Poverty Guidelines/I-134 question

[macky 0]

My fiance is above the 125% poverty guidelines for 2006,i wonder if he still nedd to show assets like house,car.etc? Thanks in advance.

Christina

[mRx 16]

i was barely above the 125.... and i didnt show assets, and i had no problems. As long as you clear the bar that they set, they really cant do anything. But for peace of mind, it wouldnt hurt to show all he has...

[YuAndDan 153]

If income is above 125% poverty line then assets dont need to be listed, the more financial data you give them the more that they can ask questions about.

When it comes to this keep It Simple!

I-134, IRS-transcripts (1-3 Years), Letter from employer, and a few recent pay stubs, is all that is needed if above the line.

I have read stories where people get blue slip at the interview requesting supporting financial evidence for assets that did not need to be listed in the first place.

[rebeccajo 14]

The OP is in the Phillipines.

The stronger the Affidavit the better.

Keep it simple but list all assets. The more solid the affidavit the better.

[payxibka 10,045]

The OP is in the Phillipines.

The stronger the Affidavit the better.

Keep it simple but list all assets. The more solid the affidavit the better.

rebeccajo,

Other than the Phillipines being a "high export" country....

Why do you think the strength of the affadavit is important?

Edited November 24, 2006 by fwaguy

[YuAndDan 153]

The OP is in the Phillipines.

The stronger the Affidavit the better.

Keep it simple but list all assets. The more solid the affidavit the better.

rebeccajo,

Other than the Phillipines being a "high export" country....

Why do you think the strength of the affadavit is important?

Correct, all the consular officer wants to see is evidence that the beneficiary is not going to be a charge of the state, nothing more.

[aussiewench 9]

The OP is in the Phillipines.

The stronger the Affidavit the better.

Keep it simple but list all assets. The more solid the affidavit the better.

rebeccajo,

Other than the Phillipines being a "high export" country....

Why do you think the strength of the affadavit is important?

Correct, all the consular officer wants to see is evidence that the beneficiary is not going to be a charge of the state, nothing more.

The OP is best to check with other members going through the phillipines as what is required of their particular consulate by way of the I-134 and documentation that the applicant won't become a public charge.

[YuAndDan 153]

I got this from the Philippines Embassy Website.

l. EVIDENCE OF SUPPORT. You should be able to demonstrate that you will not become a public

charge or be a burden on the U.S. taxpayers for financial support. Submit your petitioner’s most recent

U.S. Federal income tax return (Form 1040) and wage statements (Form W-2). Employment letters

stating salaries and bank statements may be included. A completed I-134 Affidavit of Support Form

will be useful to the consular officer to evaluate your petitioner’s ability to be financially responsible for

you.

http://manila.usembassy.gov/wwwfivk1.pdf

Even the instructions provided by Manila imply to keep it simple.

[aussiewench 9]

Keep in mind that there is no hard rule as to the level of income one needs to show when it comes to the I-134. Some consulates routinely accept 100% of poverty guidelines, some 125%. Some don't even require the I-134. But there has also been members that have been asked for another sponsor even though they met the poverty guidelines and supplied tax returns etc. One should present and document what best suits their individual situation in showing that the applicant won't become a public charge.

[rebeccajo 14]

The OP is in the Phillipines.

The stronger the Affidavit the better.

Keep it simple but list all assets. The more solid the affidavit the better.

rebeccajo,

Other than the Phillipines being a "high export" country....

Why do you think the strength of the affadavit is important?

Only because of 'totality of circumstances' which is something every CO has discretion in. Depends on the rest of the case, as aussie said.

[payxibka 10,045]

The OP is in the Phillipines.

The stronger the Affidavit the better.

Keep it simple but list all assets. The more solid the affidavit the better.

rebeccajo,

Other than the Phillipines being a "high export" country....

Why do you think the strength of the affadavit is important?

Only because of 'totality of circumstances' which is something every CO has discretion in. Depends on the rest of the case, as aussie said.

Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment....

So a petitioner who makes 250k a year somehow has a less potentially fraudulent case than a petitioner who makes 40k? In a high fraud country, would not the opposite be true?

[rebeccajo 14]

The OP is in the Phillipines.

The stronger the Affidavit the better.

Keep it simple but list all assets. The more solid the affidavit the better.

rebeccajo,

Other than the Phillipines being a "high export" country....

Why do you think the strength of the affadavit is important?

Only because of 'totality of circumstances' which is something every CO has discretion in. Depends on the rest of the case, as aussie said.

Let me play devil's advocate here for a moment....

So a petitioner who makes 250k a year somehow has a less potentially fraudulent case than a petitioner who makes 40k? In a high fraud country, would not the opposite be true?

Good thought. That could be a likely scenario.

But if one is producing ones tax return as proof of income, then whatever the income is - well it just is.

I've often wondered what goes through these CO's minds in high fraud posts. To me, it really shouldn't be the governments business if a man or woman is so dumb as to let themselves be used for a greencard, as long as the government isn't going to be on the hook for the immigrants living expenses, medical care, and education. But that's my left-wing hippie adolescence speaking - I realize they have to try and draw a line somewhere. It's just not always clear to me where the line becomes an invasion of privacy.

[payxibka 10,045]

Good thought. That could be a likely scenario.

But if one is producing ones tax return as proof of income, then whatever the income is - well it just is.

I've often wondered what goes through these CO's minds in high fraud posts. To me, it really shouldn't be the governments business if a man or woman is so dumb as to let themselves be used for a greencard, as long as the government isn't going to be on the hook for the immigrants living expenses, medical care, and education. But that's my left-wing hippie adolescence speaking - I realize they have to try and draw a line somewhere. It's just not always clear to me where the line becomes an invasion of privacy.

I really do not think they are trying to save a few dumb @sses. The only conclusion I can draw is that if they did not draw a line somewhere then you would have rampant fee arrangement "marriages" and the system would become so clogged that those of us who are in it for the right reasons would never get a petition approved.........

[rebeccajo 14]

I really do not think they are trying to save a few dumb @sses. The only conclusion I can draw is that if they did not draw a line somewhere then you would have rampant fee arrangement "marriages" and the system would become so clogged that those of us who are in it for the right reasons would never get a petition approved.........

It's not clogged already?

s

I've heard that's actually part of their goal - protecting us from predators using us for immigration purposes only. But who knows....

[payxibka 10,045]

I really do not think they are trying to save a few dumb @sses. The only conclusion I can draw is that if they did not draw a line somewhere then you would have rampant fee arrangement "marriages" and the system would become so clogged that those of us who are in it for the right reasons would never get a petition approved.........

It's not clogged already?

s

I've heard that's actually part of their goal - protecting us from predators using us for immigration purposes only. But who knows....

Please, once again you missed my descriptive "cautionary" qualifier. Yes, the system is clogged. But what I said was "SOOOOOOOOOOOO" clogged.....

YMMV