Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Burns v. Burns
No. FD-2000-5203 (Okla. Dist. Ct. Oklahoma County June 5,2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54046
Description
Immigrant Spouse Has an Enforceable Claim for Spousal Support Against Sponsor-Spouse Under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a
Abstract
The court found that defendant wife’s sponsored immigrant
claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a for support at 125 percent of the
“Federal poverty line” (currently $895.00) was properly
raised in divorce court and that the Immigration and Naturalization
Service’s form I-864 affidavit of support was enforceable
against plaintiff spouse as her sponsor. Defendant’s trial
brief stated that plaintiff and defendant met via the Internet in
1996. In 1998 the parties married in Beijing, China, after a
courtship of over a year. In January 1999 defendant was admitted to
this country as an immediate family member of plaintiff. In August
2000 plaintiff filed for divorce. Defendant argued that she was
entitled to spousal support alimony under state law and that 8
U.S.C. § 1183a imposed an obligation of support legally
enforceable by defendant against plaintiff. Defendant, a medical
doctor in Beijing, China, faced language barriers which rendered
her unemployable in this country. The court found in favor of
defendant on the issue of the applicability of section 1183a to her
right to support at the level of 125 percent of the poverty line;
however, no payment from plaintiff to defendant was required
because the support alimony award in the divorce action was in
excess of 125 percent of the poverty line. The court retained
jurisdiction to award support payments if defendant’s
household income should fall below the poverty line.
