Can we put unemployment benefits on I-134?

[JohnAnwesha 4]

Hi all,

Currently my fiance is unemployed and looking.He is on unemployment benefits since 2 months.I just wanted to know if we could put that amount somewhere on the I-134?If so,could it be under income?Or should the income be $0.00.Not sure,so would like to know some of your opinions.

Thanks,

Anwesha

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

Do you guys have a co sponsor ? I think you can list it but I am not sure if they accept it fully as it is only a limited term benefit. Hopefully he will find something soon.

[JohnAnwesha 4]

Do you guys have a co sponsor ? I think you can list it but I am not sure if they accept it fully as it is only a limited term benefit. Hopefully he will find something soon.

Thanks for your concern NigeriaorBust

Yes we do have a co-sponsor,but I just did not want my fiance's income to be a big fat 0,hehe!

We do know that it will not convince the CO,but just wanted to find out if it is not a wrong thing to do.

Thank you again !

[pushbrk 12,883]

Hi all,

Currently my fiance is unemployed and looking.He is on unemployment benefits since 2 months.I just wanted to know if we could put that amount somewhere on the I-134?If so,could it be under income?Or should the income be $0.00.Not sure,so would like to know some of your opinions.

Thanks,

Anwesha

Of course. List income as income. Conoffs know this is temporary income, so it is good that you have a co-sponsor.

Since zero income would be untrue, I don't understand why you would even think for one second about lying on an immigration form. Keep the priority on truth. It will serve you well.

Edited May 3, 2010 by pushbrk

[Audy_Rob 26]

Of course. List income as income. Conoffs know this is temporary income, so it is good that you have a co-sponsor.

Since zero income would be untrue, I don't understand why you would even think for one second about lying on an immigration form. Keep the priority on truth. It will serve you well.

Any reasonable person would read this question from the OP as a question if Unemployment Income is a means tested benefit or not.

Unemployment Income is an employment related income like Workmen's Compensation and may be listed as income on the I-134. Also pensions and Disability or SSDI can be listed.

Examples that CANNOT be listed as income on the I-134 are SSI or Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamps, etc...

There was never an intention to hide the truth. The question was if the income can be listed.

[pushbrk 12,883]

Any reasonable person would read this question from the OP as a question if Unemployment Income is a means tested benefit or not.

Unemployment Income is an employment related income like Workmen's Compensation and may be listed as income on the I-134. Also pensions and Disability or SSDI can be listed.

Examples that CANNOT be listed as income on the I-134 are SSI or Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamps, etc...

There was never an intention to hide the truth. The question was if the income can be listed.

First, I doubt the foreigner asking the question ever heard the term "means tested benefit". Second, SSI is income and with emphasis on truth again, would definitely be included if received. Whether and how it will be considered is up to the Conoff, just as unemployment would be. (up to the Conoff) You just (apparently unwittingly) advised anybody receiving SSI to lie on an immigration form.

The questions, "Does it count?" and "How will it be considered?" are separate from "Is it income?" When asked to state current income, you state current income, regardless of how those first two questions would impact qualification.

Always read CAREFULLY, interpret LITERALLY, and answer ACCURATELY.

[JohnAnwesha 4]

Of course. List income as income. Conoffs know this is temporary income, so it is good that you have a co-sponsor.

Since zero income would be untrue, I don't understand why you would even think for one second about lying on an immigration form. Keep the priority on truth. It will serve you well.

Any reasonable person would read this question from the OP as a question if Unemployment Income is a means tested benefit or not.

Unemployment Income is an employment related income like Workmen's Compensation and may be listed as income on the I-134. Also pensions and Disability or SSDI can be listed.

Examples that CANNOT be listed as income on the I-134 are SSI or Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamps, etc...

There was never an intention to hide the truth. The question was if the income can be listed.

Hi pushbrk,

My intention of asking that question was not to find out if I could lie to immigration and get away.I am truthful,have been and will be so.I just really wanted to know if listing the unemployment benefits as income was the right thing.I did not want to do anything wrong,even if it was due to my sheer ignorance.

Thanks Audy_Rob for clearly demarcating what can and what cannot be listed under income.Really just wanted to know that.

[pushbrk 12,883]

Hi pushbrk,

My intention of asking that question was not to find out if I could lie to immigration and get away.I am truthful,have been and will be so.I just really wanted to know if listing the unemployment benefits as income was the right thing.I did not want to do anything wrong,even if it was due to my sheer ignorance.

Thanks Audy_Rob for clearly demarcating what can and what cannot be listed under income.Really just wanted to know that.

I was trying to get your attention, not accuse you of trying to find out if you could get away with lying. My point is...

Always read CAREFULLY, interpret LITERALLY, and answer ACCURATELY. Income is income. Audy_Rob did not correctly describe what can and cannot be listed as income. ANY "income" is listed. The question itself is simple. I'm suggesting you need to simply Always read CAREFULLY, interpret LITERALLY, and answer ACCURATELY. To NOT list unemployment income would not be accurate and therefore a "LIE" regardless of any intention to deceive. In this process, truth and accuracy are required, as is Always reading CAREFULLY, interpreting LITERALLY, and answering ACCURATELY.

[JohnAnwesha 4]

I had earlier asked a question about putting unemployment benefits on the I-134 and found out that we can since that too is income albiet short-term.

So in the I-134 ,my fiance has put unemployed for the question 'engaged in type of business'.Where should I mention the unemployment?Under the income section?But that is not annual,so do I write by its side that it is paid monthly?will that be okay if I,the fiance, just added it?

Thanks everyone!

[pushbrk 12,883]

I had earlier asked a question about putting unemployment benefits on the I-134 and found out that we can since that too is income albiet short-term.

So in the I-134 ,my fiance has put unemployed for the question 'engaged in type of business'.Where should I mention the unemployment?Under the income section?But that is not annual,so do I write by its side that it is paid monthly?will that be okay if I,the fiance, just added it?

Thanks everyone!

You mentioned the unemployment by writing unemployed. You enter the annualized amount as if he would draw the unemployment all year. The COMPLETED I-134 is to be signed by the petitioner. It is his affidavit signed under penalty of perjury. I would advise against somebody other than the signer editing such a document after the signature is affixed.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Of course. List income as income. Conoffs know this is temporary income, so it is good that you have a co-sponsor.

Since zero income would be untrue, I don't understand why you would even think for one second about lying on an immigration form. Keep the priority on truth. It will serve you well.

Hogwash. By that logic, if you own stock or real estate and do NOT list them then you are "lying".

It is not, nor has it ever been, the intention of the I-134 (or I-864) to serve as an accounting of all income and assets of the sponsor. The intention of the I-134 is to satisfy the requirements of INA 212(a)(4) for public charge determination. Section 213A covers the affidavit itself, and does not specify anywhere that a full and detailed accounting of all of the sponsor's income and assets is required. In fact, the only evidence specifically required in 213A is tax returns. The oath section of the I-134 states "true and correct", but does not state "complete".

It is the intent of the affidavit to determine if the sponsor meets the minimum requirements. I have never heard of anyone being accused of lying for understating their income on an affidavit of support, especially if they are excluding income which they know is temporary or variable. If anything, I would think a consulate could accuse a sponsor of lying by overstating their income if they included temporary income, and annualized it to give the appearance that they expect to receive more income than they will actually receive.

What do you declare for income on the I-134 if your income varies every year? For example, what if you receive a base salary plus bonus (as I do), but the bonus varies radically from one year to another, and some years you receive no bonus at all? Do you average all of the bonuses to come up with an average annual figure? Would the consulate think you were lying if last year's tax return didn't substantiate the figure you wrote on the I-134? Or, would it be SAFER to declare only your base salary on the I-134, and your tax returns for the previous 3 years show your income has been equal to or greater than the amount you declared on the form? I declared only my base salary on the I-134, even though my tax transcripts for the past 3 years showed my actual income was at least 25% higher each year. The letter from my employer made it clear that the amount I was listing was only my base salary. My affidavit was never questioned, and I was never accused of lying.

People should use their common sense here. Nobody is going to charge you with perjury if exclude income which you know is temporary, and which you believe the consulate is not going to consider when making the public charge determination.

[pushbrk 12,883]

Hogwash. By that logic, if you own stock or real estate and do NOT list them then you are "lying".

It is not, nor has it ever been, the intention of the I-134 (or I-864) to serve as an accounting of all income and assets of the sponsor. The intention of the I-134 is to satisfy the requirements of INA 212(a)(4) for public charge determination. Section 213A covers the affidavit itself, and does not specify anywhere that a full and detailed accounting of all of the sponsor's income and assets is required. In fact, the only evidence specifically required in 213A is tax returns. The oath section of the I-134 states "true and correct", but does not state "complete".

It is the intent of the affidavit to determine if the sponsor meets the minimum requirements. I have never heard of anyone being accused of lying for understating their income on an affidavit of support, especially if they are excluding income which they know is temporary or variable. If anything, I would think a consulate could accuse a sponsor of lying by overstating their income if they included temporary income, and annualized it to give the appearance that they expect to receive more income than they will actually receive.

What do you declare for income on the I-134 if your income varies every year? For example, what if you receive a base salary plus bonus (as I do), but the bonus varies radically from one year to another, and some years you receive no bonus at all? Do you average all of the bonuses to come up with an average annual figure? Would the consulate think you were lying if last year's tax return didn't substantiate the figure you wrote on the I-134? Or, would it be SAFER to declare only your base salary on the I-134, and your tax returns for the previous 3 years show your income has been equal to or greater than the amount you declared on the form? I declared only my base salary on the I-134, even though my tax transcripts for the past 3 years showed my actual income was at least 25% higher each year. The letter from my employer made it clear that the amount I was listing was only my base salary. My affidavit was never questioned, and I was never accused of lying.

People should use their common sense here. Nobody is going to charge you with perjury if exclude income which you know is temporary, and which you believe the consulate is not going to consider when making the public charge determination.

I agree there would be no consequence for failing to show unemployment income and certainly no charge of perjury. I also agree there's no intent for the affidavit to be a full accounting of income and assets. Leaving asset questions blank is different from entering zero for income or zero for assets. Zero is untrue. Leaving blank simply indicates the knowledge that answering is optional.

My point is that thinking in terms of TRUTH is a far better policy than thinking in terms of what to conceal or not conceal. The post to which I responded came across to me as coming from somebody more concerned with appearances than truth. It's my opinion. Sometimes it's great to be wrong about such things. I hope I am.

Another comment in this or another thread mentioned only showing six months of unemployment benefits instead of annualizing them. That seems silly to me. The benefits now go for more than a year with all the extensions. Of course they are temporary and will hopefully be replaced with a higher employment income but to annualize unemployment is no more misleading than for employment income which with little or no notice could end and be replaced with unemployment benefits or nothing.

Edited May 7, 2010 by pushbrk

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I agree there would be no consequence for failing to show unemployment income and certainly no charge of perjury. I also agree there's no intent for the affidavit to be a full accounting of income and assets. Leaving asset questions blank is different from entering zero for income or zero for assets. Zero is untrue. Leaving blank simply indicates the knowledge that answering is optional.

My point is that thinking in terms of TRUTH is a far better policy than thinking in terms of what to conceal or not conceal. The post to which I responded came across to me as coming from somebody more concerned with appearances than truth. It's my opinion. Sometimes it's great to be wrong about such things. I hope I am.

Another comment in this or another thread mentioned only showing six months of unemployment benefits instead of annualizing them. That seems silly to me. The benefits now go for more than a year with all the extensions. Of course they are temporary and will hopefully be replaced with a higher employment income but to annualize unemployment is no more misleading than for employment income which with little or no notice could end and be replaced with unemployment benefits or nothing.

Understood, but I think there's a big difference between exclusion or omission and concealment.

I doubt anyone would be penalized for stating zero income, even if they did receive some income from unemployment compensation. If they did, then I should also be penalized for stating only my base salary, even though I also received income from bonuses and from my home based business. The bonus and business income is highly variable, I can't depend on receiving it, and I didn't want the consulate to consider it when evaluating my qualifications to sponsor my fiancee and her kids. My base salary is consistent, and reliable as long as I still have the same job. If my base salary alone were not enough to qualify, I could easily see the consulate refusing to consider my bonus or business income because they are too inconsistent, and telling me to get a co-sponsor. Stating zero income is essentially saying "I have no stable income for you to consider. Go look at my co-sponsor's affidavit."

The only question is whether stating the unemployment income is going to make the consular officer feel better about accepting your co-sponsor. That's an unknown factor, but my guess would be probably not. I think the CO would feel better if those numbers were from an income source that had a reasonable expectation of continuing, rather than one that has a specific limited term. If the CO actually thinks this way (and I don't know for sure that they do) then there's no benefit to stating the unemployment compensation.

I agree with you about stating 6 months vs annualizing the unemployment compensation. I wouldn't want to get into a pissing contest with anyone about which is the proper way to state income that the consular officer is likely to disregard anyway. Whether it lasts six months or two years is really not relevant anyway. It's a safe bet that it will never last until the obligations of the I-864 have ended, and this is the judgment that the consular officer is trying to make.

[pushbrk 12,883]

Understood, but I think there's a big difference between exclusion or omission and concealment.

I doubt anyone would be penalized for stating zero income, even if they did receive some income from unemployment compensation. If they did, then I should also be penalized for stating only my base salary, even though I also received income from bonuses and from my home based business. The bonus and business income is highly variable, I can't depend on receiving it, and I didn't want the consulate to consider it when evaluating my qualifications to sponsor my fiancee and her kids. My base salary is consistent, and reliable as long as I still have the same job. If my base salary alone were not enough to qualify, I could easily see the consulate refusing to consider my bonus or business income because they are too inconsistent, and telling me to get a co-sponsor. Stating zero income is essentially saying "I have no stable income for you to consider. Go look at my co-sponsor's affidavit."

The only question is whether stating the unemployment income is going to make the consular officer feel better about accepting your co-sponsor. That's an unknown factor, but my guess would be probably not. I think the CO would feel better if those numbers were from an income source that had a reasonable expectation of continuing, rather than one that has a specific limited term. If the CO actually thinks this way (and I don't know for sure that they do) then there's no benefit to stating the unemployment compensation.

I agree with you about stating 6 months vs annualizing the unemployment compensation. I wouldn't want to get into a pissing contest with anyone about which is the proper way to state income that the consular officer is likely to disregard anyway. Whether it lasts six months or two years is really not relevant anyway. It's a safe bet that it will never last until the obligations of the I-864 have ended, and this is the judgment that the consular officer is trying to make.

We've discussed opinions about how unemployment benefits will be considered by Conoffs for quite some time now. I agree that a Conoff would be irresponsible to pass on the public charge concern based on nothing but those benefits, yet we do have at least one report of just that. I've also seen many reports where no I-134 was handed over and many more where it appeared it wasn't even looked at. As far as I know ALL I-864 forms are evaluated carefully. The one I-134 with only unemployment benefits as income could easily have been one that wasn't looked at. I think this happens in cases where they've seen the occupation and employment record in a highly positive light prior to the interview and simply prejudge the public charge concern without noticing the I-134 says they lost the job they had when they signed the G325a.

[JohnAnwesha 4]

Hi Jim and pushbrk,

I am sorry I have to return back to this older thread to make a comment.I just submitted my documents yesterday to the VFS office.The consulates in India,well some,require that we submit our docs(even the I-134s) to them a few working days before our actual interview,so that they can forward it to the respective consulates for the COs to review.

So I finished that part yest and I did not enter anything anywhere on the I-134.The income is now blank,not a 0 or not an annualized amount of the temporary unemployment.I took a wise call on that.

But my intention of posting the question in the first place was not because I had a problem with 'appearances' rather than 'truth'.But because I really did not know if one does that and if it is the practice when people are on unemployment benefits.

So now the CO will decide if of if not he likes my fiance's I-134.He did have a very stable job 2 months into applying for the K-1 and waiting.But anyway

But thanks.I am not very aware of immigration laws(beyond what is necessary and what I think applies to me) but am learning from experienced members like you here.Thank you!