G064553
Superior Court of San Bernardino County
California Court of Appeals
Opinion by Judge Sanchez
Date Rendered: June 20, 2025
Husband, a U.S. citizen originally from Nigeria, married Wife, a Nigerian national. As part of the immigration process, Husband signed a Form I-864 Affidavit of Support, agreeing to financially support Wife at no less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. This affidavit is a legally binding contract designed to prevent immigrants from becoming public charges.
After the marriage broke down, Husband filed for divorce. Wife, who had obtained conditional permanent residency, filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking $1,569 oer month in spousal support based on the I-864. This amount corresponded to 125% of the poverty guideline for a one-person household in 2024. She also requested $10,500 in attorney’s fees.
Husband opposed the RFO, arguing that (1) the affidavit should be void due to alleged fraud by Wife, and (2) even if valid, no support was due because Wife had earned $57,900 in 2023, exceeding the 125% threshold. The trial court rejected the Husband’s argument, reasoning that his I-864 obligation remained in force unless one of the five termination conditions applied (e.g., U.S. citizenship, 40 qualifying work quarters, permanently leaving the United States, death). The court ordered the full $1,569 per month in support without considering Wife’s actual income. Husband appealed.
First, the Court of Appeals explained that the I-864 obligates the sponsor to provide “any support necessary to maintain” the immigrant at 125% of the federal poverty level, not to automatically pay the entire amount. The correct approach is to subtract the immigrant’s actual income from the 125% threshold and require the sponsor spouse to cover the shortfall.
The Court relief on a broad consensus of state and federal cases from around the country that have adopted this “deficiency” model. The Court emphasized the statutory language and purpose of the I-864, concluding that support obligations must reflect the immigrant spouse’s actual income and financial resources, not just theoretical eligibility criteria for termination sponsorship.
Thus, the case was remanded to the trial court to determine whether, and to what extent, Wife’s income reduces Husband’s support obligation.
The Court declined to reach the issue of attorney’s fees because the support determination was reversed and remanded. Since no final enforcement or judgment had occurred, the request was not ripe for appellate review.
Digested by Nathan R. Hardymon