Signing Form I-864 is a life-altering federal commitment. A Utah divorce decree court cannot terminate your obligation to support an immigrant ex-spouse, and ordinary prenuptial agreements and alimony waivers generally will not protect you. Learn the harsh realities of the federal Affidavit of Support.
When a person marries a foreign national and sponsors his/her path to a green card, one encounters Form I-864, called the Affidavit of Support. In the midst of immigration interviews and newlywed romance, the average sponsor treats this form as a tedious piece of bureaucratic red tape. He/she signs it blindly, assuming that if the marriage fails, the financial obligation fails along with it. That assumption is completely wrong, and it is a mistake that can financially ruin a person for the rest of his/her life.
The Unyielding Grip of Federal Law
Form I-864 is not a mere administrative formality. It is a legally binding contract between the sponsor and the United States Government. Under federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1183a, the sponsor guarantees that he/she will maintain the sponsored immigrant at an income level of at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines.
A Utah judge can dissolve a marriage, divide property, and terminate standard state alimony. However, a state court judge cannot terminate the federal I-864 obligation merely by terminating the marriage or waiving state alimony.
Federal law outlines five narrow terminating events that can end an I-864 obligation: the immigrant becomes a citizen, dies, ceases to be a lawful permanent resident and departs the United States, obtains a new grant of adjustment of status in removal proceedings, or accumulates 40 qualifying quarters of work. The sponsor’s death also terminates that sponsor’s future support obligation, but not accrued claims. Divorce is conspicuously missing from this list. If a person divorces his/her sponsored spouse after only a year of marriage, the financial liability survives the divorce completely intact unless and until a federal terminating event occurs. 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(e)(2).
How Utah Federal Courts Handle the I-864
Many an individual believes that a well-drafted prenuptial agreement or a standard waiver of alimony in a divorce decree will shield him/her from liability. In Utah, this belief is a dangerous illusion. Consider Golipour v. Moghaddam, 438 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (D. Utah 2020). The court made it abundantly clear that a sponsor cannot use separate marital contracts or traditional cultural agreements to bypass the mandates of Form I-864.
If an ex-spouse sues in federal court or another appropriate court for enforcement, the court looks directly at the statute, and Utah federal authority rejects many standard contract-style defenses. See Poulsen v. Poulsen, No. 2:25-cv-00425-JCB, ECF No. 21 (D. Utah Dec. 9, 2025). Even if a Utah divorce decree explicitly states that neither party owes the other any financial support, the immigrant ex-spouse can still often file a separate lawsuit or seek enforcement elsewhere to enforce the Affidavit of Support. Nonetheless, the issue should be affirmatively addressed in divorce because a carefully worded release could create claim-preclusion arguments that could be employed if the immigrant spouse later seeks to enforce the Affidavit. See Ramgoolam v. Gupta, 173 F.4th 234 (6th Cir. 2026).
Ramgoolam is not a Utah case, but its principles can be employed in Utah divorce cases. Ramgoolam holds that later I-864 enforcement lawsuit may be barred by claim preclusion if the sponsored immigrant could have raised the I-864 claim in the divorce case, the divorce court was an “appropriate court” to hear it, and the final divorce judgment or settlement broadly resolved or released the parties’ support and financial claims.
No Duty to Mitigate and Long-Term Exposure
To make matters worse, the financial exposure under the Affidavit of Support is incredibly unforgiving. In standard contract disputes, an injured party has a duty to mitigate damages. One would naturally assume that an ex-spouse has an obligation to look for a job to support himself/herself. However, under prevailing federal jurisprudence, the sponsored immigrant generally has no duty to seek employment. See Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2012).
Thus, if an ex-spouse chooses to not work or earns less than 125 percent of the poverty threshhold, the sponsor remains legally obligated to pay the difference required to bring that ex-spouse up to at least the 125 percent of that threshold. In making this determination, the court will evaluate the immigrant’s actual income, not his/her earning capacity. This means a sponsor could find himself/herself writing monthly support checks to an ex-spouse for decades, entirely independent of any alimony timeline established by a Utah domestic relations court.
Actionable Advice for Sponsors Facing Divorce
If a person finds himself/herself entering the divorce process in Utah with an active Form I-864, he/she must change his/her entire approach to negotiation. Because the federal obligation cannot be waived by a simple signature on a stipulation, a sponsor must seek strategic workarounds and address the I-864 expressly.
A sponsor might consider negotiating a lump-sum property settlement or an asset buyout specifically structured to offset future I-864 claims. Alternatively, the divorce decree can be structured to include carefully drafted release, credit, setoff, safe-harbor, or indemnification language. The sponsor should also consider whether the I-864 claim should be expressly litigated, settled, released, or otherwise addressed in the divorce decree itself, because a properly drafted decree may support a later claim-preclusion defense against a separate I-864 lawsuit. Navigating this intersection of federal immigration law and Utah family law requires a candid, realistic assessment of risk, rather than wishful thinking about standard divorce boilerplate forms.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277