Source: https://nwsidebar.wsba.org/2013/02/14/support-immigrant-spouse/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:41:06+00:00

Document:
Learn what every attorney should know about the I-864 Affidavit of Support.
Ever heard of the I-864 Affidavit of Support? If you might ever represent a noncitizen, or someone married to an immigrant, read on. Your client may have signed a contract agreeing to support the noncitizen indefinitely.
The I-864 Affidavit of Support is a contract between a citizen “sponsor” and the U.S. Government. See 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(1). The form is required when an immigrant seeks permanent status based on a certain family visas, including those based on marriage to a U.S. citizen. The sponsor promises to support the noncitizen at 125% of the federal poverty guidelines — that’s $13,963 for a single-person household plus $4,950 for each additional member. The form is necessary to show that the noncitizen will not become a drain on public resources (i.e., a “public charge”).
A sponsored immigrant is not permitted to receive means-tested public benefits. Means-tested benefit programs are those basing eligibility on a person’s financial resources, such as food stamps, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI); the category does not include short- term, non-cash relief programs such as emergency Medicaid. Note that it is permissible for the immigrant’s U.S. citizen child to receive means-tested benefits.
If the noncitizen receives means-tested public benefits, the government can sue the sponsor to recover that cost. But a sponsor’s liability under the I-864 does not end with government programs.
Courts have uniformly held that a sponsor’s support obligations are contractually binding. See, e.g., Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2008). This comes from the terms of the form, which meet the requirements for contract formation. Courts also look to the language of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including the mandate that the affidavit of support be “legally enforceable.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(1)(B).
The noncitizen may sue on the contract in state or federal court to enforce support obligations against the sponsor. To prove breach, the noncitizen shows that the sponsor failed to provide the required level of financial support. Courts have rejected a number of contract defense theories, including lack of consideration and unconscionability (even given a short marriage). The measure of damages is simply the amount needed to restore the level of support required by the agreement.
The I-864 has been built into dissolution awards both as a factor in calculating maintenance and as a contractual award. Litigants can bring the I-864 into a dissolution action by pleading a contractual cause of action in the petition or the answer. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Sandhu, 207 P.3d 1067 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). Courts sometimes consider the I-864 when calculating spousal maintenance. See, e.g., Barnett v. Barnett, 238 P.3d 594 (Alaska 2010). But it is not clear how the I-864 would factor into Washington’s statutory scheme for spousal maintenance. Under which statutory factor would an I-864 contract obligation fit? See RCW 26.09.090. Moreover, building an I-864 into spousal maintenance may raise constitutional concerns, due to the special enforcement mechanisms available regarding maintenance. Cf. Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268, 1279 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (Freedberg., J., dissenting) (arguing that incorporating the I-864 into a maintenance order could lead to unconstitutional imprisonment for private debt); Const. art. I, § 17 (forbidding imprisonment for debt).
Keep your eyes open for the I-864 when you encounter a case with a noncitizen spouse. For more information, read this journal article that discusses I-864 issues in greater detail.
Greg McLawsen. Greg is an attorney at Sound Immigration where he practices immigration law. His practice focuses on representing families in the immigration system and defending individuals from deportation in immigration court. Greg is the Solo & Small Practice Section Young Lawyer Committee Liaison and Vice Chair of the Washington Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)’s New Members Division. He can be reached by email or at (425) 998-7046.
Lisa Seifert. Lisa is the principal attorney of Seifert Law Offices, a 21 year old exclusively immigration firm in Olympia Washington. Ms. Seifert is a Past President of the Washington Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). A frequent speaker and writer on immigration topics, Ms. Seifert often addresses local, regional and national groups regarding immigration law and policy issues. A Minnesota native, Ms. Seifert is a graduate of the University of St. Thomas and William Mitchell College of Law, both in St. Paul.
USCIS has it on file. Contact them with the person’s immigrant number and they can produce a copy.
Great article. Thanks for the info, you made it easy to understand. BTW, if anyone needs to fill out a form I-864, I found a blank form here http://goo.gl/8ObBjf. This site PDFfiller also has some tutorials on how to fill it out and a few related forms that you might find useful.
What are your thoughts on I-134 being signed, and later a claim that an I-864 was signed and cannot be found? In addition, are you aware that some US Embassies require the immigrant to sign a form as well? For example, DS-156 is required where the intending immigrant agrees to work. I have a case where the immigrant typed below question #32, “I will apply for employment when qualified to work in USA. At this time I do not have the authority to work in USA.” I noticed both attorneys on this page discuss case law around the country, but I do not see any authority from Washington State. Do you have any cases you can cite from Washington? Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

References: § 1183
 v. 
 § 1183
 v. 
 v. 
 § 17