In re Marriage of Kumar
A145181
Cal. Ct. App.Jul 28, 2017Background
- Vikash (U.S. citizen) signed a federal Form I-864 affidavit of support when sponsoring his wife Ashlyne (Fiji citizen) for a visa, promising support at least 125% of the federal poverty guideline for the enforceable period.
- After Ashlyne entered the U.S., Vikash allegedly abused and abandoned her; he tore out her permanent resident stamp and she later obtained replacement travel papers.
- Vikash filed for annulment/dissolution; Ashlyne sought temporary spousal support and later attached the I-864 to plead a contract claim seeking support under its terms.
- The family court ordered temporary support, later terminated it, and denied Ashlyne’s request to enforce the I-864, finding she had not used best efforts to find work and telling her to file in federal court.
- Ashlyne appealed, arguing (1) she has standing to enforce the I-864 in state court and (2) she had no duty to mitigate damages by seeking work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. May a sponsored immigrant enforce an I‑864 in state court? | Kumar: I‑864 is a federal contract; she has independent standing and can enforce it in state court. | Kumar: I‑864 enforcement belongs in a separate civil action; state family law procedures/control should govern support. | Yes. The I‑864 is an enforceable contract and the sponsored immigrant may sue in state (or federal) court. |
| 2. Does divorce terminate I‑864 obligations? | Kumar: Divorce does not terminate the I‑864 obligations. | Kumar: (implicit) family law could govern termination or modify obligations. | Divorce does not terminate the I‑864 obligations; termination occurs only under statutorily enumerated events. |
| 3. Does the sponsored immigrant have a duty to mitigate damages by seeking work? | Kumar: No duty to mitigate; I‑864 contains specified excuse conditions; courts shouldn’t add mitigation as an excuse. | Kumar: Trial court: she failed to mitigate; that justified denying enforcement. | No duty to mitigate. The court follows Liu and holds a sponsored immigrant need not seek employment to defeat an I‑864 enforcement claim. |
| 4. Did the trial court properly deny enforcement of the I‑864 here? | Kumar: Trial court erred by denying enforcement on mitigation/standing grounds and should consider the contract claim. | Kumar: Trial court exercised discretion under family law to terminate spousal support and found she wasn’t using best efforts. | Reversed: trial court erred; remanded to consider Ashlyne’s I‑864 contract claim consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal.) (Form I‑864 treated as legally enforceable contract)
- Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2012) (sponsored immigrant has no duty to mitigate damages under I‑864)
- Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (sponsored immigrant may enforce I‑864 in state support proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Kamali & Alizadeh, 356 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. Ct. App.) (state court enforcement of I‑864 permitted in dissolution proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Sandhu, 207 P.3d 1067 (Kan. Ct. App.) (recognized independent standing to enforce I‑864)
- Naik v. Naik, 944 A.2d 713 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.) (I‑864 enforceable by sponsored spouse in state court)
- Davis v. United States, 499 F.3d 590 (6th Cir.) (statute explicitly permits state court enforcement by sponsored immigrant)
- Zhu v. Deng, 794 S.E.2d 808 (N.C. Ct. App.) (sponsored immigrant has no affirmative duty to mitigate under I‑864)