Nima Barakat v. Faizal Barakat

In In re Marriage of Kumar (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1072 (Kumar), the court described the purpose and effect of the I-864 affidavit as follows:

An I–864 affidavit is a legally enforceable contract between the sponsor and the sponsored immigrant. (Shumye v. Felleke (N.D.Cal. 2008) 555 F.Supp.2d 1020, 1023 (Shumye).) “By signing a Form I–864 the ‘sponsor agrees to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line during the period in which the affidavit is enforceable.’ (8 U.S.C. § 1183a(1)(A).) Federal courts have consistently found that a Form I–864 constitutes a legally binding and enforceable contract between sponsor and a sponsored immigrant.” (Id. at p. 1024.)

A sponsor’s obligations under an I–864 affidavit “terminate[] only if one of five conditions is met: (1) the sponsor dies, (2) the sponsored immigrant dies, (3) the sponsored immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen, (4) the sponsored immigrant permanently departs the U.S., or (5) the sponsored immigrant is credited with 40 qualifying quarters of work. (See 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(2).) Divorce is not a condition under which the sponsor’s obligations under Form I–864 can be terminated.” (Shumye, supra, 555 F.Supp.2d at p. 1024.)

(Kumar, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 1079 [holding immigrant spouse seeking to enforce support obligation created by Form I-864 affidavit had no duty to find job to mitigate damages].)

Defendants contend Plaintiff's claims fail because her daughters, who are United States citizens, are not entitled to support under the I-864 affidavit. Plaintiff is the sole named plaintiff and she agrees with Defendants' contention that her claim for support under the I-864 affidavit must be based solely on her own rights as the sponsored immigrant, rather than on any alleged entitlement of her children. (Opp., p. 5:18-21.)

The parties also agree that "[t]he 'household size' for purposes of calculating the support obligation is determined by federal regulation and includes the sponsored immigrant and certain other individuals, but the right to enforce the I-864 belongs only to the sponsored immigrant (or a government agency that provided means-tested public benefits)." (Opp., pp. 5:25-6:1, citing 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(1), (e)(1)-(2).)

Plaintiff contends "Defendants' argument conflates the calculation of the support obligation (which may reference household size) with the identity of the party entitled to enforce the contract." (Opp., p. 6:7-8.) Plaintiff emphasizes that she is seeking to enforce her own rights, not her children's rights.

"An I-864 affidavit is a legally binding contract enforceable by the sponsored immigrant in state or federal court." (In re Marriage of Adeyeye & Faramaye (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 119, 124, citing Kumar, supra, 13 Cal.App.5th at p. 1075.) To plead a cause of action for breach of contract, Plaintiff must allege: "(1) the existence of the contract, 5

(2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff." (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) Accepting Plaintiff's allegations as true, she has alleged Defendants executed a binding contract for her benefit, Defendants are her sponsors, she is the sponsored immigrant, and she suffered damages when Defendants failed to provide the support required by the contract. Therefore, Plaintiff, as the sponsored immigrant, alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of contract against her sponsors.

Whether the proper household size should be one or three, Plaintiff correctly contends she has alleged the elements necessary to state her claim for enforcement of the I-864 affidavit. Disputes about the proper calculation of damages must be determined at a later stage of litigation.

Plaintiff alleges her twin daughters are intended third-party beneficiaries of the I- 864 affidavit, but Plaintiff is the only named plaintiff. An incorrect legal conclusion that her citizen children are third-party beneficiaries, although perhaps subject to a motion to strike, does not defeat Plaintiff's claims as the sole named plaintiff. (See Krug v. Meeham (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 274, 277 [on demurrer averments of legal conclusions ordinarily disregarded as surplusage, and holding plaintiff sufficiently alleged ultimate facts, though alleged facts were intermingled with conclusions of law].)

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded, and Defendants do not dispute, that she is entitled to support as a third party beneficiary under the applicable federal and state laws. To determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to her requested amount of "at least $119,588.00" (comp., ¶ 97), the court must consider more factors than the appropriate size of her household. Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, Plaintiff states a cause of action for support, with the amount to be determined at a later time. Defendants tacitly agree when they argue in their reply they are entitled to "summery [sic] judgment." (Rpy., p. 2:6-8.)

Conclusion

The court finds Plaintiff states facts in her complaint sufficient to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract against Defendants. Therefore, the court denies Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: lmg on 5-5-26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

6