Joint Sponsorship K1

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

For K1 visa that government requires the petitioner to complete the I-134, which current requirements are that income be 100% of the poverty guideline. Then, later to adjust status, the petitioner must complete the I-864, which current income requirements are that income be 125% of the poverty guideline.

 

Because some USC may have trouble meeting this requirement, they allow these documents to be supplemented by a joint sponsor. I know some of the members here have chosen that route. I am not sure about how those petitions worked out in the end, but just found this piece written by immigration lawyer Ilona Bray, J.D., of the NOLO publishing company:

 

 

 

Both the advantage and the disadvantage of the Form I-134 Affidavit of Support is that it is not considered to have much legal weight. In other words, although a U.S. government agency could take a sponsor to court to enforce it, they never seem to do so. Perhaps they realize they wouldn’t win. That’s an advantage because makes it easier to persuade someone to sign the form, without endangering that person's financial future. It’s also a disadvantage: Because the consular officials know that the affidavit is hardly worth the paper it’s written on, they may disregard the joint sponsor. For this reason, if you go the joint sponsor route, you might want to supplement the person’s affidavit with a letter or a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant.

 

First time I've heard this, but of course I haven't really been paying much attention to the visa world for the last few years. Anyone heard of someone being refused visa based on income when they have a joint sponsor? Or, for that matter, being refused based on income at all?

[Randy W]

That's a nutty assessment - complete bullshit, in my view. The I-134 is just a financial statement, nothing more, nothing less. What they are looking for at this stage is that you have enough in the way of assets to finance the immigration process. The weight it carries is that you are essentially under oath that the claims you make are true and correctly reflect your current financial situation, as far as support which will be available to the intending immigrant.

 

The I-134 itself is "a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant".

 

"although a U.S. government agency could take a sponsor to court to enforce it, they never seem to do so" - this is also true of the I-864.

 

That being said, of course a lack of financial resources can definitely derail your visa. Some figures I pulled out of my hat at one point (don't ask me to justify them, but based on what I read from others' postings on CFL) were that below the poverty line, you would definitely be rejected. Between the poverty line and $50,000 annual income, the application might receive additional scrutiny - on up to $100,000 and above where an application would almost surely be approved.

 

Basically - yes, money talks in the immigration process.

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

That's a nutty assessment - complete bullshit, in my view. The I-134 is just a financial statement, nothing more, nothing less. What they are looking for at this stage is that you have enough in the way of assets to finance the immigration process. The weight it carries is that you are essentially under oath that the claims you make are true and correctly reflect your current financial situation, as far as support which will be available to the intending immigrant.

 

The I-134 itself is "a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant".

 

"although a U.S. government agency could take a sponsor to court to enforce it, they never seem to do so" - this is also true of the I-864.

 

That being said, of course a lack of financial resources can definitely derail your visa. Some figures I pulled out of my hat at one point (don't ask me to justify them, but based on what I read from others' postings on CFL) were that below the poverty line, you would definitely be rejected. Between the poverty line and $50,000 annual income, the application might receive additional scrutiny - on up to $100,000 and above where an application would almost surely be approved.

 

Basically - yes, money talks in the immigration process.

 

By the way, my personal visa is not in this category. I posted this because it's something new to me. So, what part do you think is complete bullshit? Do you have information as to whether the US has ever brought a US citizen to court over financial recovery of I-134 or I-864? Personally, I think the author is correct. I think the US posture is to give government money to pretty much anyone who asks for it when they are within US borders. Remember, the author is referring to joint-sponsors, but also mentions the weight bearing on the I-134. I have never heard of them chasing anyone down to recover that money from marriage based income documents. Have you?

Edited November 15, 2013 by GuangDongExpat (see edit history)

[Randy W]

Both the advantage and the disadvantage of the Form I-134 Affidavit of Support is that it is not considered to have much legal weight. In other words, although a U.S. government agency could take a sponsor to court to enforce it, they never seem to do so. Perhaps they realize they wouldn’t win. That’s an advantage because makes it easier to persuade someone to sign the form, without endangering that person's financial future. It’s also a disadvantage: Because the consular officials know that the affidavit is hardly worth the paper it’s written on, they may disregard the joint sponsor. For this reason, if you go the joint sponsor route, you might want to supplement the person’s affidavit with a letter or a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant.

 

The I-134 has the same weight as any other financial statement. You (the person filling out the form) can face legal action for making false statements on it. You can be required to post a bond during his or her stay. The form may be made available "to any federal, state, or local agency that may receive an application from the person(s) named in item 3 for Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families". There is nothing to enforce, beyond the truthfulness of the statements made on the form, which you "certify under penalty of perjury under U.S. law".

 

If the "person(s) named in Item 3" applies for Food Stamps, SSI, or TANF, the U.S. Government is responsible for considering your assets and income in deciding the person's application. These assets and income have already been determined to be adequate - making the person ineligible.

 

And, like I said before,

The I-134 itself is "a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant".

 

"although a U.S. government agency could take a sponsor to court to enforce it, they never seem to do so" - this is also true of the I-864.

 

The I-864 is a financial statement, but is also a contract between you and the U.S. Government that YOU will provide a level of support for the applicant until "your obligations under the Form I-864 terminate". The person may BECOME eligible for Food Stamps, SSI, or TANF, if your income and assets are no longer adequate. You violate the terms of your contract, if you allow this to happen.

 

I am not aware of any action that has been taken by the federal government against anyone who has signed either an I-134 or an I-864. I expect it's fairly difficult to sue someone for becoming poor. But still, both forms represent a serious financial commitment to the visa applicant/immigrant.

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

 

I am not aware of any action that has been taken by the federal government against anyone who has signed either an I-134 or an I-864. I expect it's fairly difficult to sue someone for becoming poor. But still, both forms represent a serious financial commitment to the visa applicant/immigrant.

 

This was my point, and I think also the author's point. While the form carries weight during the immigration process, and is in fact a legally binding document, the government rarely if ever holds the petitioner or joint sponsor accountable to recover government money for aid (food stamps, welfare, what have you) that has been given if the immigrant has been receiving it. So, I'm not sure whether there is truly a serious financial commitment or just a paper tiger.

Edited November 15, 2013 by GuangDongExpat (see edit history)

[Randy W]

 

 

I am not aware of any action that has been taken by the federal government against anyone who has signed either an I-134 or an I-864. I expect it's fairly difficult to sue someone for becoming poor. But still, both forms represent a serious financial commitment to the visa applicant/immigrant.

 

This was my point, and I think also the author's point. While the form carries weight during the immigration process, and is in fact a legally binding document, the government rarely if ever holds the petitioner or joint sponsor accountable to recover government money for aid (food stamps, welfare, what have you) that has been given if the immigrant has been receiving it. So, I'm not sure whether there is truly a serious financial commitment or just a paper tiger.

 

 

Take it seriously - it can derail your visa (the one you and your fiance are applying for). Just remember that, in effect, you are under oath, and will not get the visa unless you can show an adequate level of support.

 

As long as it IS taken seriously, then yes, there are no issues. The I-864, on the other hand, has been waved around in divorce courts and used to get larger judgements than would otherwise have been awarded.

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

 

 

 

I am not aware of any action that has been taken by the federal government against anyone who has signed either an I-134 or an I-864. I expect it's fairly difficult to sue someone for becoming poor. But still, both forms represent a serious financial commitment to the visa applicant/immigrant.

 

This was my point, and I think also the author's point. While the form carries weight during the immigration process, and is in fact a legally binding document, the government rarely if ever holds the petitioner or joint sponsor accountable to recover government money for aid (food stamps, welfare, what have you) that has been given if the immigrant has been receiving it. So, I'm not sure whether there is truly a serious financial commitment or just a paper tiger.

 

 

Take it seriously - it can derail your visa (the one you and your fiance are applying for). Just remember that, in effect, you are under oath, and will not get the visa unless you can show an adequate level of support.

 

As long as it IS taken seriously, then yes, there are no issues. The I-864, on the other hand, has been waved around in divorce courts and used to get larger judgements than would otherwise have been awarded.

 

 

Wait a minute Randy, you're misunderstanding my point. I am not referring to the seriousness of the documents before visa approval and while adjusting status. I am only referring to the facts that evidence bears out, that the US government rarely if ever will take a joint sponsor to court to collect monies given to someone who has received aid.

[Randy W]

 

 

 

 

 

This was my point, and I think also the author's point. While the form carries weight during the immigration process, and is in fact a legally binding document, the government rarely if ever holds the petitioner or joint sponsor accountable to recover government money for aid (food stamps, welfare, what have you) that has been given if the immigrant has been receiving it. So, I'm not sure whether there is truly a serious financial commitment or just a paper tiger.

 

 

Take it seriously - it can derail your visa (the one you and your fiance are applying for). Just remember that, in effect, you are under oath, and will not get the visa unless you can show an adequate level of support.

 

As long as it IS taken seriously, then yes, there are no issues. The I-864, on the other hand, has been waved around in divorce courts and used to get larger judgements than would otherwise have been awarded.

 

 

Wait a minute Randy, you're misunderstanding my point. I am not referring to the seriousness of the documents before visa approval and while adjusting status. I am only referring to the facts that evidence bears out, that the US government rarely if ever will take a joint sponsor to court to collect monies given to someone who has received aid.

 

 

 

Remember what the article said

 

"Both the advantage and the disadvantage of the Form I-134 Affidavit of Support is that it is not considered to have much legal weight. In other words, although a U.S. government agency could take a sponsor to court to enforce it, they never seem to do so. Perhaps they realize they wouldn’t win. That’s an advantage because makes it easier to persuade someone to sign the form, without endangering that person's financial future. It’s also a disadvantage: Because the consular officials know that the affidavit is hardly worth the paper it’s written on, they may disregard the joint sponsor. For this reason, if you go the joint sponsor route, you might want to supplement the person’s affidavit with a letter or a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant."

 

It is NOT a "paper tiger", it is NOT something that "the consular officials know is hardly worth the paper it's written on". It IS a serious financial statement, submitted under oath To tell someone that they may want to submit a "letter or a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant", something that they've already attested to by submitting the I-134, is B.S., although it might be used as an evidence of relationship letter.

 

But, yes, the fact is that as far as we know, the US government rarely if ever will take never has taken a joint (or primary) sponsor to court to collect monies given to someone who has received aid.

 

I'm trying real hard to agree with you, Jesse - believe me. I think we understand the same thing here.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Randy W (see edit history)

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

 

I'm trying real hard to agree with you, Jesse - believe me. I think we understand the same thing here.

 

 

Try a little harder . I have repeated my points and you've argued as if you disagree. If the government has the written contract that holds someone responsible, but rarely if ever enforces it, I think that qualifies as a paper tiger . Again, I'm not referring to the consular officals who approve visas, but rather the action of holding sponsors responsible to collect money. This lawyer has considerable experience with marriage based visas and states that even the consular officials know the I-134 is a paper tiger. Here's a copy of the paragraph that preceded what I posted originally:

 

 

If you are having trouble meeting the consulate’s standards for getting a fiancé visa, one option is to have another family member or friend in the United States agree to serve as a joint sponsor. A joint sponsor is someone who agrees to share responsibility for the K-1 visa holder's financial support with the primary sponsor, up to the full amount of the support. In other words, if the U.S. sponsor can’t support the K-1 visa holder, the joint sponsor can be held 100% responsible for the support (and is not allowed to merely choose a percentage or limit on how much to pitch in). Joint sponsors can indicate their willingness to help by signing a separate Affidavit of Support on Form I-134.

 

in context....

 

Both the advantage and the disadvantage of the Form I-134 Affidavit of Support is that it is not considered to have much legal weight. In other words, although a U.S. government agency could take a sponsor to court to enforce it, they never seem to do so. Perhaps they realize they wouldn’t win. That’s an advantage because makes it easier to persuade someone to sign the form, without endangering that person's financial future. It’s also a disadvantage: Because the consular officials know that the affidavit is hardly worth the paper it’s written on, they may disregard the joint sponsor. For this reason, if you go the joint sponsor route, you might want to supplement the person’s affidavit with a letter or a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant.

 

 

Article Link

Edited November 15, 2013 by GuangDongExpat (see edit history)

[Randy W]

No, sorry! That's as far as I can go. The I-134 is NOT a contract. There IS, however, such a thing as making a GOOD FAITH statement which you CAN be held responsible for, whether it's actually enforced or not. If we disagree, we disagree. http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/word/agree-to-disagree-smiley-emoticon.gif

 

Ironically, it seems like a good article, otherwise - up to that last paragraph (the one you quoted, and the one I'm labeling as complete B.S.)

 

I think the resolution lies in the fact that the consular officials are somewhat responsible for a reasonable verification of the claims made in the I-134 - primarily through the tax returns and other submitted documentation. Nothing more, nothing less. Once the visa is awarded, then yes, it's just a piece of paper - no "tiger" at all.

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

Well, she's the lawyer and litigated these issues in court. I know you've been out here on this board and others around the same time I did this the first time. 2005 was it? I know you also keep up with the current immigration trends and laws. I don't, so I don't know whether there have been any previous members who have been denied on the basis of income when they had a co-sponsor. But, if there have been, perhaps they may have succeeded if the co-sponsor signed the sworn affidavit as suggested from Ilona Bray.

[Randy W]

Well, she's the lawyer and litigated these issues in court. I know you've been out here on this board and others around the same time I did this the first time. 2005 was it? I know you also keep up with the current immigration trends and laws. I don't, so I don't know whether there have been any previous members who have been denied on the basis of income when they had a co-sponsor. But, if there have been, perhaps they may have succeeded if the co-sponsor signed the sworn affidavit as suggested from Ilona Bray.

 

Again, though, the I-134 itself IS "a sworn statement expressing his or her deep commitment to supporting the visa applicant". It's not clear what benefit a second statement would provide, beyond that of relationship evidence.

 

These cases CANNOT be litigated in court, under the Doctrine of Consular Non-reviewability. That is, the VO's decision is final, and not subject to review by any outside authority, including the courts. So there is no way for her to verify her claim.

 

When someone is told they NEED a co-sponsor, that person will select one whose income is more than adequate. I'm pretty sure this has happened for K-1's, although I'd be hard pressed to come up with an example

[Guest ExChinaExpat]

Randy, at this point, I think it would be prudent for you to contact her directly explain that you think her statement is bullshit. After that, you can come back here and post what happens. Here's a link to her "linked in" profile:

 

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ilona-bray/1a/811/a0

 

Good luck.

 

:-)

[Randy W]

It might be of interest to hear Marc Ellis' opinion on this, but I expect the real issue is the actual income of the sponsor(s), and NOT the form itself or whether a separate letter is included.

 

Again, the responsibility of verifying (to whatever extent it IS verified) that income falls on the consular officials BEFORE issuance of the visa.

 

But I don't mean to suggest that someone NOT include that letter, if they feel that it may help their case.

[Randy W]

Randy, at this point, I think it would be prudent for you to contact her directly explain that you think her statement is bullshit. After that, you can come back here and post what happens. Here's a link to her "linked in" profile:

 

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ilona-bray/1a/811/a0

 

Good luck.

 

:-)

 

Can't say that I'd have any interest in doing that.