K1: No affidavit of support

[Guest pushbrk]

I believe documents is only one of the evidences to convince a VO and it should be the least important one. Why? Because I can get an I-134 just for 500 bucks in Chinatown easily and it really means nothing.

230340[/snapback]

I believe the VO will follow the guidance of 9FAM and use the "totality" of the circumstances; look at the beneficiary's health, education, and employment history... as well as the documentary proof from the petitioner.

 

But my gut says that the documentary proof, if evidencing sustainable income into the future, is usually enough proof to a VO.

 

Most petitioners (and if we stick to those on this site) are not going to consider going to chinatown to get an I-134... The idea is almost ludicrous, particularly if the petitioner has as decent job... Clearly here is where "totality" of petitioner is needed.

 

And the fact that a I-134 is not truly required is why we recommend people bring their taxes and employer letter...

 

I'm hoping the VO is smart enough to ask for more than one document if he suspects something is from chinatown...

230350[/snapback]

My gf's brother asked his antoney prepared a I-134. But his antoney mistakenly put the "relationship to the beneficial" as "friend". Is that a big problem? Can he change it when sign it or I change it when I got it? I think it should be "Brother of his fiance'". right?

 

thanks.

233024[/snapback]

Assuming you mean the petitioner's brother, then he is not related to the beneficiary. He is only related to the petitioner. "Friend" is appropriate enough in my opinion, and evidently the opinion of the petitioner's attorney.

 

I don't think "fiance's brother" is an actual "relationship" to the non-relative fiance. Beyond that affidavit could come from anybody whether they ever met the beneficiary or not.

 

I should add that I see no specific place on the I-134 for the sponsor to indicate their relationship to the beneficiary.

Edited July 23, 2006 by pushbrk (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

I believe documents is only one of the evidences to convince a VO and it should be the least important one. Why? Because I can get an I-134 just for 500 bucks in Chinatown easily and it really means nothing.

230340[/snapback]

I believe the VO will follow the guidance of 9FAM and use the "totality" of the circumstances; look at the beneficiary's health, education, and employment history... as well as the documentary proof from the petitioner.

 

But my gut says that the documentary proof, if evidencing sustainable income into the future, is usually enough proof to a VO.

 

Most petitioners (and if we stick to those on this site) are not going to consider going to chinatown to get an I-134... The idea is almost ludicrous, particularly if the petitioner has as decent job... Clearly here is where "totality" of petitioner is needed.

 

And the fact that a I-134 is not truly required is why we recommend people bring their taxes and employer letter...

 

I'm hoping the VO is smart enough to ask for more than one document if he suspects something is from chinatown...

230350[/snapback]

My gf's brother asked his antoney prepared a I-134. But his antoney mistakenly put the "relationship to the beneficial" as "friend". Is that a big problem? Can he change it when sign it or I change it when I got it? I think it should be "Brother of his fiance'". right?

 

thanks.

233024[/snapback]

Assuming you mean the petitioner's brother, then he is not related to the beneficiary. He is only related to the petitioner. "Friend" is appropriate enough in my opinion, and evidently the opinion of the petitioner's attorney.

 

I don't think "fiance's brother" is an actual "relationship" to the non-relative fiance. Beyond that affidavit could come from anybody whether they ever met the beneficiary or not.

 

I should add that I see no specific place on the I-134 for the sponsor to indicate their relationship to the beneficiary.

233063[/snapback]

I think we need to clearly understand which part of the form is referenced here...

 

there appears to me to be two places on the I-134 where the sponsor is asked to indicate their relationship to the beneficiary;

 

it's in reverse order: "Relationship to the sponsor" (ie: what is the sponsored persons relationship to the sponsor) in the first section, Q.3. I answered this "fiancee"... this was the sponsored persons relationship (my SO) to the sponsor (me).

 

But it's not clear to me if you mean this section or Q.10 where it asks "Submitted on behalf of" (with another relationship question--again, relationship to the sponsor--fiancee is appropriate again )

 

or the last section of the "Oath". did you have the GF'sbrother's attorney fill this out ? (although the last section does not have any relationship question)...

 

 

 

So, can you reference exactly what your referring to ?

[Guest pushbrk]

I believe documents is only one of the evidences to convince a VO and it should be the least important one. Why? Because I can get an I-134 just for 500 bucks in Chinatown easily and it really means nothing.

230340[/snapback]

I believe the VO will follow the guidance of 9FAM and use the "totality" of the circumstances; look at the beneficiary's health, education, and employment history... as well as the documentary proof from the petitioner.

 

But my gut says that the documentary proof, if evidencing sustainable income into the future, is usually enough proof to a VO.

 

Most petitioners (and if we stick to those on this site) are not going to consider going to chinatown to get an I-134... The idea is almost ludicrous, particularly if the petitioner has as decent job... Clearly here is where "totality" of petitioner is needed.

 

And the fact that a I-134 is not truly required is why we recommend people bring their taxes and employer letter...

 

I'm hoping the VO is smart enough to ask for more than one document if he suspects something is from chinatown...

230350[/snapback]

My gf's brother asked his antoney prepared a I-134. But his antoney mistakenly put the "relationship to the beneficial" as "friend". Is that a big problem? Can he change it when sign it or I change it when I got it? I think it should be "Brother of his fiance'". right?

 

thanks.

233024[/snapback]

Assuming you mean the petitioner's brother, then he is not related to the beneficiary. He is only related to the petitioner. "Friend" is appropriate enough in my opinion, and evidently the opinion of the petitioner's attorney.

 

I don't think "fiance's brother" is an actual "relationship" to the non-relative fiance. Beyond that affidavit could come from anybody whether they ever met the beneficiary or not.

 

I should add that I see no specific place on the I-134 for the sponsor to indicate their relationship to the beneficiary.

233063[/snapback]

I think we need to clearly understand which part of the form is referenced here...

 

there appears to me to be two places on the I-134 where the sponsor is asked to indicate their relationship to the beneficiary;

 

it's in reverse order: "Relationship to the sponsor" (ie: what is the sponsored persons relationship to the sponsor) in the first section, Q.3. I answered this "fiancee"... this was the sponsored persons relationship (my SO) to the sponsor (me).

 

But it's not clear to me if you mean this section or Q.10 where it asks "Submitted on behalf of" (with another relationship question--again, relationship to the sponsor--fiancee is appropriate again )

 

or the last section of the "Oath". did you have the GF'sbrother's attorney fill this out ? (although the last section does not have any relationship question)...

 

 

 

So, can you reference exactly what your referring to ?

233135[/snapback]

Good questions, David. I didn't see the reverse order in question 3. In this case it's the only one that could apply. In question 10, this I-134 sponsor did not submit visa petitions for the people sponsored in this affidavit. As you've mentioned, the oath at the bottom asks nothing about a relationship.

 

By process of elimination, it would seem that "friend" is appropriate for question 3. Indirect relationships can be difficult to describe precisely enough to avoid confusion.

[david_dawei]

I think we need to clearly understand which part of the form is referenced here... 

 

there appears to me to be two places on the I-134 where the sponsor is asked to indicate their relationship to the beneficiary;

 

it's in reverse order:  "Relationship to the sponsor"  (ie: what is the sponsored persons relationship to the sponsor)  in the first section, Q.3.  I answered this "fiancee"... this was the sponsored persons relationship (my SO) to the sponsor (me).

 

But it's not clear to me if you mean this section or Q.10 where it asks "Submitted on behalf of" (with another relationship question--again, relationship to the sponsor--fiancee is appropriate again )

 

or the last section of the "Oath".  did you have the GF'sbrother's attorney fill this out ?  (although the last section does not have any relationship question)...

 

 

 

So, can you reference exactly what your referring to ?

233135[/snapback]

Good questions, David. I didn't see the reverse order in question 3. In this case it's the only one that could apply. In question 10, this I-134 sponsor did not submit visa petitions for the people sponsored in this affidavit. As you've mentioned, the oath at the bottom asks nothing about a relationship.

 

By process of elimination, it would seem that "friend" is appropriate for question 3. Indirect relationships can be difficult to describe precisely enough to avoid confusion.

233161[/snapback]

um.. not sure that 'friend' is right. The friend is the attorney who 'prepared' it... but is not the sponsor of Q.1 - Q.3.. at least in my reading. Whoever the sponsor is fills this out.. and Q.10 would be the same answer... in my reading, I assume the USC is sponsor; answer is then "Fiancee" in both places...

 

I agree it is confusing and I've read this post 5 times to understand all the different people and who did what... So I'd like to still her some clarification:

 

1) Is the USC the sponsor ? At Q.1, the "I... , whose name was put, the USC?

 

2) The attorney (friend of GF) only prepared this, yes? IS not the sponsor, yes?

 

[Guest pushbrk]

I think we need to clearly understand which part of the form is referenced here...?nbsp;

 

there appears to me to be two places on the I-134 where the sponsor is asked to indicate their relationship to the beneficiary;

 

it's in reverse order:?"Relationship to the sponsor"?(ie: what is the sponsored persons relationship to the sponsor)?nbsp; in the first section, Q.3.?nbsp; I answered this "fiancee"... this was the sponsored persons relationship (my SO) to the sponsor (me).

 

But it's not clear to me if you mean this section or Q.10 where it asks "Submitted on behalf of" (with another relationship question--again, relationship to the sponsor--fiancee is appropriate again )

 

or the last section of the "Oath".?did you have the GF'sbrother's attorney fill this out ??(although the last section does not have any relationship question)...

 

 

 

So, can you reference exactly what your referring to ?

233135[/snapback]

Good questions, David. I didn't see the reverse order in question 3. In this case it's the only one that could apply. In question 10, this I-134 sponsor did not submit visa petitions for the people sponsored in this affidavit. As you've mentioned, the oath at the bottom asks nothing about a relationship.

 

By process of elimination, it would seem that "friend" is appropriate for question 3. Indirect relationships can be difficult to describe precisely enough to avoid confusion.

233161[/snapback]

um.. not sure that 'friend' is right. The friend is the attorney who 'prepared' it... but is not the sponsor of Q.1 - Q.3.. at least in my reading. Whoever the sponsor is fills this out.. and Q.10 would be the same answer... in my reading, I assume the USC is sponsor; answer is then "Fiancee" in both places...

 

I agree it is confusing and I've read this post 5 times to understand all the different people and who did what... So I'd like to still her some clarification:

 

1) Is the USC the sponsor ? At Q.1, the "I... , whose name was put, the USC?

 

2) The attorney (friend of GF) only prepared this, yes? IS not the sponsor, yes?

 

233166[/snapback]

Come to think of it none of the relationships are clear but my interpretation was that the OP, Alexi, is a woman. Her boyfriend/fiance is using his brother as a sponsor. So the beneficiary's fiance's brother is the sponsor. That means no relation. Friend is appropriate.

 

This is all based on an interpretation of the first post that may well be wrong.

 

Alexi, help us out here. Who is who?

Edited July 24, 2006 by pushbrk (see edit history)

[Randy W]

My gf's brother asked his antoney prepared a I-134

 

Alex is a male Chinese - he is the beneficiary. His fiance (an American citizen) is the female (gf) petitioner. (from what I can see).

 

The relationship between the brother and the beneficiary is her fiance's brother. This is not a blood relationship, but a relationship nonetheless. I believe it is very common for a petitioner to use their own relative as a co-sponsor. Very few Chinese beneficiaries have a blood relative in the US who can sponsor them.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Randy W (see edit history)

[MRMC]

I would try to show assets or try to get a co sponsor. The form requires you to swear it is true and correct. A false form would probably lead to a denial or civil/criminal penalties. Maybe seek the advice of an immigration attorney.