Affidavit of Support I-134 only needs 100%

[merkin&regine 18]

This would be specific to the Manila consulate then. This does not apply across the board. Most consulates want to see the 125% or better. Even if Manila told you it is only 100% in an email, it doesn't mean the interviewing officer won't tell you they want to see 125% or denied. Why risk it? You need it for AOS in a short time from the interview anyway. I do not understand why you keep insisting the 100% is all you need and the way everyone should plan to go. I think people should plan for 125% no matter what consulate they interview at.

I'm not insisting on 100%, I'm insisting on what the requirement is... Aren't we here for what the law says? Aren't we here for the facts? well, if you think this will only be for the Philippines, then so be it but i least we have a clear answer on this.

[pushbrk 12,122]

We can argue about this back and forth and as i've said, im with you guys 100% on going over the 125% but i'm just stating the official requirement of I-134; this may be only in Philippines but at least we have a clear answer from a consulate on this requirement and wont stop guessing.

We all know the official requirements for the I-134 and we all know those official requirement are routinely ignored. We also know why.

I'm not insisting on 100%, I'm insisting on what the requirement is... Aren't we here for what the law says? Aren't we here for the facts? well, if you think this will only be for the Philippines, then so be it but i least we have a clear answer on this.

The only fact that's going to matter to anybody with regard to their own I-134 is whether the do or do not get the visa.

I just want to add that the Consular officer's discretion is also part of the law. Denying a visa on public charge issues, even when the 125% minimum is met, is "legal".

Edited February 9, 2012 by pushbrk

[Moomin 292]

No, I'm talking about the I-134. And since the K1 consists of multiple stages, the CO may look into that as part of their job, especially since the I-134 isn't binding as the i-864, they can look at.. well, what they chose to. No matter how accurate the information is with I-134, flashing a paper from US immigration law won't help in the situation of being denied because of the "power" a CO has. Instead of going on and on, I'd advise you to read this post; http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/262022-k1-visa-denied-help-pls/page__view__findpost__p__4023887 it pretty much sums up why.

Taken out of context of the original thread, it still applies. What is important is "denied under 212(a )( 4)", that is one of the reasons why each petition is unique. Yes, they have to have a reason that follows the law but many here only get 3 digits written on a paper according to INA. That can and may be interpreted somewhat freely.

I don't completely disagree with you but it's a matter of how it works in reality, not on a piece of paper. Disability is considered income as well but it's up to the CO to determine whether or not it's acceptable. The same goes with assets. Ohh, I hope I got this one right though, please correct me if I'm wrong here.

You are talking about I-864, not I-134, what i'm pointing out here is what the law requires and not what the CO wants to do, CO's are required to follow guidelines and laws on Immigration, they may deny anyone they want but they have to have a reason that follows the law. We also have our rights, so it's always good to know what we can do. Every bad decision made by a CO can always go against him. So they are also careful on what they do. They are not God that can do anything, they don't have the final word, The LAW has.

My post is to give an accurate information with regards to I-134 and not I-864 as they are completely different forms.

Edited February 9, 2012 by moomin

[merkin&regine 18]

We all know the official requirements for the I-134 and we all know those official requirement are routinely ignored. We also know why.

The only fact that's going to matter to anybody with regard to their own I-134 is whether the do or do not get the visa.

[pushbrk 12,122]

So, you have an interview in a couple weeks. I take it your sponsor's income falls between 100 and 125% of the poverty guideline. Please do let us know the result.

[merkin&regine 18]

So, you have an interview in a couple weeks. I take it your sponsor's income falls between 100 and 125% of the poverty guideline. Please do let us know the result.

We do have 125%... I was just really into getting the facts about I-134. As I know a friend who's BF is only 100% and I thought they need a co sponsor but they went ahead and go to the interview and got approved without co sponsor.

She said, they wont worry about AOS as they have a Joint sponsor that qualifies 125%. Philippines is known to not accept co sponsor that's why.

[pushbrk 12,122]

We do have 125%... I was just really into getting the facts about I-134. As I know a friend who's BF is only 100% and I thought they need a co sponsor but they went ahead and go to the interview and got approved without co sponsor.

She said, they wont worry about AOS as they have a Joint sponsor that qualifies 125%. Philippines is known to not accept co sponsor that's why.

You are not providing NEWS. It's a judgment call. I gave a couple examples earlier in the thread. I expect your friend's circumstances were closer to example 1 than to example two. Yes?

[merkin&regine 18]

You are not providing NEWS. It's a judgment call. I gave a couple examples earlier in the thread. I expect your friend's circumstances were closer to example 1 than to example two. Yes?

Yes more on number one.. and I didnt take her word until I got a reply from US Embassy regarding the I-134 requirement. So, I based my conclusion not just on her experience but also on what US Embassy in manila emailed me.

[Stephen + Elisha 92]

merkin, the applicable law here is INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A(f)(1). 212(a)(4) states that an affidavit of support under 213A may be considered in determining admissibility under this section. 213A(f)(1)(E) says the requirement is 125 percent of the federal poverty line. So that's the law.

The standards for adjudication by consular officers are set out in the Foreign Affairs Manual. As I cited above, 9 FAM 41.81 PN 2 states that the K visa applicant must meet the public charge requirements in INA 212(a). 212(a) takes us back to 213A, which gets us back to the 125% requirement.

So... Manila may accept 100%. That's within their discretion. But it is in no way a law or requirement.

[merkin&regine 18]

merkin, the applicable law here is INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A(f)(1). 212(a)(4) states that an affidavit of support under 213A may be considered in determining admissibility under this section. 213A(f)(1)(E) says the requirement is 125 percent of the federal poverty line. So that's the law.

The standards for adjudication by consular officers are set out in the Foreign Affairs Manual. As I cited above, 9 FAM 41.81 PN 2 states that the K visa applicant must meet the public charge requirements in INA 212(a). 212(a) takes us back to 213A, which gets us back to the 125% requirement.

So... Manila may accept 100%. That's within their discretion. But it is in no way a law or requirement.

Noted.. Thanks.

[pushbrk 12,122]

Noted.. Thanks.

Bringing us back to square one, yes? The email does not reflect law. It does not even reflect the Manila IV unit's policy in any consistent way. In short. It is meaningless.

[Bobby+Umit 161]

Bringing us back to square one, yes? The email does not reflect law. It does not even reflect the Manila IV unit's policy in any consistent way. In short. It is meaningless.

I would go even further and state that in 2009, when I petitioned Umit to come here from Turkey - I contacted the embassy about this (I134) - and they said they look for 125% of the poverty level, not 100%. (it's in my post history)

I asked why and they said it was because the 864 (for the AOS) requires it, so they are looking ahead.

They also wanted 3 years of tax info, not just one, as the I-134 states.

There not stupid, if you are bringing someone here for AOS, they know you will need 125% eventually - so why not make sure before you bring them over? I know if I was a CO, I would.

I am amazed that people don't think ahead and plan this out - how many posts here are, "oh no - we don't have the money for AOS, sponsors, etc..." - this information is not secret - all the costs/requirements are written in the instructions.

The CO has broad control over the process - so wouldn't it be better to have more than less?

(BTW - this embassy also required a student (visa) holder I know - to have 10K USD in the bank before they gave them the visa - that isn't written anywhere either (other than "strong ties" I suppose) That person went on to marry a USC and AOS with no issues.

[Boiler 43,455]

I self sponsored, so in my case it was 0%

The amount they were looking for was nominal.

[skiptex 225]

No your post was to give information in regards to MANILLA, that is all, not about the I-134.

This would be specific to the Manila consulate then. This does not apply across the board. Most consulates want to see the 125% or better. I do not understand why you keep insisting the 100% is all you need and the way everyone should plan to go. I think people should plan for 125% no matter what consulate they interview at.

if this is for MANILLA.. then topic should be MOVED out of K1 and put into a Regional thread..

we don't need OP to make the statement and have NEWBIES get confused.. because he is referencing 1 email from Manilla.. that would be misunderstood as FOR ALL K1..

[Robert&Karen 264]

So to get here you need 100%, to stay you need 125%. Is he expecting a 25% raise at work?