Responsibilities of a Petitioner

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Got me... I guess I need to reword that...

It will most likely be an uphill battle for the immigrant to directly sue the USC based on the I-864 as the immigrant isn't a party to the contract and:

1) Only someone who is a party to the contract can be sued or sue another party of the contract.

2) For a contract to be enforceable in a court of law each side must give something and gain benefit (i.e. Petitioner gives to support Beneficiary and in return US Gov't give Beneficiary admittance to US / Petitioner benefits by having their family member here / US Gov't benefits by not having to shoulder the cost of their presence).

So even if a State or Federal Court somehow decided that the Beneficiary is a party to the contract they have not given-up anything directly to the Petitioner unless you want to argue that the household or financial support they brought into the relationship is what they've given-up and the Petitioner has gained.

Bingo! And that has been the sordid history of immigrants trying to enforce the support provision of the I-864. Many family courts refuse to consider it because the state's family code already has clear criteria and a formula for determining support, and there are no provisions for allowing a contract to override the guidance in the family code. Civil courts in some states have refused to hear a case brought by an immigrant based on the I-864 because the immigrant isn't a party to the contract - they are an indirect beneficiary of the contract. I recall reading one case where the judge told the immigrant that they needed to get the federal government to sue on their behalf. There is an inference in the AFM that the federal government might actually do this, but I've never heard of it happening.

Immigrants have had slightly better luck in federal courts, since they aren't bound by state laws.