Unlike the Narrow base for participation in Toure-Davis, the Broader base is not suitable for any design solution. From this point of view, recipients cannot waive their right to collect I-864 assistance, which is why lawyers will want to be careful when it comes to advising clients to try. In the western district of Washington, where I practice, no state or federal court has considered giving up I-864 aid. I will continue to point out to the sponsors and sponsors of I-864 that a waiver might be possible, but that the prevailing view is that such agreements are not applicable. But if the sponsor has already agreed to sign I-864, it can also try to protect itself with a waiver contract. I-864 itself explicitly states that divorce does NOT end the obligations to support the agreement. But what if the parties have signed a marriage agreement that waives financial assistance such as alimony? However, none of these cases were explicitly waived on Form I-864 affidavit of Support. Nevertheless, the Tribunal expressly emphasized that “even if the parties` marital agreement purported to waive the assistance rights under I-864, I-864 is nevertheless enforceable. The immigration provisions define five circumstances that terminate a sponsor`s obligations to assist, and a marriage agreement or other waiver of the sponsored immigrant does not end the obligation.
8 C.F.R. No 213a.2 (e) (2). A broader base. Although the Tribunal rejected the validity of the pre-conjugated agreement, it continued to rely on a chamber and on a more confused basis for the same conclusion. The court seems to justify: “[D]he Form I-864 is a contract between the sponsor (in this case, defendant) and the U.S. government. 8 C.F.R. No 213a.2 (d). This obligation of assistance imposed by federal law is separate and distinct from the obligation of assistance imposed by Maryland law or assistance that is waived by the parties by an ante-nuptial agreement. The I-864 contract establishes a federal assistance obligation until one of the five conditions can be proven: most – but not all – where it is said that the waiver will not be effective. See Patel, 2015 WL 13116649 (Minn.Dist.Ct.) (“A third party beneficiary is not a party to a contract and any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant would not change the insurance of the sworn aid. The agreement of all parties to the original contract is required for an oral or written amendment. The defendants provided no evidence that the U.S.
government agreed to amend the statement of support or contract.” Patel v. Patel, 2015 WL 13116649 (Minn.Dist.Ct); Erler v. Erler, 2014 WL 129222 (N.D. Cal. 2013); and Shah v. Shah, 2014 WL 185914 (D. NJ 2014). But cf. Blain v. Herrell, 2010 WL 2900432, (D. Haw.
2010) (which states in Diktat that the right-wing Form I-864 is inherent in the nature of contractual rights and can be repealed).