Kitchen sink

[michaelt]

Have a thorough folder with financials about me (I-134, Employer Letter, Pay Stubs, Bank Letter, Stocks/Bonds, Transcripts, 1040's, W-2) (it's really not that big or heavy, I promise!!) and I wanted to include a couple of paid invoices and check stubs ($10,000 each) from clients (recently closed, home-based business) that were received in March and May. They were deposited into a "newly-opened" savings account in May. The Bank letter shows savings account "opened in May" with these deposits. Being paranoid that this may look funny, what are your thoughts about me adding to the already existing cover page of I-134, Employer Letter/Pay Stubs, and Bank Letter/Stocks and Bonds, something to the effect of "Recent Deposits & Check Stubs" to "justify" this recently acquired money?
I am trying to anticipate ANYTHING from slowing my sweet SO and I from being together!
Am I being too paranoid? Can't wait to hear your comments!! (as always : )

[dnoblett]

If income exceeds 125% povertyline, don't bother with any asset data, put "ZERO" for assets. They are only concerned with income, and assets if income is below 125% povertyline.

 

Counselor officers have been known to pick out the asset data, and start asking a lot of questions of the beneficiary about the assets. All the extra stuff is just inviting them to ask hard-ball questions.

 

With the I-134, keep it simple.

 

The consulates tend to treat the I-134 like a mini-I-864 as so prefer the same financial evidence as the I-864.

 

In our case this what the I-134 included.

• I-134 signed and notarized.
   
  
• SIMPLE Tax transcripts from the IRS for past 3 years, (Redundant for the (1040,W2,1099) but are free from the IRS http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq1-6.html
   
  
• Photo copy of IRS form 1040, and W2s for past 3 years (Not necessary if you provide the transcripts)
   
  
• Letter from my employer stating annual salary, job responsibility, and that is full time, on company letterhead.
   
  
• Photo copies of past month or so of pay stubs up to a few weeks before the interview.
  

My income was well above the povertyline so I did not include any asset data (LIKE BANK STATEMENTS or property values).

 

Don't worry about the asset things like life insurance, the I-134 gives you several different ways to meet the requirement, you do not need to provide all of them.

 

With the I-134 LESS is BEST!

[I love Sunshine]

If income exceeds 125% povertyline, don't bother with any asset data, put "ZERO" for assets. They are only concerned with income, and assets if income is below 125% povertyline.

 

Counselor officers have been known to pick out the asset data, and start asking a lot of questions of the beneficiary about the assets. All the extra stuff is just inviting them to ask hard-ball questions.

 

...

 

With the I-134 LESS is BEST!

 

My SO has heard several cases recently on 001 where people have met this 125% poverty threshold and STILL got a blue slip. Granted they cleared it but not extensively. So that threshold is not a true litmus test and it is believed that the VO still has the right to ask for additional evidence/assets or a co-sponsor.

 

From 001, it seems that there is a focus on financial information recently. Cases where the I-134 was not looked into in detail are getting more rare.

[michaelt]

I happen to agree with you both (if that is possible!!!) but I DID fill in assets such as home value, mortgage balance, savings, and IRA. Online dating site advised on this a while ago (blossoms.com), as well as bank letter. Bank letter tells of savings balance and date opened. I would think a "nit-picker" would want to know more about this, and my enclosed stubs/paid invoices easily explain it, thereby minimizing a potential overcome appointment? (I just don't want VO to think this was "ill-gotten" money...I worked by butt off for it, actually!!!)

Edited September 28, 2007 by michaelt (see edit history)

[Guest Rob & Jin]

If income exceeds 125% povertyline, don't bother with any asset data, put "ZERO" for assets. They are only concerned with income, and assets if income is below 125% povertyline.

 

Counselor officers have been known to pick out the asset data, and start asking a lot of questions of the beneficiary about the assets. All the extra stuff is just inviting them to ask hard-ball questions.

 

...

 

With the I-134 LESS is BEST!

 

My SO has heard several cases recently on 001 where people have met this 125% poverty threshold and STILL got a blue slip. Granted they cleared it but not extensively. So that threshold is not a true litmus test and it is believed that the VO still has the right to ask for additional evidence/assets or a co-sponsor.

 

From 001, it seems that there is a focus on financial information recently. Cases where the I-134 was not looked into in detail are getting more rare.

 

Just take everything you can muster, may not be asked for, might be, who knows. What im doing is getting every thing ready for a blue slip, if you hope for the best but prepare for the worse then you will have evidence of all things in detail ready for them. They might accept it at interview might not, but you will be prepared for overcome evidence. Unless they ask for something very weired of course.

This of course is just my opinion

[michaelt]

Thanks, but I also know Dan has a very valid point. I just hate to not include something that could alleviate a potential blue slip that a silly piece of paper would answer. BUT, I am sure "silly pieces of paper" have created some overcome appointments too!

[tsap seui]

LOL...ya never know what VO your lady may get. In our case , I'm self employed, the I-134 had a zero income for 2006 as my crew and I worked on two houses that year and had nothing for sale, and my supporting documents to the I-134 showed over six figures in the bank, an income for 2007, as of July, at $84,000...yet...the VO threw every single page of the supporting documents back at my girlfriend (un-looked at), kept the I-134, and asked her why I had a co-sponsor "is he broke?" Heck, I won't even need a co-sponsor for AOS...if she ever gets here, and if the AOS interviewer will only take a few seconds to truly look at my financials.

 

It's all arbitrary, give them everything you can for your financials and hope you get a VO that looks at some of it. And have that kitchen sink ready, we had a double bowl cast iron kitchen sink with a brushed nickel goose neck faucet...oh, if the VO would have only looked at any of it.

 

Good luck to ya, it'll be okay,

 

tsap seui

[michaelt]

LOL...ya never know what VO your lady may get. In our case , I'm self employed, the I-134 had a zero income for 2006 as my crew and I worked on two houses that year and had nothing for sale, and my supporting documents to the I-134 showed over six figures in the bank, an income for 2007, as of July, at $84,000...yet...the VO threw every single page of the supporting documents back at my girlfriend (un-looked at), kept the I-134, and asked her why I had a co-sponsor "is he broke?" Heck, I won't even need a co-sponsor for AOS...if she ever gets here, and if the AOS interviewer will only take a few seconds to truly look at my financials.

 

It's all arbitrary, give them everything you can for your financials and hope you get a VO that looks at some of it. And have that kitchen sink ready, we had a double bowl cast iron kitchen sink with a brushed nickel goose neck faucet...oh, if the VO would have only looked at any of it.

 

Good luck to ya, it'll be okay,

 

tsap seui

Thank you and it saddens me to hear what happened to you and your sweetheart.

[tsap seui]

Michael, here is a little story that I compare to our interview experience.

 

When I was in officer candidate/helicopter flight school we started out with 235 candidates and 9 months later at graduation there were 86 of us, pinning on our silver wings, officer bars, throwing our hats in the air, and gettin' ready to ship out to Vietnam as cannon fodder.

 

Our "tac officers" had free and total reign on who made it and who didn't.

 

Yes, we had basic standards we had to deliver on and pass (everyday there were 3 written exams, solo within 16 hours, preform 2 auto-rotations each day, etc.) and we could not have more than 3 black marks, either in the air or classroom.

 

Some of those 149 candidates flunked out from failing exams or not being able to fly but the majority flunked out on arbitrary decisions made by the visa officers...er...ah...tac officers.

 

See my point? Or as a hillbilly, I ask, "Know wudda mean, Vern?"

 

I feel cetain that we will eventually get our visa and live out our lives together as one, but I also understand that while GUZ has certain criteria you and your lady must have to get the visa they also have VO's who can make arbitrary decisions on anyone they choose for whatever reason they choose.

 

Prepare your best and hope for the best. You'll be fine.

 

Good luck to all of yaw,

 

tsap seui

 

Today...another phone call to DOS to hear that we are still in Administrative Review and that the case hasn't been looked at since July 27th, I compose and send in my first e-mail to GUZ, and I send off my letters to President Bush and two Congressmen explainin' my bonafide relationship with my fiance and seek their official inquiries as to why we were denied and must await as it seems my 4 trips to her (in 9 months),countless hundreds of hours on the phone with her, and countless e-mails and photos of us didn't seem to be quite enough..."and a hardy har har". At least I still have my sense of humor.

[michaelt]

Michael, here is a little story that I compare to our interview experience.

 

When I was in officer candidate/helicopter flight school we started out with 235 candidates and 9 months later at graduation there were 86 of us, pinning on our silver wings, officer bars, throwing our hats in the air, and gettin' ready to ship out to Vietnam as cannon fodder.

 

Our "tac officers" had free and total reign on who made it and who didn't.

 

Yes, we had basic standards we had to deliver on and pass (everyday there were 3 written exams, solo within 16 hours, preform 2 auto-rotations each day, etc.) and we could not have more than 3 black marks, either in the air or classroom.

 

Some of those 149 candidates flunked out from failing exams or not being able to fly but the majority flunked out on arbitrary decisions made by the visa officers...er...ah...tac officers.

 

See my point? Or as a hillbilly, I ask, "Know wudda mean, Vern?"

 

I feel cetain that we will eventually get our visa and live out our lives together as one, but I also understand that while GUZ has certain criteria you and your lady must have to get the visa they also have VO's who can make arbitrary decisions on anyone they choose for whatever reason they choose.

 

Prepare your best and hope for the best. You'll be fine.

 

Good luck to all of yaw,

 

tsap seui

 

Today...another phone call to DOS to hear that we are still in Administrative Review and that the case hasn't been looked at since July 27th, I compose and send in my first e-mail to GUZ, and I send off my letters to President Bush and two Congressmen explainin' my bonafide relationship with my fiance and seek their official inquiries as to why we were denied and must await as it seems my 4 trips to her (in 9 months),countless hundreds of hours on the phone with her, and countless e-mails and photos of us didn't seem to be quite enough..."and a hardy har har". At least I still have my sense of humor.

Thank you and good luck. I will be watching to hear good news from you!!!

[tywy_99]

If income exceeds 125% povertyline, don't bother with any asset data, put "ZERO" for assets. They are only concerned with income, and assets if income is below 125% povertyline.

 

Counselor officers have been known to pick out the asset data, and start asking a lot of questions of the beneficiary about the assets. All the extra stuff is just inviting them to ask hard-ball questions.

 

...

 

With the I-134 LESS is BEST!

 

My SO has heard several cases recently on 001 where people have met this 125% poverty threshold and STILL got a blue slip. Granted they cleared it but not extensively. So that threshold is not a true litmus test and it is believed that the VO still has the right to ask for additional evidence/assets or a co-sponsor.

 

From 001, it seems that there is a focus on financial information recently. Cases where the I-134 was not looked into in detail are getting more rare.

I might agree with that for petitioners just "meeting" the 125% but for petitioners exceeding it, and some exceeding it by far, I can't agree with it. If a blue slip is issued to an applicant for a petitioner exceeding the 125%, the slip is issued for a completely different reason.

For something like this to happen would be in opposition of the law.

Maybe a good question to ask USCONGUZ.

[lostinblue]

Each case is different and this makes it hard to really understand why a blue slip is thrown out even though 125% level is met. My opinion would be work history. If you have changed jobs often in the past and it showed this by having multiple w-2's or are you working 3 fast food jobs a week to meet this 125% then maybe a question would be asked. Can and will you continue this preformance after your SO is here. This is in the minds of the VO's. Are you in a position to support this person after she or he arrives. Pure and simple.

[david_dawei]

Each case is different and this makes it hard to really understand why a blue slip is thrown out even though 125% level is met. My opinion would be work history. If you have changed jobs often in the past and it showed this by having multiple w-2's or are you working 3 fast food jobs a week to meet this 125% then maybe a question would be asked. Can and will you continue this preformance after your SO is here. This is in the minds of the VO's. Are you in a position to support this person after she or he arrives. Pure and simple.

I think your very close...

 

The bottom line is one of: PUBLIC CHARGE.

 

The guideline is just that.. it's not a law.

 

The VO decides everything inbetween.

 

In the OP's case.. I'd be more concerned about the online dating service used than the financials, which look fine... Is Blossoms.com considered an International Marriage Broker...

[michaelt]

Each case is different and this makes it hard to really understand why a blue slip is thrown out even though 125% level is met. My opinion would be work history. If you have changed jobs often in the past and it showed this by having multiple w-2's or are you working 3 fast food jobs a week to meet this 125% then maybe a question would be asked. Can and will you continue this preformance after your SO is here. This is in the minds of the VO's. Are you in a position to support this person after she or he arrives. Pure and simple.

I think your very close...

 

The bottom line is one of: PUBLIC CHARGE.

 

The guideline is just that.. it's not a law.

 

The VO decides everything inbetween.

 

In the OP's case.. I'd be more concerned about the online dating service used than the financials, which look fine... Is Blossoms.com considered an International Marriage Broker...

That's a very good question David and one they addressed early-on and are very clear about. They are really nothing more than a match.com that allows you to search by geographic region world-wide. (similar to other sites mentioned by our members.) They also monitor e-mails that go through them to ensure ethical communication and to weed out those just seeking visas or money. Since they span the world, they are aware that some individuals may eventually want to marry, and therefore offer guidance (and forms) for numerous visa types.

Edited September 29, 2007 by michaelt (see edit history)

[david_dawei]

That's a very good question David and one they addressed early-on and are very clear about. They are really nothing more than a match.com that allows you to search by geographic region world-wide. (similar to other sites mentioned by our members.) They also monitor e-mails that go through them to ensure ethical communication and to weed out those just seeking visas or money. Since they span the world, they are aware that some individuals may eventually want to marry, and therefore offer guidance (and forms) for numerous visa types.

Hopefully no issues then...

 

We're not too far from you (pompano beach).. hope we meet sometime soon after she's here...