out of status in K1 visa

[Boiler 43,458]

If you have not signed your I-134 yet, or perhaps if you did, but forgot, allow me to remind you what your contract is in the enclosed snapshot. BLUF, you are promising the US government that you will take care of the beneficiary, and ensure he/she leaves the country if not married within 90 days (paraphrasing here, but the attachment spells it out in detail).

The petitioner IS RESPONSIBLE for her, period.

Not even the I 864 does that.

The I 134 is unenforceable.

[Moomin 292]

Edit: Nevermind, i posted in the wrong topic

Edited August 5, 2012 by moomin

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Not even the I 864 does that.

The I 134 is unenforceable.

So you're saying that signing a contract with the US government, agreeing to be bound by the rules, is unenforceable? And that though it is stated that the petitioner CAN be sued, he or she has no fear of actually being sued? Can you please provide a link, case study, or other precedence to back up your statement? It might help others to know they have a leg to stand on should they opt to renege on their contracts.

[Boiler 43,458]

It is common knowledge that the I 134 is not enforceable. A quick search of this site will provide plenty of data.

The I 864, there have been a couple of cases, the one I remember was featured on www.ilw.com where a lady tried to use it to obtain support following a divorce to the minimum standard. She was very partly successful.

As far as the US Gov going against someone, well I can not remember a case, I am sure there has been at least one. How do you think all these people bring their elderly parents to the US and survive financially, if it was regularly enforced?

None of them require anybody to buy airline tickets, both are specific as to what they refer to, just read them.

[sunandmoon 450]

It is common knowledge that the I 134 is not enforceable. A quick search of this site will provide plenty of data.

The I 864, there have been a couple of cases, the one I remember was featured on www.ilw.com where a lady tried to use it to obtain support following a divorce to the minimum standard. She was very partly successful.

As far as the US Gov going against someone, well I can not remember a case, I am sure there has been at least one. How do you think all these people bring their elderly parents to the US and survive financially, if it was regularly enforced?

None of them require anybody to buy airline tickets, both are specific as to what they refer to, just read them.

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3 Use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support

(CT:VISA-1317; 09-24-2009)

a. Because INA 212(a)(4)© and INA 213A require the use of Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, for so many classes of immigrants, the use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, has been reduced considerably. Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the applicant at your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be accorded the same weight as Form I-864. Form I-134 should be given consideration as one form of evidence, however, in conjunction with the other forms of evidence mentioned below.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86988.pdf

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

9 FAM 40.41 N4.6-3 Use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support

(CT:VISA-1317; 09-24-2009)

a. Because INA 212(a)(4)© and INA 213A require the use of Form I-864, Affidavit of Support Under Section 213A of the Act, for so many classes of immigrants, the use of Form I-134, Affidavit of Support, has been reduced considerably. Nevertheless, there still are circumstances when Form I-134 will be beneficial. This affidavit, submitted by the applicant at your request, is not legally binding on the sponsor and should not be accorded the same weight as Form I-864. Form I-134 should be given consideration as one form of evidence, however, in conjunction with the other forms of evidence mentioned below.

http://www.state.gov...ation/86988.pdf

I realize I am much newer to this visa stuff than either of you, and I defer to your experience based on what you have seen on these forums. But...

That just says that I-134 is not used as much since the I-864 is used. But both are needed in the case of a K-1, and both are still legally binding affidavits. However, the I-864 is not even called into question here, because they haven't filed for AOS. The only signed support document thus far is the I-134, right? And the paragraphs you are quoting deal with the consideration given in the process of determining if an applicant will become a public charge (end up on welfare). To me, "should not be accorded the same weight as Form I-864" means the I-864 carries more weight in DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO ISSUE A VISA. But I have emailed USCIS for some insight on the matter.

On the I-134, the sponsor also guarantees the US government that the beneficiary will depart the country prior to the expiration of their intended stay. Since they didn't get married by day 90, then he must ensure she leaves. How else would he do this except by supplying her a ticket home?

[Boiler 43,458]

It does not say that.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

My copy does.

...I am ready and willing... to guarantee that the above named person(s) will maintain his or her nonimmigrant status , if admitted temporarily, and will depart prior to the expiration of his or her authorized stay in the United States.

Status was maintained right up til the 90th day. Admission was temporary, conditional upon marriage, which did not occur.

Edited August 6, 2012 by DavenRoxy

[Tahoma 2,291]

...I am ready and willing... to guarantee that the above named person(s) will maintain his or her nonimmigrant status , if admitted temporarily, and will depart prior to the expiration of his or her authorized stay in the United States.

The quote is taken out of context. The first part of the sentence, which you left out, says it applies to those who deposited a bond. K-1'ers don't deposit a bond.

I don't know if "unenforceable" is the right word, but I don't know of any I-134's that have been enforced.

[Boiler 43,458]

My copy does.

...I am ready and willing... to guarantee that the above named person(s) will maintain his or her nonimmigrant status , if admitted temporarily, and will depart prior to the expiration of his or her authorized stay in the United States.

Status was maintained right up til the 90th day. Admission was temporary, conditional upon marriage, which did not occur.

How much was the bond you put up?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

The bond I put up?

My soul.

Interpretation is why lawyers argue and make so much money. But the way I read it is:

1) I am willing and able to receive, maintain, and support the beneficiary

2) I am ready and willing to deposit a bond, if necessary (it wasn't), to guarantee that the beneficiary does not become a public charge in the US

3) I am ready and willing to guarantee that the beneficiary will maintain their nonimmigrant status, if admitted temporarily (K-1 is a temporary visa), and will leave prior to their authorized stay

I deal with government legalese on a daily basis, and while it by no means makes me a lawyer (other than a $hithouse variety) nor an expert, that is how I would argue the statement that a person signed their name to. I'm sure you interpret it differently, and the only way we would know for sure how the Gov't views it would be to find legal precedence in the matter. If there is any. Though sense is NOT common, it would stand to reason that the beneficiary is rather at the mercy of the sponsor when it comes to money in most cases. I know my wife would have a hard time getting home without my help, because she left all her money in the PI when she put her trust in me to come live here.

That's how I view my responsibility in the matter of my word, whether or not anyone else or the US Gov't does. Simply put, I am the reason she came here, and if I changed my mind, I would feel it was my place to get her back home. If the USCIS answers me on the matter, I will share with you what they said.

[Boiler 43,458]

I self sponsored my K1.

But then I paid my own way to the US as well.

And would pay my own way home.

I can switch money to my US account in less than 3 days.

The I 134 says what it says, you seem to be reading things in it that it does not say.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Not everyone in the PI has a bank account, and not aware of any that transfer money to US banks directly (except by wire or Xoom/WU, etc.).

No, I just read the words as they are written. Guess we will just have to disagree on what was meant when they were written.

[Boiler 43,458]

It does not matter what was meant, only what was written.

Any ambiguity is against the person writing it anyway.

[B_and_G 2]

The bond I put up?

My soul.

...

That's how I view my responsibility in the matter of my word, whether or not anyone else or the US Gov't does. Simply put, I am the reason she came here, and if I changed my mind, I would feel it was my place to get her back home. If the USCIS answers me on the matter, I will share with you what they said.

I agree with you. Just because the I-134 is 'unenforceable' does not mean it's a reason to wriggle out of a responsibility. The beneficiary uprooted her life back in her home country and if the petitioner changed his mind on the 11th hour, he should ensure that she gets home and doesn't become an illegal. Especially if she doesn't have the means to return. Beyond the legalese, it's just the decent thing to do.