Affidavit of support I-134 for K1

[aa1979 99]

Hello everyone,

I have two questions about affidavit of support.

Question number 1:

Does anyone actually know of someone who is unemployed (for school reasons), have a good potential in the job market once he finishes school in a matter of months, currently spending from his own savings, has some savings on the side, has a real estate property estimated by a licensed appraiser and who actually got approved for K1 visa despite the fact that he is unemployed?

Question number 2:

If we presume that CO goes only by the assets being five times for the k1 (because it is non-mariage based visa), I think it would be fair to assume it is 5 times the %100 of poverty line (not the %125 as in marital-based visa). If someone is to say but they will get married so therefore we need to take the %125 of poverty line as the cut off... in that case I would say fine but we need to take only 3 times the %125 the poverty line (because we calculating a marital-based visa). So, for two people: %100 poverty line is about $16,020. the %125 the poverty line is about $20,025.

So, if the CO will treat this as a non-marital based visa, then we will have to go with 5 times $16,020 = $80,100 is what we need in assets.

However, in the case CO says they will soon get married and therefore we need to take the %125 for cut off line as in marital-based visa. Then we say 3 times $20,025 = $60,075.

Those can possibly be based on assets in real estate (estimated by a licensed appraiser) or cash in saving account. Other assets can also be used.

My question is did I have this correctly? Is my understanding logical?

Of course here we are talking about the petitioner and beneficiary are the only two to be claimed (only 2 people).

Thanks everyone for sharing your opinions/experiences/knowledge.

[Penguin_ie 5,984]

You have it correctly.

As to the x3/ x5, most embassies seem to require x3 the 125%, but if using ONLY assets (as opposed to a mix with income), will want you to be comfortably over. Also remember that your primary home does not count, as assets need to be easily liquidated.

[aa1979 99]

You have it correctly.

As to the x3/ x5, most embassies seem to require x3 the 125%, but if using ONLY assets (as opposed to a mix with income), will want you to be comfortably over. Also remember that your primary home does not count, as assets need to be easily liquidated.

It says that primary home qualifies in the instructions. It describes what you are saying when it comes to cars. But for houses, it is clearly stating that you can include your primary home. As far as being easily liquidated, let's say someone owns a condominium worth 100,000 and it is their primary home. If they need to, they can sell it just like someone else can sell a secondary house. This will give them a 100,000 in cash or somewhere around there. Then they can rent and use that cash for necessary expenses and pay for a rental apartment as well and still have plenty of cash. What are your thoughts?

Edited August 26, 2016 by aa1979

[Penguin_ie 5,984]

That is true, but we have found that CO's often take the "liquidated within one year without undue hardship" as meaning that a primary home cannot be used; this is double true for the K1, where COs have far more leeway what to accept related to the I-134.

[aa1979 99]

Ok, so this is based on what you have noticed.

Let me ask you this... What if someone tries it while keeping co-sponsor papers with them during the interview. If they say no, you can't use your primary home... then the interviewee can pull the co-sponsor papers out and turn them in. Would they give the interviewee a chance to do that? Or is it usually once they say no, it is a no... and they give you no time to respond and get some additional papers out such as the papers of a joint sponsor?

[aa1979 99]

That is true, but we have found that CO's often take the "liquidated within one year without undue hardship" as meaning that a primary home cannot be used; this is double true for the K1, where COs have far more leeway what to accept related to the I-134.

Another question, do you mean that at least there has to be liquid money enough for at least one year... Meaning at least $16,000 (or $20,000 if we look at the %125) in cash in addition to whatever asset including real estate and other assets?

[KayDeeCee 4,891]

I believe it would depend on the net value of the home you are wanting to use. If you could sell it within a year, downsize perhaps, and make a profit, then there would be no hardship(homelessness). It all boils down to the CO though. They have the sole determination of whether or not they believe the intending immigrant will become a public charge or not. If you convince them they won't become a public charge, then you are good, until you need the I-864.

Not sure why they make it so convoluted. The US government is not actually suing sponsors and causing them to sell their homes anyway, and the I-134 for the K-1 visa is not even legally binding.

[aa1979 99]

I believe it would depend on the net value of the home you are wanting to use. If you could sell it within a year, downsize perhaps, and make a profit, then there would be no hardship(homelessness). It all boils down to the CO though. They have the sole determination of whether or not they believe the intending immigrant will become a public charge or not. If you convince them they won't become a public charge, then you are good, until you need the I-864.

Not sure why they make it so convoluted. The US government is not actually suing sponsors and causing them to sell their homes anyway, and the I-134 for the K-1 visa is not even legally binding.

Let's say it was worth 80k or 100k. If you sell it and rent, you still have lots of liquid cash in hand to live off of while you are not actually "homeless" because you are renting and able to pay rent on a monthly basis. But like you said, they don't go to that point. So, I don't know if you consider that value as high enough for the purpose of an I-134.

[KayDeeCee 4,891]

Right. There are ways one can sell their home and not be homeless and experience undue hardship. I have no idea what value a home would need to have in order for a CO to consider it enough to live off of for a bit, if you needed to liquefy. They are going to look at the totality of your situation anyway, so it won't be about any one factor, such as a home value or assets in general alone.

https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030208.html