I-134 - Affidavit of Support question

[lyscra]

I was reading in some other posts about questions regarding the I-134.

 

People were saying not to mention stocks or mortgage information because that complicates things allot. My issue here is that I do have a monster mortgage, but the form is a sworn affidavit. How can you avoid not mentioning it? That kind of brings into play all the debts such as bills and line of credit loan and extra sources of income like side jobs.

 

Please advise

 

Thanks!

Edited November 10, 2006 by lyscra (see edit history)

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

I was reading in some other posts about questions regarding the I-134.

 

People were saying not to mention stocks or mortgage information because that complicates things allot. My issue here is that I do have a monster mortgage, but the form is a sworn affidavit. How can you avoid not mentioning it? That kind of brings into play all the debts and extra jobs and such.

 

Please advise

 

Thanks!

 

The I-134 is not geared to indicate your debt-to-income ratio, but rather your earning capability, and whether or not your income meets the minimum requirement. There is no need to list additional assets if your current and previous income meets the requirement. The less is more approach is the best way to avoid becoming a blip on radar.

Edited November 10, 2006 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[dnoblett]

I was reading in some other posts about questions regarding the I-134.

 

People were saying not to mention stocks or mortgage information because that complicates things allot. My issue here is that I do have a monster mortgage, but the form is a sworn affidavit. How can you avoid not mentioning it? That kind of brings into play all the debts and extra jobs and such.

 

Please advise

 

Thanks!

 

The I-134 is not geared to indicate your debt-to-income ratio, but rather your earning capability, and whether or not your income meets the minimum requirement. There is no need to list additional assets if your current and previous income meets the requirement. The less is more approach is the best way to avoid becoming a blip on radar.

Absolutely! I subscribe to the K.I.S.S. rule on this one, Show them what they need to prove the beneficiary wont become a Charge of the State, nothing more.

 

Is my income above the 125% poverty line? Yes, then that is all they need to know, if not then I start bringing in liquid assets, using the 3 to 1 rule, $3 in liquid assets = $1 of income.

Edited November 10, 2006 by dnoblett (see edit history)

[SirLancelot]

 

The I-134 is not geared to indicate your debt-to-income ratio, but rather your earning capability, and whether or not your income meets the minimum requirement. There is no need to list additional assets if your current and previous income meets the requirement. The less is more approach is the best way to avoid becoming a blip on radar.

 

Ok. That has pretty much been settled when the sponsor or co-sponsor has good wage income.

 

How about for those people who are retired and or unemployed and thus have no wage income but have lots of assets? What to list then? All their assets or as little as possible?

 

If the house is completely paid for (NO mortgage), should the house be listed as asset and be done with? Or just move $125K of cash to one account and offer that account as well, or only this amount as proof?

 

Bottom line, if sponsor or co-sponsor have no wage income but lots of assets, should the assets listed be as little as possible to meet any threshold or show all assets, which could be significantly more than the 1:3 or 1:5 ratio.

[tonado]

 

The I-134 is not geared to indicate your debt-to-income ratio, but rather your earning capability, and whether or not your income meets the minimum requirement. There is no need to list additional assets if your current and previous income meets the requirement. The less is more approach is the best way to avoid becoming a blip on radar.

 

Ok. That has pretty much been settled when the sponsor or co-sponsor has good wage income.

 

How about for those people who are retired and or unemployed and thus have no wage income but have lots of assets? What to list then? All their assets or as little as possible?

 

If the house is completely paid for (NO mortgage), should the house be listed as asset and be done with? Or just move $125K of cash to one account and offer that account as well, or only this amount as proof?

 

Bottom line, if sponsor or co-sponsor have no wage income but lots of assets, should the assets listed be as little as possible to meet any threshold or show all assets, which could be significantly more than the 1:3 or 1:5 ratio.

 

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/I-864GenInfo-FAQ-Final.pdf

 

"What Cash Value of Assets is Needed?

To be counted, the cash value of assets must equal five times the difference between the sponsor's

income and 125 percent of the poverty line for the household size.

For example, a petitioner/sponsor with a household size of four and an income of $18,000 would need

assets equal to five times the difference between his/her income and the income required for a family of

four at the current federal poverty guidelines level. He/she would also need to show evidence of

mortgages, liens, and liabilities against the assets"

[dnoblett]

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/I-864GenInfo-FAQ-Final.pdf

 

"What Cash Value of Assets is Needed?

To be counted, the cash value of assets must equal five times the difference between the sponsor's

income and 125 percent of the poverty line for the household size.

For example, a petitioner/sponsor with a household size of four and an income of $18,000 would need

assets equal to five times the difference between his/her income and the income required for a family of

four at the current federal poverty guidelines level. He/she would also need to show evidence of

mortgages, liens, and liabilities against the assets"

Good find there so 5:1, instead of 3:1, I read a while back that the ratio was being discussed as 3:1 or 5:1. Looks like they kept it simple and stayed with the 5:1 ratio. The ratio was loosly based on the minimum number of years an LPR had to wait to become a naturalizd citizen, so 3:1 for spousal LPR and 5:1 for other LPR. They subscribed to the K.I.S.S. rule and stuck with the 5:1 ratio. Edited November 11, 2006 by dnoblett (see edit history)

[SirLancelot]

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/I-864GenInfo-FAQ-Final.pdf

 

"What Cash Value of Assets is Needed?

To be counted, the cash value of assets must equal five times the difference between the sponsor's

income and 125 percent of the poverty line for the household size.

For example, a petitioner/sponsor with a household size of four and an income of $18,000 would need

assets equal to five times the difference between his/her income and the income required for a family of

four at the current federal poverty guidelines level. He/she would also need to show evidence of

mortgages, liens, and liabilities against the assets"

Good find there so 5:1, instead of 3:1, I read a while back that the ratio was being discussed as 3:1 or 5:1. Looks like they kept it simple and stayed with the 5:1 ratio. The ratio was loosly based on the minimum number of years an LPR had to wait to become a naturalizd citizen, so 3:1 for spousal LPR and 5:1 for other LPR. They subscribed to the K.I.S.S. rule and stuck with the 5:1 ratio.

 

I also read it was recently changed to 3:1 from 5:1 for K1 petitions. The quoted info is for the I-864 but I suppose it applies to the I-134 as we get NO official guidance on the I-134 at all.

[RLS]

You know what- if they don't think I can support her they can kiss my ass! I'm tired of having to kiss theirs.

Edited November 11, 2006 by RLS (see edit history)

[Juette]

Now that's the Ron we know and love.

[david_dawei]

http://travel.state.gov/pdf/I-864GenInfo-FAQ-Final.pdf

 

"What Cash Value of Assets is Needed?

To be counted, the cash value of assets must equal five times the difference between the sponsor's

income and 125 percent of the poverty line for the household size.

For example, a petitioner/sponsor with a household size of four and an income of $18,000 would need

assets equal to five times the difference between his/her income and the income required for a family of

four at the current federal poverty guidelines level. He/she would also need to show evidence of

mortgages, liens, and liabilities against the assets"

Good find there so 5:1, instead of 3:1, I read a while back that the ratio was being discussed as 3:1 or 5:1. Looks like they kept it simple and stayed with the 5:1 ratio. The ratio was loosly based on the minimum number of years an LPR had to wait to become a naturalizd citizen, so 3:1 for spousal LPR and 5:1 for other LPR. They subscribed to the K.I.S.S. rule and stuck with the 5:1 ratio.

 

I also read it was recently changed to 3:1 from 5:1 for K1 petitions. The quoted info is for the I-864 but I suppose it applies to the I-134 as we get NO official guidance on the I-134 at all.

 

The very next section explains (as was decided by the 'final rule') that for spousal immigrants:

 

"The cash value of assets required is different for these sponsors:

Sponsors of immediate relative spouses and children of U.S. citizens must only show assets in the amount of three times the difference between the poverty guideline and actual household income."