www.i-864.net

 Work in progress

This cases lists every known I-864 enforcement case ever decided in federal court.

• First Circuit.

  • In re Williams, 15-10056-BAH (BK D. N.H. Jan. 7, 2016).

  • Schwartz v. Shwartz, 409 B.R. 240, 249 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Aug. 26, 2008) (noting that Rooker-Feldman doctrine would bar suit if I-864 had been considered by state divorce court).

• Second Circuit.

  • Levin v. Barone, No. 14-cv-00673 (AJN) (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 28, 2016) (order).

  • Shah v. Shah, No. 12-4648 (RBK/KMW) (N. N.J., Oct. 30, 2015). Read our summary here.  

  • Pavlenco v. Pearsall, No. 13-CV-1953 (JS)(AKT), 2013 WL 6198299 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2013) (memo. order) (discussing applications of Younger and Colorado River abstention).

  • Tornheim v. Kohn, No. No. 00-CV-5084, (SJ), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27914, (E.D. N.Y. Mar. 26, 2002) ("Plaintiff's suit arises under the laws of the United States

• Third Circuit.

  • Liepe v. Liepe, Civil No. 12–00040 (RBK/JS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174246 (D.N.J. Dec. 10, 2012).

  • Mathieson v. Mathieson, No. 10–1158, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44054 (W.D. Penn., Apr. 25, 2011).

• Fourth Circuit.

  • Madrid v. Robinson, 6:16-CV-00047 (Oct. 31, 2016) (unpublished) (memorandum opinion denying defendant’s motion to dismiss).

  • Du v. McCarthy, No. 2:14-cv-100 (N.D. W. Vir. March 26, 2015) (report and recommendations).

  • Toure-Davis v. Davis, No. WGC-13-916 (D. Md. March 4, 2014) (memo. op.).

  • Matloob v. Farham, No. WDQ-11-1943 (D. M.D. Oct. 1, 2014).

  • Farhan v. Farhan, Civil No. WDQ-11-1943, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21702 (D. Md. Feb. 5, 2013). 

  • Sloan v. Uwimana, No. 1:11-cv-502 (GBL/IDD), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48723 (E.D. Va. Apr. 4, 2012) (awarding fees in reliance on 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(c), subject to scrutiny for reasonableness pursuant to the Lodestar method). 

  • Al-Mansour v. Shraim, Civil No. CCB-10-1729, 2011 WL 345876, at *3 (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2011) (unpublished) (" While the Form I-864 may be a contract of adhesion under Maryland law, it is not unconscionable").

  • Younis v. Farooqi, 597 F. Supp. 2d 552, 555, n. 3 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2009). 

• Fifth Circuit.

  • Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, No. 02-1137-A, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28962, at *4 (M.D. La. Apr. 29, 2004) (“the entire purpose of the affidavit is to ensure that immigrants do not become a ‘public charge’”), recommendation rejected, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28961 (May 27, 2004). 

• Sixth Circuit.

  • Davis v. U.S., 499 F.3d 590, 594-95 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment action seeking to clarify sponsor’s duties).

    duties under I-864).  Nasir v. Asfa Ahad Shah, No. 2:10-cv-01003, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

    135207, at *10-11 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 21, 2012).

• Seven Circuit.

  • Liu v. Mund, 748 F.Supp.2d 958, 963 (W.D. Wisc. 2010), modified on other grounds, 686 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2012).

  • Santana v. Hatch, 15-cv-89-wmc (W.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2016) (opinion and order).

  • Carlbog v. Tompkins, 10-cv-187-bbc, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117252, at *9 (W.D. Wi., Nov. 3, 2010) (finding no genuine factual issue supporting the sponsor’s counterclaim of fraud where he produced emails from the beneficiary but could point to no specific language demonstrating an intent to defraud). 

  • Stump v. Stump, No. 1:04-CV-253-TS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45729, at *19 (D. Ind. May 27, 2005) (memo op.) (granting in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment; rejecting argument that noncitizen could have failed to perform duties under the I-864, as there was no support for proposition that third-party beneficiary could breach a contract).

• Eighth Circuit.

  • Dahhane v. Stanton, 15-1229 (MJD/JJK) (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2015) (report and recommendation) (refusing to strike affirmative defenses).

• Ninth Circuit.

  • Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016).

  • Yaguil v. Lee, No. 2:14-cv-00110-JAM-DAD (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2014) (order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss).

  • Cobb v. Cobb, 1:12-cv-00875-LJO-SKO, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93131, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 3, 2012) (noting that INA “expressly creates a private right of action allowing a sponsored immigrant to enforce an affidavit of support,” but declining to reach issue).

  • Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 2:12-cv-2231 JAM DAD PS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154334, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2012). (noting that since complaint alleged that immigration form was executed in 1991, it could not be the I-864, since that form was did not exist prior to 1996 legislation).

  • Nguyen v. Dean, No. 10–6138–AA, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3803 (D. Or. Jan. 14, 2011) (granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment). 

  • Blain v. Herrell, No. 10-00072 ACK-KSC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76257 (D. Haw. July 21, 2010).

  • Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020, 1024 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008).

• Tenth Circuit.

  • Delma v. Burres, No. 2:12–cv–00469–DBP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26995, at *12 (D. Utah Feb. 26, 2013).

• Eleventh Circuit.

  • Greiner v. De Capri, 403 F.Supp.3d 1207 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (holding that court had federal question jurisdiction and rejecting argument that domestic relations exemption barred jurisdiction). Discussion available here.

  • Vavilova v. Rimoczi, 6:12-cv-1471-Orl-28GJK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183714 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2012) (report and recommendation of magistrate judge).

  • Matter of Ortiz, No. 6:11-bk-07092-KSJ, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 5324 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2012) (granting summary judgment to beneficiary);

  • Winters v. Winters, No. 6:12-cv-536-Orl-37DAB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75069 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2012).

  • Chang v. Crabill, No. 1:10 CV 78, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67501 (N.D. Ind. June 21, 2011). 

  • Hrachova v. Cook, No. 5:09-cv-95-Oc-GRJ, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102067, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2009).

  • Cheshire v. Cheshire, 3:05-cv-00453-TJC-MCR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26602, at *11-12 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2006) (unpublished) (findings of fact and conclusions of law).

  • Shumye v. Felleke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2008).