contract-law immigration
Is the United States I-134 immigration document legally binding?
<p>Is the I-134 immigration document legally binding?</p>

<p>It is supposedly an "affidavit of support" but it is not the I-864.  I have someone who is very hesitant to sign it but I am trying to explain that it is not legally binding.  However, I need the support to bring my fiancee to the USA.</p>

<p>The I-134 is not legally binding.</p>

<p>From the State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual, <a href="https://fam.state.gov/fam/09FAM/09FAM030208.html#M302_8_2_B_2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">9 FAM 302.8-2(B)(2)</a>(f)(3)(a):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From USCIS's Adjudicator's Field Manual, <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/AFM/HTML/AFM/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-12693/0-0-0-13496.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 30.8</a>, the section on I-134s:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Such affidavits, although helpful in judging financial ability, are
  not legally binding.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_05-cv-01738/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_05-cv-01738-0.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is a federal district court opinion that confirms I-134 is not legally binding, and cites several legal precedents to support this (page 10-11):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>C. Affidavit of Support</p>
  
  <p>Zirintusa asserts that Whitaker breached the Affidavit of Support
  (Form I-134) submitted to the INS, in which Whitaker promised to
  provide room, board, and tuition to Zirintusa for a period of three
  years.  Whitaker argues that the Affidavit of Support is not a binding
  contract between the parties.  Federal Courts have repeatedly sided
  with Whitaker.  <em>See, e.g., Cheshire v. Cheshire</em>, No.
  3:05-CV-00453-TJC-MCR, 2006 WL 1208010, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2006)
  (“[F]ederal courts have consistently found that Form I-134 is not a
  legally enforceable contract against a sponsor by a sponsored
  immigrant.”); <em>Stump v. Stump</em>, No. 1:04-CV-253-TS, 2005 WL 1290658,
  at *4 (N.D. Ind. May 27, Case 1:05-cv-01738-EGS   Document 39<br>
  Filed 01/03/07   Page 10 of 20 11 2005) (finding that the I-134 Form
  “is a nonenforceable promise by the sponsor to support the alien”);
  <em>Tornheim v. Kohn</em>, No. 00 CV 5084(SJ), 2002 WL 482534, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar, 26, 2002) (“[A]n affidavit of support on an I-134 Form
  is not a legally binding contract.”).  The Court sees no reason to
  disagree with the holdings of these courts.  Thus, the Court grants
  Whitaker’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Zirintusa’s
  claim for breach of the Affidavit of Support.</p>
</blockquote>
