I-864 Defense: How to Defeat an Affidavit of Support Claim in Federal Court

Introduction

The Form I-864 Affidavit of Support creates a binding financial obligation, but enforcement is not automatic. In federal court, defendants have several strong legal defenses that can defeat or significantly limit an I-864 claim. In some circumstances, the I-864 may even be rendered unenforceable based on traditional contract principles. The specific facts of each case are critical in determining which defenses apply. At Mulder Law none of our clients who have fought against the enforcement of the I-864 have owed the Plaintiff a dime. That doesn’t mean you are guaranteed to prevail but it is a strong indicator.

This article explains the most effective I-864 defense strategies, including preclusion, income offset, and fraud-related arguments. All defenses must be applied after consideration of the facts of your particular case.

What Is the I-864 Affidavit of Support?

The I-864 Affidavit of Support is a contract between the sponsor and the U.S. government that becomes enforceable when the intending immigrant is admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident.

Courts have made clear that enforcement actions remain subject to traditional contract principles and certain equitable considerations. While the obligation is serious, it is not without limits.

Defense #1: Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)

One of the most powerful defenses arises when the claim was—or could have been—addressed in a prior divorce proceeding.

If the plaintiff:

• Raised the I-864 claim in divorce court, or

• Had the opportunity to raise it but failed to do so

They may be barred from bringing the claim later in federal court under claim preclusion principles.

Federal courts are increasingly addressing whether divorce proceedings can preclude later I-864 enforcement actions.

In Ramgoolam v. Gupta, the Sixth Circuit discussed the jurisdictional limits imposed by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, explaining:

“Rooker and Feldman present a jurisdictional rule that bars the door to federal court for cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments…”

While this decision is binding only within the Sixth Circuit, it reinforces the broader principle that federal courts will not revisit issues already decided—or that should have been decided—in state court proceedings. This provides a strong foundation for advancing preclusion arguments in appropriate cases.

Defense #2: Income Offset (Often Mischaracterized as “Failure to Mitigate”)

Courts have generally rejected a traditional “failure to mitigate” defense in I-864 cases. However, the underlying concept still plays a critical role through income calculations.

A sponsor’s obligation is limited to ensuring that the plaintiff’s income reaches 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. In practice, this means:

• Plaintiffs must account for all income and support received

• Financial assistance from any source reduces the sponsor’s obligation

• Employment income—whether obtained voluntarily or out of necessity—is fully credited

As a practical matter, most individuals receive some form of support or generate income. That reality often significantly reduces or eliminates claimed damages.

This approach is particularly effective where the plaintiff has education, work history, or demonstrated earning capacity.

Defense #3: Income From All Sources Must Be Considered

The sponsor’s obligation is strictly limited to the difference between the plaintiff’s actual income and 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.

Relevant income includes:

• Employment earnings

• Government benefits

• Support from third parties

• Household contributions

• In-kind benefits (such as housing or financial support for expenses)

Failure to fully disclose income and resources can severely undermine the plaintiff’s claim and credibility.

To date Mulder Law has not encountered a Plaintiff that was transparent in her support from all sources. When we get to the discovery phase of litigation the Plaintiff’s concealment of support from all sources will be disclosed.

Defense #4: Fraud, Credibility, and Litigation Conduct

Courts have generally rejected fraud and unclean hands as complete defenses to I-864 enforcement. However, these issues remain highly relevant in practice.

Evidence of:

• Concealed income or assets

• Working off the books

• Tax noncompliance

• Misrepresentation of financial need

can significantly impact credibility and the court’s evaluation of damages.

Additionally, where there is evidence of marriage fraud or immigration-related misconduct, it may have collateral consequences outside the civil case. While not a direct defense, such evidence can influence the overall posture and outcome of the litigation and lead to the Plaintiff losing her green card and deportation. Removal and loss of the green card is a terminating event. You are within your rights to seek this resolution.

Defense #5: Termination Events

An I-864 obligation does not last indefinitely. It terminates upon:

• U.S. citizenship

• Accumulation of 40 qualifying quarters of work. Qualifying quarters may be earned or acquired by the Plaintiff during the marriage. This terminating event can work hand-in-hand with the unclean hands that is a defense to enforcement. Where a Plaintiff is caught working under the table and not payng taxes so as to earn qualifyng quarters that income and the qualifying quarters may be credited to the Plaintiff. Mulder Law will also report the Plantiff to the USCIS, ICE, and the IRS. Tax evasion is a crime and a deportable offense.

• Permanent departure from the United States and loss of lawful permanent resident status.

• Death of either party

Once a termination event occurs, the sponsor’s obligation ends as a matter of law.

Why I-864 Defense Requires Experienced Counsel

I-864 litigation is highly technical and frequently misunderstood—even by experienced attorneys.

An effective defense requires:

• Knowledge of federal case law

• Strategic use of preclusion doctrines

• Detailed financial analysis

• Effective motion practice

• Familiarity with contract and Social Security principles

Conclusion

The I-864 Contract is not an absolute obligation. Defendants have multiple viable strategies to defeat or substantially limit liability in federal court.

If you are facing an I-864 enforcement action, early and strategic intervention can make the difference between liability and dismissal.

Call to Action

For experienced representation in I-864 defense and federal litigation, contact our office to discuss your case.