How enforceable is Affidavit of Support?

[CQ & CS 2]

Not sure if this is the right session to post this. Feel free to move it if it's not.

While reading a post last night about a member here abandoned his wife and wanted to divorce her before her AOS, I had a discussion with my husband on the enforcement of Affidavit of Support. Some members in the thread said he should at least help her get the GC and then divorce her so that she wouldn’t be disgraced by her family.

I’m not judging if the OP was right/wrong; it was a complicated situation and there are cultural factors involved. However, if I were him, I would do the same thing to pull the Affidavit of Support in order to protect myself. And here’s how the discussion started. My thought was if the GC was granted, the OP would be financially hooked for 40 quarters of work until his wife becomes a USC, cease to be a LPR, or if s/he dies etc and divorce would not get him off the hook.

My husband’s thought was that the Affidavit of Support thing is hardly enforceable. Even if it’s enforceable it will take so long to have a hearing in the court.

So how serious and enforceable is the Affidavit of Support?

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

In real life, the Affidavit of Support is a non issue. Enforcing it would require the US Government to sue the immigrant's sponsor in court. It is very doubtful that this will happen in any but the most severe circumstances where an immigrant has unlawfully accrued tens of thousand of dollars in federal (not state!) money.

Don't tell anyone though.

The case you were discussing is about a spouse who arrived on a K-1 in order to get married and it just didn't work out. In such a case the US citizen shouldn't get his/her spouse a Green Card, as this would be fraud, plain and simple. The cultural implications involved do not change that fact. Importing a foreigner from a completely different country far far away is inherently risky, and both the USC and the foreigner assume that risk when agreeing on pursuing that route.

[VanessaTony 3,567]

Some say that because the I-864 is between the USC and the government (the immigrant isn't a signing party) then the USC owes NOTHING to the immigrant themselves, only to the government should the government sue for return of any amount the immigrant has incurred of means-tested benefits (which they're apparently not even eligible for until 5 years of being an LPR).

Others say that even though the immigrant isn't a signing party, it can be used as evidence that the USC promised the immigrant that he would support them at the poverty level. Some USC's have taken it upon themselves to do this (support the immigrant finanially), others have been sued by immigrants for the support. In cases where the immigrant has been awarded support (sometimes the judge says the previous thing "immigrant isn't signing party), the poverty level is paid MINUS what the immigrant earns themselves. I did read one story where the USC had to support the immigrant while the case was pending, and I believe even had to pay the legal fees of the immigrant.

My personal opinion is it SHOULD be the first one, but the second one makes sense. Though the immigrant isn't a signing party, the contract can act as proof that the USC promised that support. My issue with that though is the poverty level is pretty decent, and the poverty level for one person isn't 1/2 the level for 2 people.. it's only a $4-5K difference. So how is it fair that the USC needs to live on a ridiculously small amount of money? If the immigrant has the ABILITY to work, how is it the USC's fault that they can't find work (or don't want to 'cause they're getting money for free?)? How is it the USC's responsibility?

I think (in an ideal world) that the immigrant should get money for a flight home and that's it. If they can't make it in the US, then the USC needs to "undo" the immigration of the immigrant. The immigrant agreed to move, the USC didn't force it so they shouldn't pay for that loss. I personally don't hold Tony responsible for MY decision to move just as I would hope if the situation were reversed he wouldn't hold me responsible. It's a relationship and sometimes they aren't 50/50. I would fight to either make it work here, and if I can't, I would go back to Aus.

[CQ & CS 2]

In real life, the Affidavit of Support is a non issue. Enforcing it would require the US Government to sue the immigrant's sponsor in court. It is very doubtful that this will happen in any but the most severe circumstances where an immigrant has unlawfully accrued tens of thousand of dollars in federal (not state!) money.

This is exactly what my husband meant. You are right on!

[CQ & CS 2]

If the immigrant has the ABILITY to work, how is it the USC's fault that they can't find work (or don't want to 'cause they're getting money for free?)? How is it the USC's responsibility?

Morally it's not the USC's responsibility but legally it is. But in the real world, like my husband said, it's hard to enforce.

[CQ & CS 2]

It's a relationship and sometimes they aren't 50/50. I would fight to either make it work here, and if I can't, I would go back to Aus.

Yes a real relationship shouldn't be 50/50. It should be 100/100 love each other

However, we have read sad stories here that laws are being used fradulently.

[seantruce 5]

On 2/16/2011 at 1:56 PM, VanessaTony said:

Some say that because the I-864 is between the USC and the government (the immigrant isn't a signing party) then the USC owes NOTHING to the immigrant themselves, only to the government should the government sue for return of any amount the immigrant has incurred of means-tested benefits (which they're apparently not even eligible for until 5 years of being an LPR).

Others say that even though the immigrant isn't a signing party, it can be used as evidence that the USC promised the immigrant that he would support them at the poverty level. Some USC's have taken it upon themselves to do this (support the immigrant finanially), others have been sued by immigrants for the support. In cases where the immigrant has been awarded support (sometimes the judge says the previous thing "immigrant isn't signing party), the poverty level is paid MINUS what the immigrant earns themselves. I did read one story where the USC had to support the immigrant while the case was pending, and I believe even had to pay the legal fees of the immigrant.

My personal opinion is it SHOULD be the first one, but the second one makes sense. Though the immigrant isn't a signing party, the contract can act as proof that the USC promised that support. My issue with that though is the poverty level is pretty decent, and the poverty level for one person isn't 1/2 the level for 2 people.. it's only a $4-5K difference. So how is it fair that the USC needs to live on a ridiculously small amount of money? If the immigrant has the ABILITY to work, how is it the USC's fault that they can't find work (or don't want to 'cause they're getting money for free?)? How is it the USC's responsibility?

I think (in an ideal world) that the immigrant should get money for a flight home and that's it. If they can't make it in the US, then the USC needs to "undo" the immigration of the immigrant. The immigrant agreed to move, the USC didn't force it so they shouldn't pay for that loss. I personally don't hold Tony responsible for MY decision to move just as I would hope if the situation were reversed he wouldn't hold me responsible. It's a relationship and sometimes they aren't 50/50. I would fight to either make it work here, and if I can't, I would go back to Aus.

I wish I was in a situation with someone with your morals. I will potentially have to pay $30k per year for life according to my ex who is going after me for support after being in the US for a year. That could exceed one million dollars. This system needs to change.

[azblk 338]

21 minutes ago, seantruce said:

I wish I was in a situation with someone with your morals. I will potentially have to pay $30k per year for life according to my ex who is going after me for support after being in the US for a year. That could exceed one million dollars. This system needs to change.

Would the support be different if your ex were an American all the other factors constant? Spousal support does not take into account the immigration status or nationality of the spouses.

[Ontarkie 14,224]

~~Zombie thread locked to further discussion. Do not Hijack other members threads.~~