Denied because of I-864 but kept passport

[gclhd 0]

Also the Foreign Affairs Manual (which is the guidebook of consulate ) says in their Notes on Volume 9

9 FAM 40.41 N12.6 Alien Seeking Admission as K Nonimmigrant

(CT:VISA-1995; 06-06-2013)

Since K-1 (fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen) and K-2 (child of the fiancé(e) of a U.S. citizen), K-3 (spouse of U.S. citizen), and K-4 (child of K-3) applicants are technically applying for nonimmigrant visas (NIV), they must use Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, if you determine that a Form I-134 is necessary. You must not require or accept Form I-864 in K visa cases. Such applicants will, however, have to submit Form I-864, to the DHS/USCIS at the time of adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR).

Would you take this to mean that the I-864 could not be used instead of an I-134? it seems to me that the 864 is just a more complex version of the 134. I am going to send an 134 form in today just in case though.

[TAB2TAB 52]

gclhd - Did your fiance have the I-134 with her, and give that to the Embassy? In our London interview experience (see our review under our timeline) my husband was asked for the I-134 and income documentation *prior* to actually having the interview (he was called up to the window to provide his ID and documents, then asked to sit down and wait for his number to be called for the interview). Was your fiance asked for the I-864 during the interview, or before that when they ask for documents? Did she ever offer the I-134 paperwork instead? I don't know for sure if this could help, but it seems to me that her experience in London was very unusual, and if you were able to demonstrate that you DID have the proper paperwork (I-134) and that an Embassy error was made during her interview, it may give them some motivation to correct the oversight more quickly for you.

[TheAff 5]

Something about this whole scenario doesn't quite add up. It sounds like an error on the embassy's side just based on what OP has given us by way of account. Could it be that a new officer was working that particular interview?

I'm not sure about other individuals but I read up countless experiences of the interview day experience and knew exactly what they were going to ask from me and in what order. Had someone said I-864 to me instead of I-134 I would have spoken up and tried to find out why this was being asked for. I hope things are resolved quickly for you; nothing worse than being in the dark about this sort of stuff.

[Nich-Nick 3,353]

Would you take this to mean that the I-864 could not be used instead of an I-134? it seems to me that the 864 is just a more complex version of the 134. I am going to send an 134 form in today just in case though.

I take it to mean that. It comes from the Department of State, not a forum. I just wanted to clear up the use of forms before the UK folks panic and think London will suddenly require an I-864 instead of an I-134. It seems more like the officer made a mistake, thinking of IR1/CR1 applicants. It would have also been given to your fiancé in writing, what she was lacking.

Concerning an I-134--

It is stated that the officer just needs to be convinced that the fiancé will not become a public charge. It is a subjective decision. There are no hard rules in the manual about a mandatory form or 125% of the poverty level. London is pretty lenient in what it takes to convince them. Another consulate make take a whole lot more convincing.

A London beneficiary could sponsor herself with no I-134 by taking proof of savings or a house sale. London would take an I-134 from another person and no form from the fiancé petitioner if he was unemployed. They have accepted 100% of the poverty level. They don't require tax returns with I-134s if there is another proof. So with all that in mind, when the officer sees your employment as written on the I-864 and your tax return as proof of income, he should be convinced she will not become a public charge...even without an official I-134. Let's hope.

[Nich-Nick 3,353]

Something about this whole scenario doesn't quite add up. It sounds like an error on the embassy's side just based on what OP has given us by way of account. Could it be that a new officer was working that particular interview?

I think the initial mistake was by the fiancé taking NOTHING to show support. They did not thoroughly read the list from London http://photos.state.gov/libraries/unitedkingdom/164203/cons-visa/iv_and_k_interview_checklist2014.pdf , or the VJ guides, or the London K1 guide in the UK forum, or any interview reviews. So they missed it.

The second mistake was the officer who needed a coffee break and who said he could not approve without proof of support. He said I-864 when he should have said I-134.

And The OP writing this wasn't actually there, so he wasn't witness to what went down.

And I am only guessing what happened, but I feel most certain London does not require an I-864 from a fiancé.

[TheAff 5]

And I am only guessing what happened, but I feel most certain London does not require an I-864 from a fiancé.

This has always been my understanding. I spoke with a friend who's an immigration lawyer and they said that it boils down to the I-134 supporting a non-immigrant visa and an I-864 being used in support of an immigrant visa. I think he said there were different legal ramifications for each form too.

[usuk2015 16]

This has always been my understanding. I spoke with a friend who's an immigration lawyer and they said that it boils down to the I-134 supporting a non-immigrant visa and an I-864 being used in support of an immigrant visa. I think he said there were different legal ramifications for each form too.

Yes, that is correct.

The I134 is NOT a legally binding contract. The I864 is, however a legally binding contract. The I864 is for immigrant visas, such as the CR1, for already married couples. It is also used to adjust status after entering on a K1 visa.

It is apparent that OP's fiance did not follow the proper instructions given.

[Damian P 92]

Just reading this is making my eyes water. I'm sure it wasn't this difficult six long years ago.

[Nich-Nick 3,353]

Just reading this is making my eyes water. I'm sure it wasn't this difficult six long years ago.

Hahaha...how quickly you forget Mr. America (in 3 days). There have always been confused people on here.

[Damian P 92]

Hahaha...how quickly you forget Mr. America (in 3 days). There have always been confused people on here.

And it's a good job you're still here with spoon at the ready!!! Yeah, come Friday morning it'll all be over. Can't quite believe it!!!!!!!!

[Nich-Nick 3,353]

And it's a good job you're still here with spoon at the ready!!! Yeah, come Friday morning it'll all be over. Can't quite believe it!!!!!!!!

And I want a photo of you dressed up like the dog's dinner waving your American flag.