In Khan v. Khan, 332 P.3d 1016, 182 Wash. App. 795 (Wash. App. 2014), the Washington Court of Appeals addressed whether an immigration sponsor’s Form I-864 Affidavit of Support obligation must be enforced through spousal maintenance in a divorce case. The Court held that it was not an error for the trial court to refuse to enforce the I-864 via alimony/maintenance, but the court also acknowledged that the I-864 can be enforced in a stand-alone civil action.
Brief Summary
Khan v. Khan involved Nishat Khan, a sponsored immigrant, and Azad Khan, her former husband and immigration sponsor. Azad had signed USCIS Form I-864, Affidavit of Support, in connection with Nishat’s application for permanent residency.
After the marriage ended, Nishat sought continued spousal maintenance in the Washington dissolution case. She argued that Azad’s I-864 support obligation should be enforced through the maintenance award.
The trial court awarded limited maintenance, but not for the full amount or duration of Azad’s Affidavit of Support obligation. Nishat appealed, arguing that the trial court should have enforced the I-864 obligation through the maintenance order.
The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Nishat’s right to support under federal immigration law was “a contract right separate from any rights she had as a result of her marriage,” and that this right did not have to be enforced through spousal maintenance.
Why This Decision Matters
The Court Treated the I-864 as a Separate Contract Right
The Khan decision is important because it clearly separates two different legal concepts: state-law spousal maintenance and federal I-864 enforcement.
The court recognized that Form I-864 creates an enforceable support obligation. It described the Affidavit of Support as a binding contract between the sponsor and the federal government, with the sponsored immigrant as the third-party beneficiary. The court also acknowledged that the sponsored immigrant can enforce the support obligation against the sponsor.
That part of the decision is helpful for sponsored immigrants. It confirms the basic enforcement structure of Form I-864: the immigration sponsor signs a legally enforceable contract, and the sponsored immigrant has standing to sue to enforce it.
But the court then drew a line between enforcing that contract and awarding spousal maintenance in a divorce case.
A Divorce Court Does Not Have to Enforce the I-864 Through Maintenance
The main holding of Khan is sponsor-favorable: a trial court does not have to include I-864 enforcement in a spousal maintenance order.
The court stated: “We hold that a maintenance order need not include enforcement of a person’s I-864 obligation.” The court reasoned that there was no conflict between federal I-864 law and Washington dissolution law because the two sources of law operate independently.
The sponsored immigrant argued, in substance, that federal immigration law required the divorce court to award maintenance consistent with the sponsor’s I-864 obligation. The Court of Appeals rejected that view.
The court explained that nothing in the federal I-864 statute or regulations says that the Affidavit of Support must be enforced through maintenance in a dissolution case. Instead, the federal obligation exists independently from the divorce case.
This makes Khan an important cautionary decision for sponsored immigrants and family law lawyers. An I-864 obligation may exist, but that does not mean a family court must automatically convert that obligation into spousal maintenance.
Divorce Does Not Terminate the I-864 Obligation
Although Khan rejected mandatory I-864 enforcement through maintenance, the decision also contains helpful plaintiff-side language.
The court expressly recognized that dissolution of marriage does not terminate the sponsor’s I-864 obligation. The court explained that federal law provides specific terminating events for the Affidavit of Support obligation, and divorce is not one of them.
That principle is central to I-864 enforcement. A sponsored immigrant’s support rights under Form I-864 do not disappear simply because the marriage ends.
For sponsored immigrants, the lesson is not that divorce destroys I-864 rights. The better reading of Khan is narrower: divorce maintenance is not necessarily the correct vehicle for enforcing those rights.
The Sponsored Immigrant May Still Bring a Separate I-864 Enforcement Action
The most important plaintiff-side part of Khan is the court’s discussion of preclusion. Nishat argued that if the divorce court did not incorporate the full I-864 obligation into the maintenance award, she could be left without a remedy later. The Court of Appeals dismissed that concern.
The court emphasized that the trial court had not adjudicated a breach-of-contract claim under Form I-864. It also noted that an order of maintenance was not an adjudication of Azad’s I-864 obligation. Because the Affidavit of Support obligation was separate from the rights and obligations created by marriage, Nishat would not be precluded from asserting her I-864 contract right in a separate action.
That is the key practical value of Khan for sponsored immigrants. Even though the court affirmed the limited maintenance award, it preserved the sponsored immigrant’s ability to bring a standalone I-864 enforcement claim.
Khan Is a Mixed Decision
Khan should not be described as purely pro-sponsor or purely pro-sponsored immigrant.
It is pro-sponsor on the maintenance issue. The court held that a Washington divorce court does not have to enforce the sponsor’s Form I-864 obligation through spousal maintenance.
But Khan is also useful for sponsored immigrants because it confirms that the I-864 obligation is separate from divorce, survives termination of maintenance, and may be enforced in a separate contract action if it was not actually adjudicated in the dissolution case.
That distinction is the heart of the decision.
Practical Takeaways
- A family court may not be required to enforce Form I-864 through spousal maintenance. In Washington, Khan holds that a maintenance award does not have to mirror the sponsor’s I-864 obligation.
- Sponsored immigrants should be careful about how I-864 rights are raised in divorce proceedings. If the issue is actually litigated and adjudicated, later preclusion arguments may arise.
- Form I-864 creates a separate federal support obligation. A sponsored immigrant’s right to support under the Affidavit of Support is not merely a divorce-law right.
- Divorce does not terminate the immigration sponsor’s I-864 obligation. The Affidavit of Support continues until a legally recognized terminating event occurs.
- Khan supports the argument that a sponsored immigrant can bring a separate I-864 enforcement action when the divorce court did not adjudicate a breach of the Affidavit of Support.
- Family law lawyers should not assume that spousal maintenance and I-864 enforcement are the same claim. They may involve different legal standards, different remedies, and different strategic consequences.
- Civil litigators handling I-864 enforcement should examine the divorce record carefully. The key question is whether the prior court actually adjudicated the sponsor’s contractual I-864 liability, not merely whether the Affidavit of Support was mentioned.
