeon-hole cases into categories such as college grads, high school dropouts, etc. is really quite pointless as 'totality' takes far more into consideration than just financial means.

Western Europe, Canada, Australia and consulates in other developed nations have a lower emphasis on the affidavit of support for a good reason - that being a lower leval of visa fraud. And insofar as your list of second and third world countries, I would suggest that while that may be a longer list of nations, it's not a longer list of where immigrants actually come from. Keep in mind much of the immigration from less developed nations is actually employment based, wherein the US sucks the cream of the crop from those nations. There may be more K1's issued from the Fils than other other country, but overall that country is not the largest 'importer' of citizens to the US.

But I digress. I know of no 'list' of consulates that stretch the limits of the I134 to fit the criteria of the I864. I would contend any deviation from the 100% directive issued by DOS has more to do with an individual case rather than the country of the beneficiary. New Delhi, for example, is well known for pulling the affidavit of support apart when there is a question in the AO's mind about the case, but no other place to hang their hat for a denial.

I truly don't believe there is a heavier emphasis of 125% for 'petitions that end in adjustment of status' and I would challenge you to prove that to me, since it flies in the face of a directive from the Department of State. There ARE consulate practices based upon management directives in any particular consulate, and those directives are based upon a knowledge of social norms and habits. Some may require 125% - but it's my belief from my anecdotal reading this has more to do with visa fraud than it has to do with the potential for adjustment of status.

In other words, every consulate is different. Petitioners and beneficiaries need to research the RECENT experiences of others traveling through the same consulate, and they need to bear in mind the 'totality' of their particular circumstances.

Well stated summation rj.

[pushbrk 12,893]

Pushbrk, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this little exercise, but I'll play.

Firstly, since you do cite totality of circumstance, I don't think it matters if my personal situation fit either of your two examples. Every couple is going to have a different 'totality'. To attempt to pigeon-hole cases into categories such as college grads, high school dropouts, etc. is really quite pointless as 'totality' takes far more into consideration than just financial means.

Western Europe, Canada, Australia and consulates in other developed nations have a lower emphasis on the affidavit of support for a good reason - that being a lower leval of visa fraud. And insofar as your list of second and third world countries, I would suggest that while that may be a longer list of nations, it's not a longer list of where immigrants actually come from. Keep in mind much of the immigration from less developed nations is actually employment based, wherein the US sucks the cream of the crop from those nations. There may be more K1's issued from the Fils than other other country, but overall that country is not the largest 'importer' of citizens to the US.

But I digress. I know of no 'list' of consulates that stretch the limits of the I134 to fit the criteria of the I864. I would contend any deviation from the 100% directive issued by DOS has more to do with an individual case rather than the country of the beneficiary. New Delhi, for example, is well known for pulling the affidavit of support apart when there is a question in the AO's mind about the case, but no other place to hang their hat for a denial.

I truly don't believe there is a heavier emphasis of 125% for 'petitions that end in adjustment of status' and I would challenge you to prove that to me, since it flies in the face of a directive from the Department of State. There ARE consulate practices based upon management directives in any particular consulate, and those directives are based upon a knowledge of social norms and habits. Some may require 125% - but it's my belief from my anecdotal reading this has more to do with visa fraud than it has to do with the potential for adjustment of status.

In other words, every consulate is different. Petitioners and beneficiaries need to research the RECENT experiences of others traveling through the same consulate, and they need to bear in mind the 'totality' of their particular circumstances.

Frankly it seemed I was just defending my statement against those that wanted to hump my cyberleg. I will say, my comments about the I-134 were in the context of family based visas. The employment based visa is a very different animal. You are absolutely correct that every Consulate is different (at least is some respects) and that petitioners and beneficiaries need to reseach the recent experiences that most closely match their circumstances.

My original statement didn't mention Consulates. When I said "more commonly" I referred to K, CR and IR spouse and fiance cases. Since the discussion is in the K3 forum, I trusted the context would be understood in that light.

I think you'll have no difficulty determining whether the higher fraud countries are the source of the majority of such cases but I also didn't cite visa fraud as the reason for my "more commonly" comment because I really don't think it is. (Although it may well be a contributor) I do think that common sense tends to dictate that visa interviews in IV units are conducted by CO's that understand a qualifying I-864 will be needed in short order, so they consider the likelyhood of ultimate successful immigration as they look at financial evidence. I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that this common sense approach is widely used, West, East, fraud or no fraud.

If anyone actually thinks the 100% standard is "more commonly" used for fiance and spouse cases, I'd sure like to understand the basis for that opinion.

A further note is that 125% is no guarantee of success either.

[rebeccajo 14]

Pushbrk, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this little exercise, but I'll play.

Firstly, since you do cite totality of circumstance, I don't think it matters if my personal situation fit either of your two examples. Every couple is going to have a different 'totality'. To attempt to pigeon-hole cases into categories such as college grads, high school dropouts, etc. is really quite pointless as 'totality' takes far more into consideration than just financial means.

Western Europe, Canada, Australia and consulates in other developed nations have a lower emphasis on the affidavit of support for a good reason - that being a lower leval of visa fraud. And insofar as your list of second and third world countries, I would suggest that while that may be a longer list of nations, it's not a longer list of where immigrants actually come from. Keep in mind much of the immigration from less developed nations is actually employment based, wherein the US sucks the cream of the crop from those nations. There may be more K1's issued from the Fils than other other country, but overall that country is not the largest 'importer' of citizens to the US.

But I digress. I know of no 'list' of consulates that stretch the limits of the I134 to fit the criteria of the I864. I would contend any deviation from the 100% directive issued by DOS has more to do with an individual case rather than the country of the beneficiary. New Delhi, for example, is well known for pulling the affidavit of support apart when there is a question in the AO's mind about the case, but no other place to hang their hat for a denial.

I truly don't believe there is a heavier emphasis of 125% for 'petitions that end in adjustment of status' and I would challenge you to prove that to me, since it flies in the face of a directive from the Department of State. There ARE consulate practices based upon management directives in any particular consulate, and those directives are based upon a knowledge of social norms and habits. Some may require 125% - but it's my belief from my anecdotal reading this has more to do with visa fraud than it has to do with the potential for adjustment of status.

In other words, every consulate is different. Petitioners and beneficiaries need to research the RECENT experiences of others traveling through the same consulate, and they need to bear in mind the 'totality' of their particular circumstances.

Frankly it seemed I was just defending my statement against those that wanted to hump my cyberleg. I will say, my comments about the I-134 were in the context of family based visas. The employment based visa is a very different animal. You are absolutely correct that every Consulate is different (at least is some respects) and that petitioners and beneficiaries need to reseach the recent experiences that most closely match their circumstances.

My original statement didn't mention Consulates. When I said "more commonly" I referred to K, CR and IR spouse and fiance cases. Since the discussion is in the K3 forum, I trusted the context would be understood in that light.

I think you'll have no difficulty determining whether the higher fraud countries are the source of the majority of such cases but I also didn't cite visa fraud as the reason for my "more commonly" comment because I really don't think it is. (Although it may well be a contributor) I do think that common sense tends to dictate that visa interviews in IV units are conducted by CO's that understand a qualifying I-864 will be needed in short order, so they consider the likelyhood of ultimate successful immigration as they look at financial evidence. I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that this common sense approach is widely used, West, East, fraud or no fraud.

If anyone actually thinks the 100% standard is "more commonly" used for fiance and spouse cases, I'd sure like to understand the basis for that opinion.

A further note is that 125% is no guarantee of success either.

I don't think you're going to get confirmation of that 100% standard, at least not around VJ, because it's normally advised to 'try' for 125%, as one needs to hit that bar sooner or later.

All you can do is look at the nuts and bolts of it, which are this - the I134 states 'sufficieny' of income; DOS defines 'sufficiency' as 100%; and the I134 has no 'legal legs' in the INA to hold anyones feet to any fire.

[pushbrk 12,893]

Pushbrk, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with this little exercise, but I'll play.

Firstly, since you do cite totality of circumstance, I don't think it matters if my personal situation fit either of your two examples. Every couple is going to have a different 'totality'. To attempt to pigeon-hole cases into categories such as college grads, high school dropouts, etc. is really quite pointless as 'totality' takes far more into consideration than just financial means.

Western Europe, Canada, Australia and consulates in other developed nations have a lower emphasis on the affidavit of support for a good reason - that being a lower leval of visa fraud. And insofar as your list of second and third world countries, I would suggest that while that may be a longer list of nations, it's not a longer list of where immigrants actually come from. Keep in mind much of the immigration from less developed nations is actually employment based, wherein the US sucks the cream of the crop from those nations. There may be more K1's issued from the Fils than other other country, but overall that country is not the largest 'importer' of citizens to the US.

But I digress. I know of no 'list' of consulates that stretch the limits of the I134 to fit the criteria of the I864. I would contend any deviation from the 100% directive issued by DOS has more to do with an individual case rather than the country of the beneficiary. New Delhi, for example, is well known for pulling the affidavit of support apart when there is a question in the AO's mind about the case, but no other place to hang their hat for a denial.

I truly don't believe there is a heavier emphasis of 125% for 'petitions that end in adjustment of status' and I would challenge you to prove that to me, since it flies in the face of a directive from the Department of State. There ARE consulate practices based upon management directives in any particular consulate, and those directives are based upon a knowledge of social norms and habits. Some may require 125% - but it's my belief from my anecdotal reading this has more to do with visa fraud than it has to do with the potential for adjustment of status.

In other words, every consulate is different. Petitioners and beneficiaries need to research the RECENT experiences of others traveling through the same consulate, and they need to bear in mind the 'totality' of their particular circumstances.

Frankly it seemed I was just defending my statement against those that wanted to hump my cyberleg. I will say, my comments about the I-134 were in the context of family based visas. The employment based visa is a very different animal. You are absolutely correct that every Consulate is different (at least is some respects) and that petitioners and beneficiaries need to reseach the recent experiences that most closely match their circumstances.

My original statement didn't mention Consulates. When I said "more commonly" I referred to K, CR and IR spouse and fiance cases. Since the discussion is in the K3 forum, I trusted the context would be understood in that light.

I think you'll have no difficulty determining whether the higher fraud countries are the source of the majority of such cases but I also didn't cite visa fraud as the reason for my "more commonly" comment because I really don't think it is. (Although it may well be a contributor) I do think that common sense tends to dictate that visa interviews in IV units are conducted by CO's that understand a qualifying I-864 will be needed in short order, so they consider the likelyhood of ultimate successful immigration as they look at financial evidence. I've seen plenty of anecdotal evidence that this common sense approach is widely used, West, East, fraud or no fraud.

If anyone actually thinks the 100% standard is "more commonly" used for fiance and spouse cases, I'd sure like to understand the basis for that opinion.

A further note is that 125% is no guarantee of success either.

I don't think you're going to get confirmation of that 100% standard, at least not around VJ, because it's normally advised to 'try' for 125%, as one needs to hit that bar sooner or later.

All you can do is look at the nuts and bolts of it, which are this - the I134 states 'sufficieny' of income; DOS defines 'sufficiency' as 100%; and the I134 has no 'legal legs' in the INA to hold anyones feet to any fire.

Unless you're recommending we change our understood best practice to think in terms of 125%, I don't see why we're having this discussion at all. All Consular officers recognize that spouse and fiance visa applicants need to hit the 125% bar SOON. That's part of the totality of circumstances in EVERY such case.

So, yeah, some people might get by with 100% or even less but that "news" is of no real benefit to "most" because the 125% standard is "more commonly" what a Consular officer will have in mind.

[rebeccajo 14]

We're having the discussion so that readers understand the requirements and the law necessary to obtain a visa.

Which will vary from consulate to consulate based upon regional practices.

Which is different from what is required at adjustment of status that has a higher (in some cases) bar.

So that all readers can see there is a difference between what it takes to get their loved one here and keeping them here (which should be the ultimate goal).

I've been around here and other immigration portals a while. There's much about long distance relationships that clouds the eye and mind of some of the participants. It can be all too easy (in some cases) to get a visa. It can be much more difficult to build a life here than some of the starry-eyed realize, especially when you throw immigration into the mix.

Face it - when someone arrives here on a visa, they haven't immigrated yet. That comes as they live here, and as they file. Big difference. Readers need to realize the variables.

Edited November 30, 2007 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,893]

We're having the discussion so that readers understand the requirements and the law necessary to obtain a visa.

Which will vary from consulate to consulate based upon regional practices.

Which is different from what is required at adjustment of status that has a higher (in some cases) bar.

So that all readers can see there is a difference between what it takes to get their loved one here and keeping them here (which should be the ultimate goal).

I've been around here and other immigration portals a while. There's much about long distance relationships that clouds the eye and mind of some of the participants. It can be all too easy (in some cases) to get a visa. It can be much more difficult to build a life here than some of the starry-eyed realize, especially when you throw immigration into the mix.

Face it - when someone arrives here on a visa, they haven't immigrated yet. That comes as they live here, and as they file. Big difference. Readers need to realize the variables.

I'm not clear to whom you refer with "we". I'm attempting to set an appropriate expectation for what is most likely to be deemed "sufficient income" in the actual practice of obtaining a visa. It seems you are attempting to point out that the written legal requirements differ from what I'm suggesting is the more common actual practice and therefore appropriate expectation. Nevertheless, in practice, the 125% as a minimum, not a guarantee of success, is more commonly what a CO will have in mind while evaluating financial documents at interview, for precisely the reason(s) we've both already mentioned.

Relationship diffuculties or not, CO's are not out there lowering the standards because they know some people will never end up with a green card. Some won't but I don't see how that point is germain.

[rebeccajo 14]

We're having the discussion so that readers understand the requirements and the law necessary to obtain a visa.

Which will vary from consulate to consulate based upon regional practices.

Which is different from what is required at adjustment of status that has a higher (in some cases) bar.

So that all readers can see there is a difference between what it takes to get their loved one here and keeping them here (which should be the ultimate goal).

I've been around here and other immigration portals a while. There's much about long distance relationships that clouds the eye and mind of some of the participants. It can be all too easy (in some cases) to get a visa. It can be much more difficult to build a life here than some of the starry-eyed realize, especially when you throw immigration into the mix.

Face it - when someone arrives here on a visa, they haven't immigrated yet. That comes as they live here, and as they file. Big difference. Readers need to realize the variables.

I'm not clear to whom you refer with "we". I'm attempting to set an appropriate expectation for what is most likely to be deemed "sufficient income" in the actual practice of obtaining a visa. It seems you are attempting to point out that the written legal requirements differ from what I'm suggesting is the more common actual practice and therefore appropriate expectation. Nevertheless, in practice, the 125% as a minimum, not a guarantee of success, is more commonly what a CO will have in mind while evaluating financial documents at interview, for precisely the reason(s) we've both already mentioned.

Relationship diffuculties or not, CO's are not out there lowering the standards because they know some people will never end up with a green card. Some won't but I don't see how that point is germain.

We - you and I. We're being read. It might be our conversation but others will read and hopefully learn.

The fact that the level which must be hit is not necessarily 125% is very germain.

When I was first learning here, I had some very good teachers. There is often much made of the affidavit of support - it took me a while and maybe a few dozen conversations like this one to understand that the I134 and I864 are pretty much not the scary voo-doo documents they are often articulated to be. Compared to say - a mortgage application - they require little back-up documentation. The financial requirements themselves are also quite low.

Who knows why there are no hard and fast rules for the I134. The way the code is written, it isn't even required at all. Most consulates use it as a yardstick though. It gives them a piece of paper they can gather facts on - but handily allows them loads of latitude with its vagueries.

It might be the common wisdom that 125% is required, but that ain't necessarily so. Not so far as getting a visa is concerned anyway. Look how often the questions are asked regarding the affidavit - the most stress is in the questions of couples still separated. The thing we need to be advising readers is to research what's required for THEIR situation and THEIR consulate - not try to put their possible round peg into a 125% poverty level square hole.

On the other hand, they still need to realize that once they are reunited, 125% WILL be required. The CO's don't 'lower standards' because they think some people won't be able to get a greencard. But the fact is some consulates WILL issue visas to couples who, if their financial situation does not improve, will suffer difficulty at adjustment. I think it is wise to point out the AOS requirements so couples can work towards improving their situation so they don't end up worried and frustrated once they are finally together.

*shrugs*

It's just my opinion that when you tell people - 125% - that's it, them's the breaks - well you are unnecessarily 'scaring' them. Because - as we both say - there IS totality of circumstance. Not to mention consular differences.

I know you want there to be a 'straight talk' answer to questions. The fact is - this isn't one of those areas. Too many details - too many devils in them.

Oh btw, you mentioned Mexico earlier. I believe they don't even use the I134. I think they ask for tax returns, and I'm not sure what the income levels are the CO wants to see.

Edited November 30, 2007 by rebeccajo

[pushbrk 12,893]

We're having the discussion so that readers understand the requirements and the law necessary to obtain a visa.

Which will vary from consulate to consulate based upon regional practices.

Which is different from what is required at adjustment of status that has a higher (in some cases) bar.

So that all readers can see there is a difference between what it takes to get their loved one here and keeping them here (which should be the ultimate goal).

I've been around here and other immigration portals a while. There's much about long distance relationships that clouds the eye and mind of some of the participants. It can be all too easy (in some cases) to get a visa. It can be much more difficult to build a life here than some of the starry-eyed realize, especially when you throw immigration into the mix.

Face it - when someone arrives here on a visa, they haven't immigrated yet. That comes as they live here, and as they file. Big difference. Readers need to realize the variables.

I'm not clear to whom you refer with "we". I'm attempting to set an appropriate expectation for what is most likely to be deemed "sufficient income" in the actual practice of obtaining a visa. It seems you are attempting to point out that the written legal requirements differ from what I'm suggesting is the more common actual practice and therefore appropriate expectation. Nevertheless, in practice, the 125% as a minimum, not a guarantee of success, is more commonly what a CO will have in mind while evaluating financial documents at interview, for precisely the reason(s) we've both already mentioned.

Relationship diffuculties or not, CO's are not out there lowering the standards because they know some people will never end up with a green card. Some won't but I don't see how that point is germain.

We - you and I. We're being read. It might be our conversation but others will read and hopefully learn.

The fact that the level which must be hit is not necessarily 125% is very germain.

Of course it is. What part of "more commonly" conflicts with "not necessarily"?

It might be the common wisdom that 125% is required, but that ain't necessarily so. Not so far as getting a visa is concerned anyway. Look how often the questions are asked regarding the affidavit - the most stress is in the questions of couples still separated. The thing we need to be advising readers is to research what's required for THEIR situation and THEIR consulate - not try to put their possible round peg into a 125% poverty level square hole.

I agree entirely. See above. "not necessarily" "more commonly" = potayto, potahhto.

On the other hand, they still need to realize that once they are reunited, 125% WILL be required. The CO's don't 'lower standards' because they think some people won't be able to get a greencard. But the fact is some consulates WILL issue visas to couples who, if their financial situation does not improve, will suffer difficulty at adjustment. I think it is wise to point out the AOS requirements so couples can work towards improving their situation so they don't end up worried and frustrated once they are finally together.

*shrugs*

It's just my opinion that when you tell people - 125% - that's it, them's the breaks - well you are unnecessarily 'scaring' them. Because - as we both say - there IS totality of circumstance. Not to mention consular differences.

I didn't see anybody tell anybody that in this thread. Did you?

Responses in bold blue above. In short, we don't have any disagreement I can see. I'm saying "probably so" and you're saying "maybe not". You and the readers can knock yourself out defining the difference.

Maybe it's just in my little world but when a person says either, the other is understood.

[rebeccajo 14]

*sigh*

Nevermind then.