In Zhu v. Deng, 250 N.C. App. 803, 794 S.E.2d 808 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016), the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed whether household-member sponsors under USCIS Form I-864A could avoid Affidavit of Support liability by raising unconscionability, failure-to-mitigate, and asset-offset defenses.
Video overview: In this video, I explain why Zhu v. Deng is an important Form I-864 enforcement decision.
Brief Summary
Zhu v. Deng involved Lingling Deng, a Chinese citizen who came to the United States on a K-1 visa and later became a permanent resident. Her husband, Rui Dong Zhu, and his parents were involved in the sponsorship process. The husband’s parents signed Form I-864A, the Household Member Contract, agreeing to help provide support for Deng.
After the marriage broke down, Deng brought claims involving both financial support and money she alleged was owed from family transactions. The trial court awarded Deng support under the affidavit-related contract and ordered monthly support going forward. The husband’s parents appealed, arguing that the Form I-864A was unenforceable, that Deng had failed to mitigate her damages, and that a separate monetary judgment or assets should reduce their support obligation.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected those sponsor-side defenses. The court held that the parents were bound by the Form I-864A they signed, rejected their unconscionability argument, rejected the theory that Deng had an affirmative duty to mitigate damages, and refused to treat assets or a judgment as an offset against the income-based support obligation. On cross-appeal, the court reversed the trial court’s ruling that Deng had a continuing duty to mitigate damages.
Why This Decision Matters
Form I-864A Is Enforceable, But It Is Not Exactly the Same as Form I-864
The decision is important because it involves Form I-864A, the Household Member Contract. Most Affidavit of Support enforcement cases involve Form I-864, which is signed by a petitioning sponsor or joint sponsor. Form I-864A is different. It is generally signed by a household member whose income or assets are being used to help the main sponsor qualify.
The court treated the Form I-864A as legally enforceable. Citing prior authority, the court stated that a Form I-864A “is considered a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor and the sponsored immigrant.”
That is useful plaintiff-side language. Sponsored immigrants enforcing the Affidavit of Support often need to establish the basic point that the affidavit-related contract is enforceable in court. Zhu v. Deng confirms that a household member who signs Form I-864A can be bound by that contract.
At the same time, the distinction between Form I-864 and Form I-864A should not be ignored. (Here’s a case where it really mattered). The forms are related, but they are not identical. The safer reading of Zhu v. Deng is that the court enforced the Form I-864A before it, not that every issue involving Form I-864 and Form I-864A must always be treated exactly the same.
Sponsors Are Generally Bound by What They Sign
The household-member sponsors argued that they should not be bound by the Form I-864A. The court rejected that argument.
The court relied on a basic contract principle: a person who signs a written agreement generally has a duty to understand what the document says. The court quoted North Carolina law stating that “one who signs a paper writing is under a duty to ascertain its contents,” absent proof that the person was misled or misinformed.
That mattered because the sponsor-parents did not show that Deng or anyone else misled them into signing the Form I-864A. The court also noted that an accountant and attorney helped prepare the immigration paperwork, and that the attorney spoke Mandarin Chinese.
For I-864 enforcement, the point is straightforward. A sponsor usually cannot avoid liability simply by saying later that the obligation was misunderstood, unexpected, or unfavorable. Unless there is evidence of deception or some other legally meaningful defect, courts are likely to hold sponsors to the affidavit-related contracts they signed.
Unconscionability Was Rejected on the Facts
The sponsor-parents also argued that the Form I-864A was unconscionable.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals did not hold that unconscionability could never be raised in an Affidavit of Support case. Instead, the court held that these sponsors failed to prove either procedural or substantive unconscionability under North Carolina law.
That distinction matters. Some courts have been highly skeptical of common-law contract defenses in I-864 enforcement litigation. Zhu v. Deng is still strongly favorable to sponsored immigrants, but its unconscionability analysis is partly state-law and fact-dependent. The court’s reasoning was that the sponsors had not made the required showing, not necessarily that the defense is categorically unavailable in every possible I-864 or I-864A case.
Even so, the decision is useful for I-864 plaintiffs. It reinforces that unconscionability is a very difficult defense, especially where the sponsor voluntarily signed the affidavit-related contract and cannot show deception, coercion, or unfair surprise.
No Affirmative Duty to Mitigate Damages
The most important holding in Zhu v. Deng is the court’s rejection of a mitigation defense.
Sponsors often argue that a sponsored immigrant should be required to look for work, accept available employment, or otherwise reduce the sponsor’s financial exposure. In ordinary contract cases, defendants often raise a “failure to mitigate damages” argument. In I-864 enforcement cases, sponsors try to use that concept to argue that a green card holder cannot recover full support unless the immigrant proves reasonable job-search efforts.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected that argument. The court held that Deng had “no affirmative duty to mitigate her damages” under the Form I-864A contract.
The court later returned to the issue and made the point even more clearly. It explained that the statutory terminating events do not include a sponsored immigrant’s failure to mitigate damages. The court relied on the reasoning of Liu v. Mund, where the Seventh Circuit observed that Form I-864 lists specific terminating conditions but does not include failure to mitigate.
The court ultimately held that “reading a duty of mitigation into the immigration statute and the Form I-864A would disserve the stated statutory goal” of preventing sponsored immigrants from becoming public charges. The trial court therefore erred by imposing a continuing duty to mitigate damages.
That is a major plaintiff-side holding. Under Zhu v. Deng, a sponsor cannot escape I-864A support liability by arguing that the sponsored immigrant should have tried harder to find work.
The Court Limited the Usefulness of Younis for Sponsors
The court also addressed Younis v. Farooqi, a District of Maryland decision that sponsors sometimes cite in mitigation arguments.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals read Younis cautiously. It observed that Younis appeared to “equivocate” by assuming a duty to mitigate while also recognizing that a sponsor may be liable even if the sponsored immigrant does not seek employment.
That discussion is helpful because sponsors sometimes try to use Younis as if it squarely recognizes a mitigation defense in I-864 litigation. Zhu v. Deng explains why that overreads the case. An assumption made for purposes of analysis is not the same thing as a holding that the defense exists.
For sponsored immigrants, this is a useful way to respond when a sponsor cites Younis for the proposition that an I-864 plaintiff must prove job-search efforts. Zhu v. Deng supports the opposite conclusion: mitigation is not a terminating event and should not be imported into the affidavit-support statute.
Assets Are Not the Same as Income
The court also rejected an important damages argument about assets.
The sponsor-parents argued that Deng had received a monetary judgment and that this “large amount of cash” should reduce or eliminate their support obligation because she would no longer be a public charge. The court rejected that theory.
The court explained that the sponsors cited no authority showing that a sponsored immigrant loses support rights because of assets. More importantly, the court stated: “Assets do not amount to income, and a judgment, even a monetary one, is not necessarily an asset for purposes of income.”
That language is significant for I-864 damages litigation. The Affidavit of Support obligation is usually calculated by comparing the sponsored immigrant’s income to 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Sponsors often try to argue that bank balances, savings, property, or other assets should reduce the support calculation. Zhu v. Deng rejects that move.
The decision recognizes an important distinction: income and assets are not the same thing. A sponsored immigrant’s support claim is income-based. If the statute and regulations wanted assets to reduce the damages calculation, they could say so. Zhu v. Deng supports the view that a sponsor cannot avoid support merely by pointing to a sponsored immigrant’s property, savings, or judgment.
Practical Takeaways
- A household member who signs Form I-864A can be held liable on that contract. Zhu v. Deng is useful authority for the enforceability of the I-864A Household Member Contract.
- A sponsor usually cannot avoid Affidavit of Support liability by claiming not to have understood the document. Courts generally hold people to written agreements they sign, absent proof of deception, coercion, or another legally recognized defect.
- Unconscionability is a difficult defense in I-864 and I-864A litigation (or maybe not available at all). Zhu v. Deng rejected the defense where the sponsors failed to prove procedural and substantive unconscionability.
- A sponsored immigrant does not have an affirmative duty to mitigate damages under Form I-864A. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred by imposing a continuing mitigation duty.
- A sponsor should not assume that the sponsored immigrant’s unemployment creates a defense. Under Zhu v. Deng, the sponsor’s duty is not excused merely because the immigrant allegedly could have looked for work or earned more income.
- The statutory terminating events matter. The court emphasized that failure to mitigate is not listed as a terminating event for the Affidavit of Support obligation.
- Younis v. Farooqi should not be overstated by sponsors. Zhu v. Deng treated Younis as equivocal and did not read it as establishing a mitigation defense.
- Assets are different from income. A sponsored immigrant’s savings, property, or monetary judgment does not automatically reduce I-864 support owed by a sponsor.
- The damages calculation in I-864 enforcement should remain focused on income and the 125% Federal Poverty Guidelines, not on whether the sponsored immigrant owns assets.
- Zhu v. Deng is especially useful for sponsored immigrants responding to common sponsor defenses: failure to understand the contract, unconscionability, failure to mitigate, and asset-based offsets.
