financial support / poverty level ?

[TnJ 131]

Well I obviously based my fact on the experiences of PEOPLE I KNOW...NOT just from what I read from other here in VJ……

So explain to me why did the person I know could ABLE to use co-sponsor for petitioning his fiancé? Is there a different before the person I know from someone else case in here???

Let face the fact MOST people here they just getting their answer/s for what they are reading NOT from what they are experiencing…which sometime is wrong because NOT ALL answer/comment/replies here are 100% accurate.

:bonk:

Just saying!!!!

Right, NOT ALL being the key words. Yes, you based it on anecdotal fact. Yes, people read others' experiences. Are ALL these experiences lying to us? The fact is there is no absolute, 100% guarantee that Manila will accept a cosponsor for K-1 applicants. I am not generalizing here nor am I misleading others. You are missing the specific points. I believe you, but it doesn't always happen. This is what Jay-Kay mentioned. This is accurate. It is not accurate nor definitive to state that ALL K-1 applicants will be approved with a cosponsor in Manila.

Great link to the matter:My link

Edited May 8, 2012 by ToddnJessa

[KayDeeCee 4,891]

Well I obviously based my fact on the experiences of PEOPLE I KNOW...NOT just from what I read from other here in VJ……

So explain to me why did the person I know could ABLE to use co-sponsor for petitioning his fiancé? Is there a different before the person I know from someone else case in here???

Let face the fact MOST people here they just getting their answer/s for what they are reading NOT from what they are experiencing…which sometime is wrong because NOT ALL answer/comment/replies here are 100% accurate.

:bonk:

Just saying!!!!

What I said was not incorrect. They do not ALWAYS accept a co-sponsor. I did not state they NEVER do. There have been cases where they have not. This means what I posted was accurate.

I would also like you to tell me the difference between HEARING about someone else's experience because you know them personally, and READING about someone else's experience that you do not personally know. Aren't they both hearsay from another person's experience? If you know someone that was allowed to use a co-sponsor there, that means reading a post from someone you do not know who says they were not allowed the use of a co-sponsor means they are a liar and not accurate? You scrap their experience review because the person you know said they were allowed, so it must be a fact that EVERYONE has been, and will be, allowed too? Your logic is a little flawed in that respect. Just sayin'

[PrincessHalo 7]

you need 3x the assets to make up for shortfall.

having money sitting in a bankaccount abroad is not particularly helpful...

so... do I have other options besides a co-sponsor? just 3x the missing?

[KayDeeCee 4,891]

so... do I have other options besides a co-sponsor? just 3x the missing?

If you are short of the $18,912 requirement, then as was stated before, you can use assets to make up the shortcoming. You stated before that you make $10.10 an hour. If you work full time at 40 hours a week, then you make $21,008 a year. That is enough. It is your gross income before any taxes are taken out that counts. So, multiply how much you make an hour, by how many hours you work a week, then multiply that by 52 to get your current annual income. Provide a letter from your employer and recent pay stubs to prove your current income.

If it is enough, then you are good. If you are short some, then use assets at 3 times the difference. If you really are still short by $150, then you would need at least, bare minimum of $450 in assets such as a savings account. The more you have in savings the better though. You can prove how much you have in savings with a letter from the bank or bank statements.