I-864/Marriage Fraud lawyer
39 Years of Success and Personal Attention is a Winning Strategy.
Representing Americans against Marriage Fraud.
Introduction to I-864 Litigation
The Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, constitutes a legally binding contract between the sponsor and the United States government. Under its terms, the sponsor agrees to maintan the immigrant at 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline for her household size. In exchange, the government agrees to admit the immigrant into the United States as a lawful permanent resident (LPR).
Pursuant to the governing statutory and regulatory framework, the sponsor’s support obligation is defined as maintaining the sponsored immigrant at an income level not less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, as updated annually. This obligation is enforceable regardless of the sponsor’s subjective intent and is measured against the immigrant’s actual income on a periodic basis.
An alleged breach of the Affidavit of Support arises when the sponsored immigrant asserts that the sponsor has failed to provide the requisite level of financial support. As an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract, the immigrant has standing to bring a civil action to enforce its terms in federal or state court.
It is the immigrant’s burden to prove that her income from all sources has fallen below 125 percent of the FPG. Where the immigrant cannot show a short fall in her income she has not proven any damages.
Within the framework of American jurisprudence, Congress enacts the statutory scheme underlying the I-864, while the judiciary interprets and applies those provisions. However, the scope, limitations, and defenses applicable to I-864 enforcement actions remain the subject of evolving case law. This developing landscape has led to varied interpretations, often permitting defendants to assert fact-specific defenses grounded in the unique circumstances of each case.
Developing case law in this area seems to favor the sponsor. In the past there were no attorneys willing to fill the gap and represent the sponsor. Thus sponsors’ were unable to present a proper defense. Mulder law is filling this gap.
The general principles governing I-864 litigation are outlined below. Application of these principles to any particular matter requires a fact-intensive legal analysis. For guidance tailored to a specific case, consultation with qualified counsel is essential.
Kyndra L. Mulder, Esq. represents U.S. citizen sponsors in I-864 enforcement actions nationwide. Her practice focuses on developing and advancing defensible legal theories in this evolving area of law, with an emphasis on limiting unwarranted liability under the Affidavit of Support. Through strategic litigation and careful application of statutory and case law, she has contributed to shaping emerging precedent addressing the scope of sponsor obligations and available defenses under the I-864 framework.
Terminating Events and Offset to Liability
The usual affirmative defenses that apply to a breach of contract claim do not apply to the enforcement of the I-864. This makes since when you remember that the contract is between the Sponsor and the U.S. Government. The immigrant-beneficiary who is suing you is not a party to the contract. The legislative intent of the contract is to insure the U.S. taxpayer does not become responsible for the support of the immigrant. The usual affirmative defenses to a breach of contract claim are contrary to the purpose of the I-864 as implemented by congress. There a 5 events that terminate the I-864 Contract by operation of law. This means the contract is no longer enforceable if one of these events has taken place.
In addition to the terminating events there are situations and facts specific to the individual situation that will offset the support obligation. The contract may remain viable but the support obligation may be met or partially met even though the contract is viable.
I.5 events that terminate the contract by operation of law:
The sponsored immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen, or
The sponsored immigrant can be credited with or aquires 40 qualifying quarters of work in the United States, or
The sponsored immigrant dies,
The sponsored immigrant ceases to be a lawful permanent resident AND permanently departs the United States, or
The sponsored immigrant is newly sponsored by a new petitioner.
The sponsored immigrant is entitled to support minus any offset of funds and in some case liquid assets that the immigrant has or has aquired.
The I-864 Is a Contract
The I-864 is a contract between a sponsor and the U.S. Government. The immigrant is a third-party beneficiary to the contract and has standing to sue to enforce the contract .
When determining your defenses to enforcement of the contract, it is important to keep the purpose of contract in mind. Congress created the I-864 to protect the American taxpayer from becoming responsible for the support of an immigrant brought into the United States by a petitioner - sponsor. This purpose raises the critical question; Is the immigrant in danger of becoming a burden to the taxpayer? The goal in the implementation of the I-864 legislation is to prevent the immigrant from becoming a burden on the U.S. Taxpayer.
The first consideration in strategizing a defense against enforcement of the I-864 is to ask yourself; Will this immigrant become a burden to the U.S. taxpayer because I have not or am not complying to the terms of the contract?
Defenses to Enforcement
Any defenses to enforcement of the I-864 that may be available to you will depend on your unique situation. Some
possibilities are:
1) The immigrant, in the past, did not qualify for means tested government benefits and is not entitled to a lump
sum payment of retroactive support.
2) You have provided the immigrant with 125% financial support.
3) The immigrant has resources available from other sources.
4) A co sponsor or household member may be totally or partially responsible to support the immigrant.
5) The immigrant may have earned or aquired forty (40) quarters of employment.
6) In your divorce settlement, your spouse received assets and or funds that equal 125% of the poverty guidelines.
7) The immigrant has not reported all of his or her income on a federal tax return. Or,he or she works for cash and does not claim her income on her federal tax return.
8) The immigrant has income that was/is not taxable.
9) The immigrant is employed.
10) You have unique circumstances that offset your obligation
Kyndra L Mulder, Esquire, has been defending clients since 1987.
Offset of Liability
The offset of liability is the subtraction of any and all income and in some cases the value of assets or money received from any source by the LPR. The LPR is not entitled to a windfall of support. The LPR is entitled to resources that are a maximum of 125% of the federal poverty guideline and no more.
The are some circumstances that the court has already considered and determined to be offset of liability. The determinations vary by jurisdiction. There are also circumstances where the court has not yet determined whether there is an offset. In this case the defendant has an opportunity to present the facts and supporting reasoning.
Offset is determined on a case-by-case basis and requires a thorough analysis of your personal situation by Kyndra L Mulder, Esquire.
Testimonials
-
![]()
Ernesto Flores
Kyndra Mulder has been extremely helpful with a I-864 defense case. When first dealing with this case I was unable to find an attorney that had any type of knowledge in this field, I was referred to Kyndra and soon found out that she is one of the only attorneys in the entire country with expertise in this specific type of case. After a long battle she was able to obtain a very favorable and just outcome for me. I appreciate dealing directly with her and her prompt responses, she will keep you informed and is extremely professional, she makes you feel that she genuinely CARES about your case. I am immensely thankful with Kyndra and would highly recommend her to anyone dealing with any type of immigration case.
-
![]()
Art Kiel
Very happy with the service that Kundera provided. She is very easy to get a hold of and very responsive. I have been using many different lawyers in the past and she is by far the best, highly recommended. Thank you once again for everything you did for me.
-
![]()
Cameon Kasmar
Kyndra was very professional, helpful, and knowledgeable regarding the specific questions I had and the situation I was in. Other attorneys either offered very little in the way of helpful advice or outright didn't know how to answer my questions. She definitely knows her stuff and I recommend her as the first person you reach out to for a consultation.
