Congressional intent in the implementation of the I-864 is relevant in the consideration of whether fraud on the part of the third-party benficiary terminates the sponsors responsibility under the I-864.

The intent of congress in implementing the I-864 contract was to protect the US taxpayer from having to support a third-party beneficiary that a sponsor brought into the US  by choice and agreed to support.

The terms of the contract are that the sponsor will support the third-party beneficiary until one of the 5 terminating events occurs. The 5 terminating events are:

1. The sponsored immigrant’s becomes a naturalized US citizen,

2. The sponsored immigrant’s earns or can be credited with  40 qualifying  quarters, as defined by Social Security Act,

3. The sponsored immigrants is deceased,

4. The sponsored immigrant’s  LPR status is revoked or abandoned AND s/he permanently departs the United States,

5. The sponsored immigrant files a new application to adjust status with a new sponsor who signs an I-864 of his or her behalf and the new application and I-864 are approved by the USCIS .

The third-party beneficiary  is entitled to support in the amount of  125% of the federal poverty guideline as established by the Social Security Administration on a annual basis.

The source of the support received by the third-party beneficiary  may come from many sources in addition to the support from the sponsor.  The immigrant may receive  income,  assets,  and receive support, from a number of sources. All support received by the third-party beneficiary is deducted from the amount of support that the sponsor is obligation to provide the third-party beneficiary.

Clearly the intent of congress in implementing the I-864 contract is to advise the sponsor(s) that s/he is responsible to sponsor a third-party beneficiary.

The third-party beneficiary is put on notice that s/he is not entitled to  support from all sources greater than 125% of the federal poverty guideline from all sources.

Congress has as a secondary intent to encourage immigrants to become self sufficient.

Fraud on the part of the third-party beneficiary does not  terminate the responsibility of the sponsor. If fraud terminated the contract,  the American taxpayer would be on the hook to support the immigrant. This conclusion is clearly contrary to the intent of the contract.

    Marriage Fraud, VAWA fraud, or any type of fraud, may be  a deportable offense.  It is common that tax evasion goes hand-in-hand with a third-party beneficiaries fraud.  The third-party beneficiary who is dishonest in commiting marriage fraud is usually dishonest in others areas as well.

The immigrant who commits fraud usually commits tax evasion, works for cash and does not pay taxes, is dishonest on applications for financial aide and welfare and the list goes on.

Mulder Law will expose any of the foregoing actions of the third-party beneficiary in order to defend the American citizen who is a victim.

    When the third-party beneficiary has his or her LPR status revoked by an immigration judge and he or she is actually deported, the I-864 contract terminates.

Revocation of status alone does not terminate the obligation to support the third-party beneficiary. The third-party beneficiary must be deported.

     The foregoing discussion can be disheartening. Do not loose hope. The federal statute is clarified by case law.

Case law establishes that the third-party beneficiary is not entitled to a windfall sum of support.

     Mulder Law’s  experience is that lawsuits filed based on the I-864 are typically brought by a third-party beneficiary who is looking for a free ride. A majority of the lawsuits are brought by  third-party beneficiarys after a marriage that lasted just long enough for the third-party beneficiary to receive LPR status.

Many times there is a preconceived plan by the immigrant spouse to marry an American citizen and stay married just long enough to become an LPR. The LPR then to sues his or her sponsor for support. . This is marriage fraud. 

A third-party beneficiary may set up his or her sponsor to make it look like there is abuse and file a fraudulent VAWA claim.

Mulder Law will assist the sponsor in proving the fraud and exposing the third-party beneficiary.   

    Kyndra L Mulder, Esquire, has 38 years experience. She knows that a person who commits fraud in one area is likely commiting fraud in other areas.  Mulder Law will find the fraud and dishonesty and expose it.

The doctrine of unclean hands is an affirmative defense in the enforcement of a contract in general contract law. However, the general affirmative defenses that apply to most  contracts do not apply to the I-864 Contract. That being said; A showing of unclean hands will discredit the third-party beneficiary in the eyes of the court and may  give the defendant the benefit of the doubt when making the court makes a decision.

     Secondly, some State courts, like the California Superior Court and Federal Courts, may award sanctions in the form of attorney fees, fines, or punitive damages, to a defendant who has shown unclean hands on the part of a plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney. 

     When an attorney represents a third-party beneficiary in what s/he knows to be a frivolous lawsuit, the court may award sanctions to the defendant  to be paid by plaintiff’s attorney.

An attorney has a duty to investigate a claim made by a third-party beneficiary before s/he files a lawsuit on behalf of that third-party beneficiary. An attorney’s failure to do his or her due diligence BEFORE filing the lawsuit may result in sanctions to be paid by plaintiff’s attorney to the defendant.