A new federal decision is one of the most significant, and most concerning, rulings to come down in the Affidavit of Support space in some time. This decision, Ramgoolam v. Gupta, from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, changes the landscape of Affidavit of Support rights, at least in the federal Circuit where it was decided. It’s an extremely important decision, especially for green card holders who got their status through marriage.
The Sixth Circuit covers cases arising in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. For people bringing cases in federal courts in those states, the Ramgoolam decision says that going through a divorce, by itself, with nothing else, could jeopardize and lead to the loss of your rights under the Affidavit of Support. That’s a radical departure from how other federal Circuits have considered rights under the Affidavit of Support. This is bad news for sponsored green card holders, so it’s worth digging into the particulars.
One thing worth saying up front: because this is such a departure from how other federal Circuits have addressed the Affidavit of Support, its impact is likely limited, and it shouldn’t affect cases in circuits that have already reached a different view of Affidavit of Support rights.
The Facts of Ramgoolam v. Gupta
The Affidavit of Support, Form I-864, is only required in family-sponsored immigration cases. That means in the vast majority of cases where someone has rights against a sponsor, it’s going to be a marriage-based case, since that’s typically where the relationship breakdown that led to the sponsorship happens. Parent-child sponsorship cases exist too, but they’re rare.
In this case, the parties went through what was, at the time, a relatively uncontested divorce that reached a settlement. At no point in that divorce proceeding was the Affidavit of Support mentioned in any way. It was never produced to the trial court, and the green card holder, Mr. Ramgoolam, never made any argument to the judge that he was entitled to support on the strength of the Affidavit of Support. As best as the record shows, the family law attorneys involved on both sides didn’t even know the Affidavit of Support existed. That’s actually really common. Most family law attorneys around the country simply don’t have the Affidavit of Support on their radar.
The parties reached a resolution in the divorce that included a waiver of alimony, but that waiver was specific to alimony. Neither party would get alimony or spousal support from the other. That’s a distinction worth highlighting, because it becomes important later. The agreement also included broad waiver language releasing both parties from any claim they had against the other, but again, there was no specific mention of the Affidavit of Support. Mr. Ramgoolam didn’t attempt to enforce his Affidavit of Support rights during the divorce.
After the divorce, with some continuing litigation around custody but the financial issues settled, Mr. Ramgoolam brought a separate federal cause of action to enforce the Affidavit of Support. This is a pretty common situation. The divorce gets resolved under family law, where the parties’ rights might be relatively clear, and then the green card holder later realizes, often because their family law attorney never told them about it, that they have rights under the Affidavit, and brings a separate federal claim.
Why the District Court Dismissed the Case
The defendant, Ms. Gupta, moved to dismiss the federal case, arguing that since both parties were already in the divorce proceedings, that was Mr. Ramgoolam’s chance to enforce the Affidavit of Support, and by failing to do it there, he lost the chance.
That’s an argument that’s been tested in a whole bunch of cases elsewhere in the country, and it’s been almost universally rejected. Starting with the Liu v. Mund decision in the Seventh Circuit, federal courts have said that family law is governed by state law, while rights under the Affidavit of Support arise exclusively under federal law. Those are two distinct things. The parties can wrap up their dispute under family law in one state, but the green card holder can still bring a federal cause of action to enforce their federal rights under the affidavit.
The district court in this case disagreed and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that both parties were in the divorce proceedings and could have enforced the affidavit there.
The Sixth Circuit’s Ruling: Claim Preclusion
Mr. Ramgoolam appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
One quick side issue worth mentioning: the defendant raised something called Rooker-Feldman abstention, a doctrine that basically says federal courts aren’t supposed to step on the toes of state or family courts. The Sixth Circuit rejected that argument, correctly finding that Mr. Ramgoolam wasn’t trying to interfere with the state court judgment, because that judgment didn’t have anything to do with the Affidavit of Support in the first place.
But the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court on what’s called the claim preclusion issue. Claim preclusion is the idea that once you bring a claim, or could have brought a claim, you lose the ability to bring it later. At the end of the day, what the Sixth Circuit agreed with was that both parties were in the same family court proceeding together, disputing their rights, and that was an appropriate venue for Mr. Ramgoolam to take a swing at enforcing his Affidavit of Support rights. Because he didn’t raise it there, he lost the ability to raise it afterward.
The holding, regardless of how the Sixth Circuit wants to dress it up, is that a divorce, by itself, with nothing else, can lead to a green card holder losing their rights under the Affidavit of Support. This is in spite of the fact that the Affidavit of Support says right on its face that divorce doesn’t end rights under the affidavit.
How Ramgoolam Compares to Other Federal Circuits
The Sixth Circuit is viewing the Affidavit of Support through a totally different lens than other Circuits have.
- Liu v. Mund (Seventh Circuit): The issue was whether a common law defense (duty to mitigate) applied in Affidavit of Support cases. The court said no. You might have rights under state law, but this is a federal claim.
- Erler v. Erler (Ninth Circuit): The Court held that a nuptial agreement in which a party to the Affidavit of Support waived all support against the other party didn’t matter for the federal claim under the Affidavit of Support. Rights under the affidavit are exclusively federal and separate from alimony-related rights. The Court held specifically that a divorce judgment cannot defeat rights under the Affidavit of Support.
- Belevich v. Thomas (Eleventh Circuit): This decision says a sponsor cannot raise state law defenses in Affidavit of Support claims, because state law defenses simply aren’t allowed under federal law. Belevich falls in line with Erler and Liu v. Mund.
The Sixth Circuit doesn’t meaningfully engage with the fact that its decision sits at odds with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Erler. Normally, when federal Circuits disagree with each other, they say so, acknowledging the split and explaining why they’re taking a different approach. The Sixth Circuit doesn’t do that here.
The Waiver Language Distinction
Here’s a critical fact worth highlighting: the settlement in Ramgoolam included that broad waiver language releasing both parties from any claim against each other. The defendant didn’t actually argue to the Sixth Circuit that this waiver language operated as a release of the Affidavit of Support claim specifically. That wasn’t what the decision was about. The decision rested on claim preclusion, meaning the claim could have been raised and wasn’t, not on waiver.
Even so, it’s likely that even though the waiver issue wasn’t formally before the Sixth Circuit, the court attached real significance to it. Going forward, when trying to factually distinguish Ramgoolam from other cases, that broad waiver language is likely to be the critical distinguishing fact.
What This Means If You’re Going Through a Divorce
Within the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee), if you’re a green card holder going through a divorce, you risk losing your ability to enforce your rights under the Affidavit of Support if you don’t take action during the divorce. That could mean bringing the Affidavit of Support claim into the divorce itself, or potentially bringing a concurrent federal action. If you sit on those rights and don’t do anything, you could lose them.
Outside the Sixth Circuit, it’s an open question in some states whether Ramgoolam will be followed.
- In the Ninth Circuit (California, Washington, Oregon), the Erler decision should remain good law. It would be a miscarriage of justice for the Ninth Circuit to pretend it could follow both Ramgoolam and its own Erler decision at the same time. The Affidavit of Support should remain enforceable after divorce there.
- In the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) (Fifth Circuit), it’s genuinely an open question. The Fifth Circuit could go either way and could potentially follow Ramgoolam.
- In the Eleventh Circuit (Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), the Belevich decision falls in line with Erler and Liu v. Mund and conflicts with Ramgoolam, so there’s less concern that courts there would adopt the view that divorce alone ends Affidavit of Support rights.
The Bottom Line
If there’s one takeaway here, it’s this: if you’re in a divorce and considering enforcement of the Affidavit of Support, do not wait. Figure out your strategy for enforcing the Affidavit of Support right away. The Ramgoolam decision only supercharges that advice. If you’re going through a divorce, do not wait, because if you sit on it, you could lose your rights under the Affidavit of Support entirely.
Ready to Talk to Someone About Your Case?
If you’re going through a divorce, or think one might be coming, and you’re not sure where your Affidavit of Support rights stand, it’s worth talking it through before decisions get made in your divorce that are hard to undo.
