AoS I-134, sent DIRECTLY to GUZ?

[SirLancelot]

http://www.laogonglaopo.com/001files/form/...167_English.pdf

 

According to the instruction sheet sent to Chinese beneficiaries in Package 3 regarding AoS (I-134), I quote:

 

A sponsor may prefer to forward his or her affidavit of support directly to the consular office where the visa application will be made, in which event the contents will not be divulged to the applicant.

 

Are you all aware of this? I had always been under the knowledge--by reading through many posts here--that we send the SO the I-134 and she would bring that with her to the interview. It was never stated that we had the option to directly send it to GUZ and that they wouldn't reveal that to the beneficiary.

 

Has anyone done it this way? I like this method more. I think it's more secure.

[tywy_99]

That statement, picked from the OF-167, would apply more towards work visas and student visas than it would towards spousal and fiance visas.

Even if you sent it in to the consulate, the VO may still ask the applicant (your fiancee) for an I-134 and that would cause a delay in getting the visa if she didn't have one.

It's best to have your fiancee be present with an I-134 at time of interview.

 

It's been mentioned here before.

[frank1538]

While sending the I-134 directly to the consulate may be allowable, the preferred method is to have your SO bring it to the interview as per http://guangzhou.usconsulate.gov/kvfaq.html

 

There may be certain instances when the US petitioner might not want the visa applicant to know the financial information contained in the I-134, but with a family based visa, it might actually be harmful if the VO asked an I-134 question of you SO, and she didn't know the answer. Of course, you could provide her with a copy of the I-134, but if you're going to do that, you might as well let her take the stuff to the interview. Besides, I'm not sure I would ever trust the mails, a fax, or the personnel at the consulate who would be responsible for associated the I-134 with the files.

 

Like Ty, I recommend having your SO bring the I-134 and supporting documention rather than sending it directly.

[SirLancelot]

While sending the I-134 directly to the consulate may be allowable, the preferred method is to have your SO bring it to the interview as per http://guangzhou.usconsulate.gov/kvfaq.html

 

There may be certain instances when the US petitioner might not want the visa applicant to know the financial information contained in the I-134, but with a family based visa, it might actually be harmful if the VO asked an I-134 question of you SO, and she didn't know the answer. Of course, you could provide her with a copy of the I-134, but if you're going to do that, you might as well let her take the stuff to the interview. Besides, I'm not sure I would ever trust the mails, a fax, or the personnel at the consulate who would be responsible for associated the I-134 with the files.

 

Like Ty, I recommend having your SO bring the I-134 and supporting documention rather than sending it directly.

 

 

Yes, I see your two points. However, the reason I ask this question is because, technically, the two people are not married while filing through this process. It's possible that the couple may not get married once the SO arrives in the US. To let the SO see all the financial information before marriage could be dangerous if they end up not marrying. That's why I think it's more secure to send it directly to GUZ.

 

I don't think any VO can assume all engaged couples are or act like actual married couples. Not all engaged couples disclose all their finances to each other. Many only find out the true financial picture after marraige in the US (I mean between two USCs in the US).

 

Afterall, what better way to prevent a gold-digger from trying to dig gold than to not disclose your finances at all? And this is a general statement. I don't mean to say any of your SOs are gold diggers.

[C4Racer]

Afterall, what better way to prevent a gold-digger from trying to dig gold than to not disclose your finances at all? And this is a general statement. I don't mean to say any of your SOs are gold diggers.

 

This is where it becomes dicey. If you do not disclose your finances with your perspective SO, then like most people in their country it will be assumed you are rich. The idea through out places like China and Russia are, ALL PEOPLE IN THE USA ARE ROLLING IN THE MONEY. So you will not discourage the gold diggers from their country. Their thought is marry anyone from the USA. Have a USA passport and you are a target.

 

The only thing I see, is it working against you. Guangzhou will see this as a mistrust issue and deny the visa. If you aren't sure, then they will know this and say you do not have a vaild relationship.

Edited September 23, 2006 by C4Racer (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

The only thing I see, is it working against you. Guangzhou will see this as a mistrust issue and deny the visa. If you aren't sure, then they will know this and say you do not have a vaild relationship.

 

 

I completely agree with this...

 

Even if you give this to the consulate, they can still ask for it. Or they can ask for the taxes or employer letter instead... she must have any item they ask form. Remember, no one of these items is required; it's only the item asked for.

 

Yes, some couples will not marry once in the US, but you [two] signed documents stating an intention to marry and went through a year process to complete that intention; that's what the government is going by, not what you "might do", but what you have filed and intend to do.

 

If the intention is not to immigrate, and the VOs feels this in any way, that is going to work against you...

[LeeFisher3]

Yes, I see your two points. However, the reason I ask this question is because, technically, the two people are not married while filing through this process. It's possible that the couple may not get married once the SO arrives in the US. To let the SO see all the financial information before marriage could be dangerous if they end up not marrying. That's why I think it's more secure to send it directly to GUZ.

 

I don't think any VO can assume all engaged couples are or act like actual married couples. Not all engaged couples disclose all their finances to each other. Many only find out the true financial picture after marriage in the US (I mean between two USCs in the US).

The purpose of the K-1 visa is to allow the couple to get married within 90 days of entry, not take a test drive to see if you want to get married. If getting the K-1 visa is approached giving the attitude that a marriage may not take place the VO will more than likely deny the visa as there is a definite lack of understanding and commitment to the relationship. The decision to get married is supposed to have been decided prior to filing the petition as the petition is for a fianc¨¦e, not a girl friend to visit and see if they want to stay.

 

I know that many people believe the 90 days to be a test drive to see if the relationship is a good fit, but if either person isn't sure then perhaps it would be best to delay the interview until both positive this is the direction desired in their lives.

 

Another consideration is that while it costs the USC the price of processing and a plane ticket most of the Chinese partners dissolve or spend all their assets in coming to the US, this is a major commitment on their part and returning causes them to begin again to gain the work and financial stability they had before leaving their home. If the shoe were on the other foot I am sure you would not be too pleased to be sent home broke and jobless to begin your life again.

 

Your logic concerning how 2 USC's get married is fine for the USC's, but the US Government does not regulate the requirements for support and rules for allowing them to be together and that makes all the difference. You can see the similar differences between adopting a child and having a child, you must prove that you can provide a good home to adopt and to be a parent you only have to not have the self control to keep it in your pants.

 

As others have said, not making the beneficiary aware of the financial status could be considered a rather large red flag to the VO in GZ as they are used to asking the beneficiary for this. A few members have experienced problems with CR-1 cases by not having the most recent tax return available even though they had copies in the file that were sent with the I-864.

 

I guess it all boils down to a trust issue on both sides.

[yuehan123]

I have to tell you, I am amazed that having asked the question and received prompt and thorough answers, answers which include reerences and explanations, from some of the most knowledgeable members you still choose to yea-but and tell the board why your logic is sound.

 

Won't change their answers. Won't change mine either. Do what they said.

 

If you don't trust her and don't trust the process, then don't follow through with the application.

[SirLancelot]

I have to tell you, I am amazed that having asked the question and received prompt and thorough answers, answers which include reerences and explanations, from some of the most knowledgeable members you still choose to yea-but and tell the board why your logic is sound.

 

Won't change their answers. Won't change mine either. Do what they said.

 

If you don't trust her and don't trust the process, then don't follow through with the application.

 

First off, the question was a hypothethical one. I wanted a discussion on this issue, not an answer for me personally.

 

Second off, I make my own decisions thank you. I may solicit input, but certainly in the end I'm going to decide for myself. I will act in a way that I am most comfortable with, despite what anyone else says, as I actually have to live with the consequences, not any one on this board.

 

Thirdly, it's right there in the instructions they send you in P3. They can't tell us one thing and expect another kind of action. No where on the instruction form does it state that it's only for working or student visas and that it does NOT apply to I-129F. It's sent to an I-129F beneficiary and it doesn't explicitly state to disregard this part of the instruction. So it can easily be used as a valid and legit reason as to why the SO does NOT have the I-134 when appearing before the interview. GUZ has clearly given written instructions stating that it's acceptable to directly send them the I-134 and that it will NOT be revealed to the beneficiary. What about all the petitioners who don't visit VJ or CFL? Are they all suppose to know this, despite what their written instructions state in Package 3?

 

It's great that many of you hold your fiancees in high regards and have already started to consider them as actual spouses but in fact a fiancee is nothing more than a GF. There's not a single State in the US which grants rights upon a fiancee as they would grant a spouse. I suspect, even at hospitals, if the girl/woman goes in and states that she's a fiancee, that the hospital would still treat her exactly as a GF and would't tell her a thing.

 

There is nothing legal and binding about an engagement. One second before the actual marriage ceremony, she can get cold feet--or even you--and the marriage can be called off. There is nothing particularly special, legal, or binding about an engagement in the eyes of the law.

 

And I completely believe that's the way USCIS understands the situation as well, since the K-1 visa is NOT an immigration visa. It's a quasi-immigration visa because only when the SO marries in the US, then she becomes an immigrant, but until she marries, her visa is basically a visitors visa allowing her to stay 90 days. If not married within 90 days, the SO will have to leave the country. She receives no penalty for not marrying, nor has she broken any laws.

 

Even going through this entire process, the US can't compel either the man or the woman to marry. Any any moment, either parties can disengage and call it off. And, unfortunately, couples do call it off all the time, before or after this entire process is completed.

[tonado]

You have the option of sending it directly or have your SO bring for the interview. However, if you plan to send it directly, don't send it too early. There is a chance the VO may want a newer one if the one sent was mailed too long ago. You can also give one to your SO with a seal envelope. That way she/he won't know what is inside.

[SirLancelot]

You have the option of sending it directly or have your SO bring for the interview. However, if you plan to send it directly, don't send it too early. There is a chance the VO may want a newer one if the one sent was mailed too long ago. You can also give one to your SO with a seal envelope. That way she/he won't know what is inside.

 

 

Tonado, that's actually a pretty good idea. I hadn't thought of that before.

 

Again, this is not for me personally. Most likely, I'll be sending my SO an original, nortarized I-134 to bring along with her to GUZ, but I really wanted some discussion on this topic.

 

I think it's amazing how much information we disclose--on both sides--when undergoing this process. A marriage between two USCs in the US certainly would NOT have all this information disclosed to either parties.

 

I just want us all to be very cautious before we disclose so much of our financial information. As much as you love your SOs, you have no assurance that it's the real deal and not some scam.

[david_dawei]

I think the care of disclosure is something many would understand... and Tony's idea is better than sending it, IMO.

 

Yes, the K1 is a quasi-IV... but we usually following IV procedures rather than NIV procedures. If one looks at the GUZ webpage for NIV information, do we follow these instructions for K1? The consulate has answered some questions about this... although one could argue the K1 is an NIV and the website information for NIV should be followed; WRONG.

 

The quasi-IV feature of the K1 means we get NIV information at times which does not apply to K1, but may be required to give to us, since giving us the IV form would be further from the truth.

 

I think the issue should be asked to the consulate about sending the I-134 or not; so I ask.

 

If the consulate confirms this practice is fine to do, I might consider to put this in the FAQ.. my only gut feeling is that those who write the instruction sheets are not the same as the adjudicating officer you face at the window... And the issue of perceived intent still is the issue for them...

[SirLancelot]

my only gut feeling is that those who write the instruction sheets are not the same as the adjudicating officer you face at the window... And the issue of perceived intent still is the issue for them...

 

 

This is a great point David. I haven't thought of it before. Definitely something to consider. I will be most interested to see what GUZ actually says about this.

 

Thanks.

[david_dawei]

and here it is:

 

Dear CFL,

 

For K1 / K3 cases:

 

Per the instructions included with the "K Instruction Packet" (K Packet 3), and in the "K1/K3 Appointment Packet" (K Packet 4), the consulate requests that applicants / petitioners obtain and prepare ahead of time evidence of financial support, including documentation listed on OF-167 (and I-134 forms), but the actual time to submit this financial documentation is at the interview window.

 

It is okay for a petitioner to seal his/her documents in an envelope and request that the applicant wait until the interview to open it. (We see many cases like this.) We definitely understand that petitioners may want to safeguard their personal information, and will not "penalize" an applicant in such a situation. Even so, in determining the validity of a relationship a consular officer may ask an applicant about the petitioner's financial situation and/or their financial ties.

 

Sincerely,

 

USCONGUZ

[SirLancelot]

Thanks Dave; very useful info directly from the horse's mouth.

 

and here it is:

 

Dear CFL,

 

For K1 / K3 cases:

 

Per the instructions included with the "K Instruction Packet" (K Packet 3), and in the "K1/K3 Appointment Packet" (K Packet 4), the consulate requests that applicants / petitioners obtain and prepare ahead of time evidence of financial support, including documentation listed on OF-167 (and I-134 forms), but the actual time to submit this financial documentation is at the interview window.

 

It is okay for a petitioner to seal his/her documents in an envelope and request that the applicant wait until the interview to open it. (We see many cases like this.) We definitely understand that petitioners may want to safeguard their personal information, and will not "penalize" an applicant in such a situation. Even so, in determining the validity of a relationship a consular officer may ask an applicant about the petitioner's financial situation and/or their financial ties.

 

Sincerely,

 

USCONGUZ