List of I-864 case law

This is a list of I-864 case law and statistics on the plaintiffs' countries of origin. The I-864 is the affidavit of support.

Cases

• Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, LEXIS 28962 (M.D. La. 29 April 2004). Holding that "the entire purpose of the affidavit is to ensure that immigrants do not become a 'public charge'". The plaintiff was from Honduras.
• Al-Mansour v. Shraim, LEXIS 9864 (Dist. Court. D. Maryland 2 February 2011). Rejecting an argument that the I-864 is unconscionable because it is a "take it or leave it" contract of adhesion. The plaintiff was from Jordan.
• Baines v. Baines, LEXIS 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 13 November 2009). Rejecting the argument that a beneficiary must have received means-tested public benefits in order to seek support from a sponsor.The plaintiff's nationality was not mentioned, but her name, Ludmila, is Slavic.
• Barnett v. Barnett, 238 P.3d 594 (Alaska: Supreme Court 27 August 2010). Concluding summarily that existing case law supported the conclusion that earning capacity should be imputed to an I-864 beneficiary. The plaintiff was from Belarus.
• Blain v. Herrell, LEXIS 76257 (D.Haw. 21 July 2010). Refusing to award alimony based on the I-864 because of the valid pre-marital agreement. The plaintiff was from Australia.
• Carlborg v. Tompkins (United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin 3 November 2010). Text Defeating the defendant-sponsor's counterclaim of fraud. The plaintiff was from Ukraine.
• Chang v. Crabill, LEXIS 67501 (United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division 21 June 2011). The plaintiff was from Taiwan.
• Chavez v. Chavez, LEXIS 319 (Va. Cir. Crt. 1 December 2010). Concluding that becoming a permanent resident is a condition precedent to a beneficiary suing on an I-864. The plaintiff's nationality is unknown until we find the URL.
• Cheshire v. Cheshire, LEXIS 26602 (M.D. Fla. 4 May 2006). Holding that the promise of overcoming inadmissibility is a thing of value adequate for consideration. The plaintiff was from Ukraine.
• Choudry v. Choudry (Superior Court of New Jersey 24 July 2013). Text Assessing support obligations based on testimony establishing that the I-864 was executed. The plaintiff was from Pakistan.
• Cobb v. Cobb, LEXIS 93131 (E.D. Cal. 3 July 2012). The plaintiff's nationality is unknown. Her name is Regina, and she met her husband by Internet. PACER had nothing about her nationality.
• Davis v. Davis (Ohio Ct. App. 11 May 2012). Text, Davis v. U.S., 499 F.3d 590 (United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit 16 August 2007). Addressing how to calculate 40 quarters of work for purposes of determining when a sponsor's support duty has terminated, and holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred suit. The plaintiff was from Ukraine.
• DeLima v. Burres (United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division 26 February 2013). Text The plaintiff was from Brazil.
• Erler v. Erler, LEXIS 165814 (N.D. Cal. 21 November 2013). Provided the most detailed discussion to date of calculating household size for the purpose of calculating the required level of support under the I-864. The plaintiff was apparently from Turkey.
• Farhan v. Farhan (United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division 5 February 2013). Text The plaintiff was from Pakistan.
• Greenleaf v. Greenleaf (Court of Appeals of Michigan 29 September 2011). Text Holding that a lower court erred in incorporating the I-864 into a support order. The plaintiff was from Russia.
• Hajizadeh v. Hajizadeh (Court of Appeals of Indiana 18 January 2012). Text Upholding the trial court's finding that the beneficiary-sponsor had rendered performance of the I-864 impossible by returning to his home country (temporarily) and concealing his whereabouts. The plaintiff was from Iran.
• Harsing v. Naseem (U.S. Dist. Puerto Rico 18 January 2012). Text The plaintiff was from Estonia.
• Hrachova v. Cook, LEXIS 102067 (U.S. Dist. M.D. Fla. 3 November 2009). Noting that divorce does not terminate the obligation of a sponsor. The plaintiff was from Ukraine.
• Iannuzzelli v. Lovett, 981 So.2d 557 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). Noting that beneficary-plaintiff was awarded no damages at trial because she had failed to demonstrate that she had been unable to sustain herself at 125% of the poverty level since her separation from the marriage. The plaintiff was possibly from Ecuador.
• In re Marriage of Sandhu, 207 P.3d 1067 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). Holding that the beneficiary had no cause of action due to earnings over 125% of the poverty guidelines. The plaintiff was from India.
• In re: the marriage of Kayvan Kamali and Banafsheh Safar Alizadeh and in the Interest of K.T.K. (Court of Appeals of Texas 7 December 2011). Text The plaintiff was from Iran.
• Knope v. Knope, 103 AD 3d 1256 (NY: Appellate Div., 4th Dept. 8 February 2013). The plaintiff was named Olga and spoke Russian, but her exact nationality is unknown.
• Liepe v. Liepe (Dist. Court, D. New Jersey 10 December 2012). Text The plaintiff was from South Korea.
• Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2012). Holding than an I-864 beneficiary has no duty to mitigate damages by seeking employment. The plaintiff was from China.
• Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (2011). The plaintiff was from Germany.
• Mathieson v. Mathieson, LEXIS 44054 (W.D. Penn. 25 April 2011). Finding that the plaintiff-beneficiary's action seeking support of I-864 support obligations was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The plaintiff was from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island.
• Matter of Khan (Court of Appeals of the State of Washington 5 August 2014). Text The plaintiff was from India.
• Matter of Ortiz, LEXIS 5324 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 31 October 2012). Ruling that judgments predicated on the I-864 are non-dischargeable domestic support obligations. The plaintiff was from Brazil.
• Montgomery v. Montgomery, 764 F. Supp. 2d 328 (Dist. Court, D. New Hampshire 9 February 2011). Holding that there is federal question jurisdiction with regards to a suit by a beneficiary against a sponsor. The plaintiff was from Russia.
• Moody v. Sorokina, 40 A.D.2d 14, 19 (N.Y.S. 2007). Holding that trial court erred in determining I-864 created no private cause of action. The plaintiff was from Ukraine.
• Naik v. Naik, 944 A.2d 713 (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division 14 April 2008). Asserting that "the sponsored immigrant is expected to engage in gainful employment, commensurate with his or her education, skills, training and ability to work in accordance with the common law duty to mitigate damages." The plaintiff was from India.
• Nasir v. Shah (Dist. Court, SD Ohio 2013). Text Holding that the plaintiff-beneficary was not entitled to additional support to make up for personal debts. The plaintiff was from Pakistan.
• Nguyen v. Dean, LEXIS 3903 (D. Or. 14 Jan 2011). Holding that the plaintiff was barred from relitigating spousal support in federal court, rebranding request as "financial support" rather than "spousal support". The plaintiff was from Vietnam.
• Panchal v. Panchal (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 26 August 2013). Text Assessing liabilities to the household member identical to those of the I-864 sponsor. The plaintiff was from India.
• Pavlenco v. Pearsall, LEXIS 169092 (Dist. Court, ED New York 27 November 2013). The plaintiff was from Russia.
• Rojas-Martinez v. Acevedo-Rivera, LEXIS 56187 (U.S. Dist. D.P.R. 8 June 2010). Holding that the I-134, predecessor to the I-864, was not an enforceable contract, even though executed after the effective date of IIRAIRA legislation. The plaintiff was from the Dominican Republic.
• Schwartz v. Schwartz, WL 1242171 (W.D.Okla. 10 May 2005). The plaintiff was from Israel.
• Shah v. Shah, LEXIS 4596 (D.N.J. 14 January 2014). Holding that the language of the prenuptial agreement was inadequate to waive the sponsor's support duty, as it failed to specifically embrace those rights. The plaintiff was from Russia.
• Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (Dist. Court, ND California 2008). The plaintiff was from Ethiopia.
• Sloan v. Uwimana, LEXIS 48723 (E.D. Va. 4 April 2012). Awarding attorney fees. The plaintiff was from Rwanda.
• Stump v. Stump, LEXIS 26022/45729 (U.S. Dist. N.D. Ind. 27 May 2005). Rejecting argument that noncitizen could have failed to perform duties under the I-864, as there was no support for proposition that third-party beneficiary could breach a contract. The plaintiff was from Russia.
• Tornheim v. Kohn, LEXIS 27914 (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) 26 March 2002). The plaintiff's nationality is unknown, but his name, Uri, is Hebrew.
• Varnes v. Varnes (Tex. App. 23 April 2009). Text Noting it was indisputable that beneficary was not entitled to spousal support based on I-864 under either of the two statutory grounds allowed by Texas law. The plaintiff was from the Philippines.
• Vavilova v. Rimoczi (United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division 10 December 2012). Text Concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(e)(1) does not create a federal cause of action. The plaintiff was from Russia.
• Villars v. Villars, 305 P. 3d 321 (Alaska: Supreme Court 19 July 2013). The plaintiff was from Ukraine.
• Winters v. Winters, LEXIS 75069 (Dist. Court, MD Florida 30 May 2012). Concluding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over an I-864 contract action against a sponsor. The plaintiff was from Nicaragua.
• Yaguil v. Lee, WL 1400959 (E.D.Cal.). The plaintiff was from the Philippines.
• Younis v. Farooqi, 597 F. Supp. 2d 552 (Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2009). The plaintiff was from Pakistan.
• Yuryeva v. McManus, LEXIS 14419 (Court of Appeals of Texas, First District, Houston 26 November 2013). The plaintiff was from Belarus.

Statistics

Countries that have ever had an I-864 enforcement case

Bear in mind that the number of cases covers the entire history of the I-864 from its inception in 1996, when the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was passed.

Countries that have never had an I-864 enforcement case, and that had at least 4,000 immediate relative visas issued in 2014

See also

• I-864
• I-864 enforceability