By the way, his name is J. Craig Fong out of LA. Whatever you do, do not hire him! This is our current situation as sad as it may be. On the 28th, Ngan and I went to Saigon to get her medical out of the way. During that trip, a friend of mine hooked us up with a service to help Ngan get her papers in order and such, he noticed our I-134 amounting to $14,000 and said, no, theres no way they'll take this little. Ngan pointed to the Co-sponsor form that my mother filled out. He looked at us and shook his head, saying that the consulate hasnt taken a co-sponsor since 2005. By the way, the whole time our lawyer knew the dire need for a co-sponsor and even a few months ago I confronted him on that, he told me that the consulate had no choice, if they deny her because of that, that's where he steps in to fight for us. Well, after we heard that news, I shot an email off to the chief consular in Hanoi, who happens to be a good friend of a family member of mine, he replied confirming the services story. Though, he said that if I had a sum of money and a couple prospective employment letters for Ngan that I could show the officer, that should be acceptable. To further confirm, I met with an expat friend of mine for coffee. Along with him he brought his friend, a woman who works as a foreign minister inside the consulate. We talked for an hour about our situation, she confirmed everything and advised we refile for a co1 visa. We came too far to not fight this. Being the genius that I am, I asked my father to fill out a 1099 misc. tax form, stating he employed me in 2006 for the amount of $8,500. My 2006 w-2 from my current/past employer was for $9,500, so combined I now have a total annual income for 2006 of $18,000. Though, I did have to pay $954 dollars in income tax on that. Now, I have a brand new I-134 with a 2006 income which is suffice to the federal poverty line and her and I are now just hoping and praying that the officer will accept it without difficulty. I also have a couple prospective employment letters for her that are in the mist of being fedexed now. I'm also planning on attaching a letter explaining in detail why my 2006 income from my current/past employer was low for the year. The reason being that I was in Viet Nam with my fiancee for 6 months out of it. I still can't help but be nervous as hell. If the lawyer would have known anything about immigration, he would have informed us 7 months ago so we could have just done a co1. If all fails, I'm moving here full time to teach english. ###### America.

I find this post very interesting for two reasons. You are so damn proud of committing immigrations fraud that you list it in a public forum and`secondly you are getting married when you hav an income of $9,500.00. Both actions do notspeak well of yourintelligence.

I find this post very interesting for two reasons. You are so damn proud of committing immigrations fraud that you list it in a public forum and`secondly you are getting married when you hav an income of $9,500.00. Both actions do notspeak well of yourintelligence.

How did he commit immigrations fraud?

I think he was referencing to the "fake" 1099.

I think he was too, but so far as I can tell, there is no evidence in what he's saying that says it's fake. He may very well have worked for his father. The amount he's asking his father to state is only $8500.

I believe our buddy here is of Vietnamese decent, and it is very common for Vietnamese here in the So Cal area to have family owned businesses in which they pay their workers- including their children- cash. His father is actually taking a big risk here, because by making this statement he is admitting that he hires people without stating it. He could be opening himself up to an audit, not only by the IRS but also to the DHS, depending on the type of business. Paying workers in cash is a red flag for undocumenteds here.

Of bigger concern for the OP though, is the open slander of this attorney. He could be in big Ka Ka if the attorney reads this!

I wasn't aware of that. Is this the case even if the statement is factual?

I'd like to learn more about the OP's income/VN connections/business myself, or I'd just be speculating and can't help. I do feel sympathy for someone caught in the pinchpoint of a technicality 100%.

What's a co1 visa and doesn't it have requirements to prove financial support?

Ridejewel,

Please relax brother. There are times when I feel that I am going to blow my load all over this process. I know what you are going through and I am sure others here know what your going through. I wouldn't hold much water to any of the stuff that people are telling. 1) The Hanoi Chief is not working in this department. He doesn't and has no experience in dealing with these types of Visas. 2) Others here recently have been approved using a Co-Sponser. 3) Don't get caught in the endless lifecycle of drama/gossip/stories that people tend to throw out there in Vietnam and in the Vietnamese community.

Look past the garbage talk. FOCUS on what you have been doing. Keep a firm resolve, and your head UP!!!

Perhaps ridejewel is referring to a CR1?

STL_HCMC

Well if that's the case, same financial requirements if not more so not exactly a smart piece of advice.

Would the CR1 require use of the I-864 instead of the I-134?

STL_HCMC

Okay, it wasnt a 'fake' 1099, i did indeed work for my father developing a lot which he sold for some good profit. The fact is that what messed up father would actually tax his own son? If it hadnt been for the urgent need to get my salary up, i would never have filed that income. As far as slandering my lawyer, what good is he? It's not slander if it's the truth. And, of course, edsperfect, none of my info here is correct, you couldnt find my identity if you wanted to...maybe if i was using a home computer that was in the states, but since i use a different internet cafe computer in Vietnam everyday, im not too worried. I hope Lurker is right and they will take my co-sponsor. Oh, yeah, I meant CR-1...I keep getting Co2 in my head when I write that. My uncle's an excellent accountant, there is nothing illegal with what we did at all! I was just hoping to get some input on the matter. Yeah, STL_HCM, a CR-1 uses a I-184. I dont get why the consulate doesnt just require those instead of the I-134's...kind of weird.

Your father didn't tax you - he provided the 1099 as required by law of employers. It's up to you to pay the tax.

Still, the advice about a CR-1 is completely incorrect. If you can't meet the income requirements of a K1, you can't meet the income requirements of a CR1. Applicants using the I-134 need to show income is 100% of federal poverty guidelines. For the I-864 it's 125% of federal poverty guidelines. So filing for a CR1 clearly isn't going to solve your issue -- more bad advice.

Now is too late to change anything on your paperwork which is submitted at the Consulate.
But the most important thing for them to decide is the real relationship. If you have your love, you can think out the way to solve this issue.

You should be calm and look for a better attorney to help for in case. I know the attorney of 3AD, you look at the post of 3AD for his case then you can understand, 3AD is a student with low income but his fiance can go to USA in Dec 2006.

I can give you this attorney's contact to ask for advise before the interview. Please send me message if you want.

Hien

Well, the blue slip consulate gave us indicated that either petitioner or CO-SPONSOR, then I figure out that they accepted cosponsor for 2006/07.
If your dad hire you and he paid you, your dad can claim your salary as his expenses deductible on tax return.
All you can do now is focus on your case and prepare all the paperworks for interview. Goodluck and brink PINK home.

I'm confused. Is Craig Fong in LA or Vietnam? If this is one of those visa guys in Vietnam, I've never heard one good thing about them. They seem completely pointless.

The lawyer is in LA.

Bottom line for the OP is to get the new I-134 submitted. I'm not aware of the Vietnam consulate's process or whether the I-134 was previously submitted, but there's nothing else to do but try. Since previous applicants appear to have been told that co-sponsors ARE acceptable, perhaps that's another option if they refuse to accept the new I-134 (can't imagine why they wouldn't, but I guess you never know).

Applying for a spousal visa would not change the financial requirements, it would make them higher, so that is not an option or in any way relevant.

No, the lawyers an american, same as I. I would like the name of that lawyer, Hien, if you could, please. I know that with the CR-1, they use the I-186 which is a legally binding document, the I-134 is not legal at all, its only a swear from what I understand. That's why with an I-186 a co-sponsor is allowed. I think you could simply throw away the I-134 when you arrive in america and use all the government funding you wanted. I also think that since both I and her have no children that an $18,000.00 income should be suffice. That, along with her prospective employment letters, we should be okay. I just need some assurance. The reason why my income on my w-2 was so low was due to me living here in 'nam with my fiancee since september. I saved 3,000 dollars and moved here until her interview date. That's why i'm so mad at my lawyer, we've been relying on a co-sponsor since july. I just found out the new policy last week. If I knew there may be an issue, I would have stayed in the states and worked. Thanks for the support, everyone.

ridejewel - you seem to be confused. First off, you have a new I-134. If you can submit that at the consulate, you will be fine. Second, if it's not fine, are you SURE you cannot use a co-sponsor? Kimi has already stated that the consulate gave them



Third, even with the I-134, immigrants are not allowed to become a public charge therefore there is no "government funding" available. Fourth, after marriage when you apply for adjustment of status in order to get your fiance her work authorization and green card, you are required to submit the I-1864. So you will be dealing with this issue again and may end up needing a co-sponsor anyway.

It's your choice if you want to start over with a new lawyer but I would recommend getting the true facts from people who have been through the process in Vietnam in the regional forum or from the consulate directly (not from your lawyer in the US or from the friend of a friend who said you should start over with a CR1 visa which was clearly bad advice).

Okay, to get this straight, I HAVE NEVER SUBMITTED AN I-134 FORM TO THE CONSULATE! Our first interview is on February 13th. I am sure that the consulate will not accept a co-sponsor unless it's an extreme and unique case....the friend of a friend that you're talking about, personally called the IV officer in Saigon, he confirmed that fact. They hate co-sponsors. Reason being, and to your forth point, Kitkat, the I-134 is not legally binding, there is no law to it, period. Okay, when we file for the green card we will have to finally submit that legal form, I-186, but until then, have no fear to use the government for help, they have no legal stance on the I-134! If they did, we could use joint-sponsors.

Oh, one more thing...the I-134 is universal. Every consulate, embassy in the world uses them. But, as each country is different, same are the requirements for each form, e.g. the I-134. Some take co-sponsors, some don't. HCM does not.

Then why on earth are you so concerned? You have an I-134 that meets the requirements and you won't need a co-sponsor. So there is no reason to worry because you've already got it covered. I can see being angry with the lawyer and with the fact that you had to get a 1099 from you dad but whatever, now you've got what you need for the visa so really nothing else matters.

Its true that the I-134 is not legally binding meaning the fiance or the US government cannot hold someone to a promise of financial support. But that does not mean you can simply "use the government for help". Many federal programs fall into the "means tested benefits" making immigrants ineligible for those benefits. For example, a small list of some of those:

Public benefits considered to be public cash assistance for income maintenance include:

(1) Supplemental Security Income (SSI);

(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

(3) State and local cash assistance programs for income maintenance (often called state "General Assistance," but which may exist under other names).

In addition, the costs for institutionalization for long-term care, which may be provided under Medicaid or other programs, may be considered in making public charge determinations

In any event, when you file the I-864 if you don't meet the minium, you'll use a sponsor since they allow it.

And nope, the I-134 is not univerally used by every consulate in the world. Mexico, for example, does not use the I-134 for fiances or the I-1864 and instead provides a list of documentation that is acceptable to prove the beneficiary will not become a public charge. I'm sure you're right that HCM doesn't take sponsors, I just find it strange that they gave Kimi a slip that said they would take a co-sponsor.

I sent information to you already. I don't know if your income amount is enough for sponsorship or not. But I think the solution of that attorney was not so bad, however he forgot to tell you to come back to USA to work for more income.

They got money then they will forget us, that's the lawyer.

Hien

Hien

I think a lot of what ridejewel -- and perhaps his Consulate source as well -- is referring to regarding the I-134 and the US Consulate in HCMC can be summed up in this email reply that I received from the HCMC Consulate when we were preparing for our interview:

---------------------
Dear Mr:

Thank you for your inquiry. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide you any information to satisfy the I-134 Affidavit of Support form. Please note that the interviewing officer will have greater discretion in determining whether or not a petitioner's income is sufficient to meet the minimum poverty income guidelines when the I-134 is used.

Technically, there are no provisions under the law for a "joint sponsor" for the I-134, but there is no prohibition either, which is why our policy is to accept joint sponsors under certain circumstances. Since the joint sponsor who submits an I-134 has no legal obligation to fulfill the terms of the affidavit, the officer CAN take into consideration the credibility of that affidavit of support.

Sincerely,

Info Unit Staff
Consular Section
U.S. Consulate General HCMC
Tel: (84-8) 822 9433 – ext 4636
Fax: (84-8) 824 5572
---------------------

STL_HCMC

It sounds like a subjective decision of the CO. So the question is, 'How sound is the commitment to support'? Is it reasonable to give it a go? What's the downside?