Tourist Visa for a Nanny

[mae anne 1]

I have a nanny in Philippines who has been with my family for 35 years, and I would like to get her a US tourist visa so she can come visit me in Texas. What documentations does she need to submit? She doesn't have money in the bank or any properties but me and my husband want to pay for all her expenses while she's here. 

[Crazy Cat 39,262]

You can  not sponsor her for a tourist visa.  She will have to apply and qualify entirely on her own.  She will have to convince the CO that she will return to her country.  Evidence of Your financial support can possibly have an adverse effect.........

Edited November 1, 2017 by missileman

[Boiler 43,439]

Might be one of the few cases where an I 134 would be appropriate, what else?

[usmsbow 796]

Since you can afford to pay for her expenses, I suppose you can afford her visa application fee. Don't get your hopes up though. I'd say her odds of success are slim to none. 

[myra2223 2]

2 hours ago, mae anne said:

I have a nanny in Philippines who has been with my family for 35 years, and I would like to get her a US tourist visa so she can come visit me in Texas. What documentations does she need to submit? She doesn't have money in the bank or any properties but me and my husband want to pay for all her expenses while she's here. 

You can file an i134 form along with supporting docs with her to present during interview.

[jan22 2,898]

An I-134 will have no use in a tourist visa application.  It is not a legally binding document and only shows the applicant's lack of local resources and dependence on a US financial resource instead.

[Boiler 43,439]

27 minutes ago, jan22 said:

An I-134 will have no use in a tourist visa application.  It is not a legally binding document and only shows the applicant's lack of local resources and dependence on a US financial resource instead.

Shows she has access to funds to pay her way, and what else does she have, can not make a bad situation any worse.

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

People from my country visiting relatives in the US have often successfully had an I134 used in their applications to show that they can support themselves in the US, particularly for trips of longer than a few weeks. But that’s relatives, where it makes more sense you’d fund someone else’s trip.

 

what concerns me more tbh is the title of this thread - it’s not visa for a friend/family friend, but “nanny”. Raises suspicion that she will be visiting not as a friend but to work as a nanny for a while. If the consulate sees it that way too then she won’t have much chance of getting a visa.

 

(im interested in this actually as we’d like to fund our old nanny a trip here too - a genuine holiday, she’s never travelled and she was practically a family member. I just don’t know how suspiciously the consulate would view such an application. )

Edited November 2, 2017 by SusieQQQ

[jan22 2,898]

On 11/1/2017 at 8:04 PM, SusieQQQ said:

People from my country visiting relatives in the US have often successfully had an I134 used in their applications to show that they can support themselves in the US, particularly for trips of longer than a few weeks. But that’s relatives, where it makes more sense you’d fund someone else’s trip.

 

what concerns me more tbh is the title of this thread - it’s not visa for a friend/family friend, but “nanny”. Raises suspicion that she will be visiting not as a friend but to work as a nanny for a while. If the consulate sees it that way too then she won’t have much chance of getting a visa.

 

(im interested in this actually as we’d like to fund our old nanny a trip here too - a genuine holiday, she’s never travelled and she was practically a family member. I just don’t know how suspiciously the consulate would view such an application. )

They may have presented an I-134 during a successful application --- but that doesn't mean it was a cause and effect relationship.  All the I-134 shows is someone is willing to fill out a form for the person....there is no way to enforce it and no guarantee that the promised monies will be supplied.

 

I think your concern about the "nanny" issue is well-founded...it will be an extra hurdle for her to overcome if she is to be successful.

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

10 hours ago, jan22 said:

They may have presented an I-134 during a successful application --- but that doesn't mean it was a cause and effect relationship.  All the I-134 shows is someone is willing to fill out a form for the person....there is no way to enforce it and no guarantee that the promised monies will be supplied.

 

 

Maybe, but some U.S. Embassy websites actually recommend visitors get these if they may otherwise have a problem proving they can finance their trip, and it certainly  falsifies the opinion presented earlier that such things actually endanger an application.

 

Incidentally, it is also the affidavit of support that DV applicants may be asked to provide, not an I864. I know DV applicants whose success was contingent on providing these - as in they were placed on AP until they could provide one, after which their visas were issued. So despite its uncertain legal status, it is definitely not dismissed as meaningless by consulates. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by SusieQQQ

[jan22 2,898]

46 minutes ago, SusieQQQ said:

Maybe, but some U.S. Embassy websites actually recommend visitors get these if they may otherwise have a problem proving they can finance their trip, and it certainly  falsifies the opinion presented earlier that such things actually endanger an application.

 

Incidentally, it is also the affidavit of support that DV applicants may be asked to provide, not an I864. I know DV applicants whose success was contingent on providing these - as in they were placed on AP until they could provide one, after which their visas were issued. So despite its uncertain legal status, it is definitely not dismissed as meaningless by consulates. 

I wasn't referring to it in the context of DVs...completely different use and different reason for requesting it.

 

For visitor visas, you're right, it likely doesn't endanger the application, but it also is unlikely it will help.

Edited November 3, 2017 by jan22

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

4 hours ago, jan22 said:

I wasn't referring to it in the context of DVs...completely different use and different reason for requesting it.

 

For visitor visas, you're right, it likely doesn't endanger the application, but it also is unlikely it will help.

But as you said "All the I-134 shows is someone is willing to fill out a form for the person....there is no way to enforce it and no guarantee that the promised monies will be supplied.", it should make it even less useful in the case of a DV application where the person (immigrant) involved has more recourse to public funds than a visitor. 

 

And I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the I134 in the context of a tourist visa. After all USCIS itself says the entire point of it is "To show that visa applicants have sponsorship and will not become public charges while in the United States."  https://www.uscis.gov/i-134 And there are embassies that suggest using it. What's the point of USCIS having it in the first place if it's not going to help anyone? (It was in existence long before DV, DV just got added into it, and the few thousand (if that) DV cases a year that use it are certainly dwarfed by tourist visa applications, so it's definitely not there for DV.)  Why would they bother having it for tourist applications if it was going to be ignored? Just to make more paperwork for everyone?!

 

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by SusieQQQ

[Boiler 43,439]

To be fair trying to look at this sort of thing logically just does your head in, logic and Government entities rarely matches.

[jan22 2,898]

3 hours ago, SusieQQQ said:

But as you said "All the I-134 shows is someone is willing to fill out a form for the person....there is no way to enforce it and no guarantee that the promised monies will be supplied.", it should make it even less useful in the case of a DV application where the person (immigrant) involved has more recourse to public funds than a visitor. 

 

And I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the I134 in the context of a tourist visa. After all USCIS itself says the entire point of it is "To show that visa applicants have sponsorship and will not become public charges while in the United States."  https://www.uscis.gov/i-134 And there are embassies that suggest using it. What's the point of USCIS having it in the first place if it's not going to help anyone? (It was in existence long before DV, DV just got added into it, and the few thousand (if that) DV cases a year that use it are certainly dwarfed by tourist visa applications, so it's definitely not there for DV.)  Why would they bother having it for tourist applications if it was going to be ignored? Just to make more paperwork for everyone?!

 

 

The I-134 used to be the AOS for all immigrant visas.  It was determined in the mid-1990's that it did not have sufficient legal language to make it a binding contract.  Thus, the I-864 was developed as a legally-binding contract and took the place of the I-134. 

 

Since the I-864 cannot be required for a DV, the I-134 has hung around and is sometimes used for DV applicants -- helps show they have at least some minimal type of support system to help them get started in the US. It also is the only AOS th a that can be used for K-1 visas.  It was never intended (and still isn't) for non-immigrant visa applications othe than the K-1.  It should not be listed on any Embassy's website, but some just throw it out as something that could be presented when people demand to know what documents they can present for their case.  Consular officers are frequently told not to rely on any documents except those required by law for the visa category (e.g., the I-20 for F-1 student visas),  since documents are easily faked all over the world.

Edited November 3, 2017 by jan22