Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rebeccajo

why.....

8 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ok. Hope this is in the right forum.

The I-134 Affidavit of Support is not legally binding on the sponsor.

But the I-864 is.

Why is that? I realized last night that I have no clue what the legal reason is.............

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rebeccajo,

An amendment was made to the INA in about 1996 or 1997 creating new sponsorship requirements for immigrants. Those new requirements are embodied in the I-864. The INS issued a temporary order implementing the new section of the INA in 1997, it took another 9 years for their successor USCIS to issue the final order!

Yodrak

Ok. Hope this is in the right forum.

The I-134 Affidavit of Support is not legally binding on the sponsor.

But the I-864 is.

Why is that? I realized last night that I have no clue what the legal reason is.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh.

So basically it's sort of an antiquated form that they haven't yet figured out they don't need to use?

Oh but wait a minute...it's not USCIS that uses the form. It's DOS....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rebeccajo,

An amendment was made to the INA in about 1996 or 1997 creating new sponsorship requirements for immigrants. Those new requirements are embodied in the I-864. The INS issued a temporary order implementing the new section of the INA in 1997, it took another 9 years for their successor USCIS to issue the final order!

Yodrak

Ok. Hope this is in the right forum.

The I-134 Affidavit of Support is not legally binding on the sponsor.

But the I-864 is.

Why is that? I realized last night that I have no clue what the legal reason is.............

Thanks Yodrak, you have a wealth of knowledge. :thumbs:

Peter Miami


Johanna & Peter

Colombia / U.S.A.

I-129F / K-1 Fiancee Visa

08-20-02 - Met Johanna in Armenia, Colombia

10-05-05 - K-1 Sent to TSC

10-14-05 - Received NOA1 by E-Mail (Day 9)

12-22-05 - Reveived NOA2 By E-Mail & Mail (Day 78)

03-03-06 - Interview Date! (Day 149) Approved

03-10-06 - Johanna Arrived

05-27-06 - Married

I-485 / AOS (Did not applied for EAD or AP)

06-05-06 - Sent I-485 application to Chicago via USPS (Day 1)

06-06-06 - AOS Package Delivered at 12:29PM

06-12-06 - Received NOA1 by Mail

06-14-06 - Check Cashed

06-22-06 - Received Appointment Notice for Biometrics

06-26-06 - "Request for Additional Evidence" Online, waiting for letter

06-29-06 - Biometrics Done!

06-30-06 - Received RFE Letter by mail. (Missing Birth Certificate)

07-10-06 - Sent RFE by Express Mail USPS

07-11-06 - RFE Delivered @ 10:54AM Sign by D. Atwell

08-28-06 - AOS Transferred to CSC E-mail & USCIS Website (Day 85)

08-30-06 - Touched #1

08-31-06 - Touched #2

08-31-06 - E-Mail from CRIS & USCIS-CSSO - CSC received AOS Application

09-01-06 - Touched #3

09-01-06 - NOA by Mail Regarding Transfer to CSC

09-05-06 - Touched #4

09-07-06 - Touched #5

09-13-06 - Touched #6

09-15-06 - AOS Approved by Online Status & E-mail

09-21-06 - Received GC and Welcome Letter (Day 109)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rebeccajo,

What is?

Yodrak

Sheesh.

So basically it's sort of an antiquated form that they haven't yet figured out they don't need to use?

....

Oh sorry. The I-134.

But why would DOS use an INS/USCIS form anyway? Is that one reason it's not binding?

Edited by rebeccajo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rebeccajo,

I-134 is not obsolete - it remains quite useful for non-immigrant visas. The K visas, for example, and B2 visas.

Why should DoS re-create something that already exists? Don't we complain enough already about how inefficient the government is?

I-134 is not enforceable because there's nothing in the law to make it enforceable. Congress decided that this was a problem in immigration situations and that something needed to be done about it, but that it was not necessary to make any changes in non-immigration situations.

Yodrak

rebeccajo,

What is?

Yodrak

Sheesh.

So basically it's sort of an antiquated form that they haven't yet figured out they don't need to use?

....

Oh sorry. The I-134.

But why would DOS use an INS/USCIS form anyway? Is that one reason it's not binding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yodrak,

Ok got it.

The I-134 is still useful and DoS is being efficient.

And I-134 is not enforceable because there's no law making it so.

Simple.

Thanks.

rebeccajo

rebeccajo,

I-134 is not obsolete - it remains quite useful for non-immigrant visas. The K visas, for example, and B2 visas.

Why should DoS re-create something that already exists? Don't we complain enough already about how inefficient the government is?

I-134 is not enforceable because there's nothing in the law to make it enforceable. Congress decided that this was a problem in immigration situations and that something needed to be done about it, but that it was not necessary to make any changes in non-immigration situations.

Yodrak

rebeccajo,

What is?

Yodrak

Sheesh.

So basically it's sort of an antiquated form that they haven't yet figured out they don't need to use?

....

Oh sorry. The I-134.

But why would DOS use an INS/USCIS form anyway? Is that one reason it's not binding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Didn't find the answer you were looking for? Ask our VJ Immigration Lawyers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×