nakota

Hello all! Am using common sense to answer questions in the I-134,but I'm curious about one question! I'm American,my fiance' is English.
On question #11, It asks if I intend or do not intend to make specific contributions to the support of the person I am to sponsor.then if I intend I need exact nature and duration.....(room & board,$$$$,how often,etc)
One attorney advised me to say no,since we are obviously marrying,as soon as we are approved.But,if I'm sponsoring him......it seems like I should say " I do intend ".He will be living in my home,I will provide for his medical needs,emergency funds,etc.I'm not sure.Common sense does not always apply I'm finding out!! Any suggestions,please?Thanks!

californian

Hmm . . . really?!

I recently filed the I-134 for my husband (for his K-3) and stated something like *I intend to provide any financial assistance my husband may require, including, but not limited to, room and board, medical expenses, living and leisure expenses for as long as he requires*.

Tracym

We said something similar.

penguinbar

My attorney sid to say no since it ws for a K1. We got approved.

nakota

Thank you everyone! I agreed that I do intend to provide any of his financial / emergency needs,medical expenses (including visa insurance if needed),room and board,and would do so for the duration of visa,as we are marrying.
It sure is nerve wrecking,we're down to the last bit.Now he sends to embassy and the wait begins again.

californian

I am glad you were approved but I am not sure I understand how this worked. Did you provide other evidence of financial support? Self-sponsor? A job lined up?

penguinbar

I had evidence of financial support for my fiance. Paystubs, bank statements, mutual fund statements and a letter from my employer. My income is mainly commision based as well. I had a joint sponser for him as well but they weren't interested. It seems like some people have checked they agree and some checked that they don't agree. You asked about self sponsering but I am the US citizen so my fiancee would have been the one to self sponsor. He had that info as well but they weren't interested in that either. I would do whatever you feel comfortable with.

californian

P, I've seen you on the forum before but I wasn't sure if you were the USC or the UKC.

I wasn't aware that if a K visa applicant was using the I-134 (rather than self-sponsoring) that the Sponsor could say they didn't agree to sponsor the visa applicant. It seems counter intuitive to provide a bunch of evidence of your ability to financially sponsor the applicant but then check that you don't intend to do so? As you say, it obviously works either way so maybe I am being pedantic.

Tracym

I can't see a reason to say no. They might let it slide, but to me it seems the appropriate answer is yes... all of his needs... indefinitely.

Since you'll have to sign the I-864 for AOS anyway.

Noorah101

Are you guys all talking about the question on the I-134 which asks if you do or do not intend to make specific contributions to the support of the person named....?

If so, it says in bold parenthesis "Complete this block only if the person named in the item 3 will be in the United States temporarily).

So I didn't check either box, since my fiance was not going to be in the USA temporarily....he was coming to stay permanently. I left both boxes blank.

Rene

californian

I believe we are talking about Q11.

This makes total sense, I just don't see a reference to temporary in Q11. This is the version I am looking at.

Noorah101

Well by golly you're right! They have removed that part on the new version. I'm sorry, I was looking at my verision from 2003. Darn it.

Rene

penguinbar

I'm the USC. I thought it was strange to check no as well ut I was advised to do so and some other people have posted they did the the same for a K1 on the I134. Our petition was approved after two months. The visa interview was less than 3 months later. Now my fiancee will be here in a month. We.are getting married in October. Then we get to go through AOS. More paperwork!

californian

Maybe we've solved the mystery! Maybe OP's lawyer is working from an older version of the form (hopefully a still excepted version).

ian-mstm

I know you mean "accepted version". An "excepted version" is the complete opposite!

Ian