At what point does I-864 terminate in regards to social security’s 40 quarters

[Tost 0]

Saw this forum and thought it might be good to ask this somewhat complex question. I have seen that spouses can be credited with each other’s social security quarters to equal to 40 while married (theoretically fulfilling the I-864’s requirements of 40 quarters to end in 5 years instead of 10 years?). However I do wonder if it would count AFTER a divorce. The quarters being reverted back to 20 and would reinstate the financial responsibilities an I-864?
 

According to the I-864 form itself, it says this:

 

“Your obligations that you signed will end if the person who becomes a lawful permanent resident based on that affidavit:

 

B. Has worked, or can receive credit for, 40 quarters of coverage under the Social Security Act;”

 

 

Now, according to the Social security administration, if a spouse divorces another, they loose the ability to count their ex-spouse’s quarters. Which would then bring them back down to 20 quarters instead of 40 (after 5 years of working.). HOWEVER, the I-864 explicitly states your obligations “will end” when the alien CAN receive credit for 40 quarters of work. So am I correct to understand the agreement ends at 5 years and stays ended, even if a year or years later they get divorced? I’m deducting that from the fact that it says it ends when the immigrant can receive or is eligible to receive credit for 40 quarters of social security. So can it be reinstated? I don’t see a clause for that, but interested to hear everyone’s thoughts, opinions, experiences, and perhaps links to real life scenarios.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Tost

[JeanneAdil 6,261]

for SS benefits the marriage must continue

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500502135 under Qualifying  quarters

 

 

a spouse(s) (as defined in SI 00501.150B.1. and developed per SI 00502.145) during their marriage if the marriage continues or the spouse is deceased.

[Tost 0]

22 minutes ago, JeanneAdil said:

for SS benefits the marriage must continue

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500502135 under Qualifying  quarters

 

 

a spouse(s) (as defined in SI 00501.150B.1. and developed per SI 00502.145) during their marriage if the marriage continues or the spouse is deceased.

Yes. That’s what I was referring to when I said they would loose the ability to count their spouses quarters for SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. However the I-864 makes no mention of having to continually maintain 40 or above credits. It simply states “your obligations WILL END….can receive credit for, 40 quarters”. 
 

There’s also no clause for reinstating the I-864 after the goal has been met.

[Letspaintcookies 2,235]

I remember somebody asking the same question. In the other case the USC was divorced from his wife who he helped immigrating and now wanted to sponsor another spouse. He knew that his former wife had 40 quarters with the help of his points at one point in the past so he was wondering if that would have ended his obligations or if he still needs to count her on the new I-864 since his points are not counting towards her anymore.

 

I can't find the thread anymore but I remember that there was no consensus in answers. Some were very convinced he's not on the hook anymore, others said he is. I don't recall somebody having a definite answer.

[Mike E 11,727]

1 hour ago, Letspaintcookies said:

I remember somebody asking the same question. In the other case the USC was divorced from his wife who he helped immigrating and now wanted to sponsor another spouse. He knew that his former wife had 40 quarters with the help of his points at one point in the past so he was wondering if that would have ended his obligations or if he still needs to count her on the new I-864 since his points are not counting towards her anymore.

 

I can't find the thread anymore but I remember that there was no consensus in answers. Some were very convinced he's not on the hook anymore, others said he is. I don't recall somebody having a definite answer.

I remember the thread. 
 

I found this just now:

 

https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/what-terminates-obligations-under-i864/

 

“

The Affidavit of Support law obligates sponsors to support their immigrant ex-spouses until after they’ve worked approximately ten years. That means, until they have earned forty work quarters, according to the Social Security Act, you remain financially responsible for them.

Meanwhile, you can count the work you did while you were still married toward the stipulated forty quarters. However, the work you do after the divorce case becomes final will stop counting in this manner.”

Thus work each spouse did before the divorce and during the marriage counts and the divorce doesn’t change that.  

[Tost 0]

5 hours ago, Letspaintcookies said:

I remember somebody asking the same question. In the other case the USC was divorced from his wife who he helped immigrating and now wanted to sponsor another spouse. He knew that his former wife had 40 quarters with the help of his points at one point in the past so he was wondering if that would have ended his obligations or if he still needs to count her on the new I-864 since his points are not counting towards her anymore.

 

I can't find the thread anymore but I remember that there was no consensus in answers. Some were very convinced he's not on the hook anymore, others said he is. I don't recall somebody having a definite answer.

Hmm. I truly wonder if their case on this, as that’s what usually determines stuff. However the wording on the I-864 is definitely very vague, and I don’t see why it could be used in the manner I stated. Especially if the divorce was the initiated by the non-citizen.

 

4 hours ago, Mike E said:

I found this just now:

 

https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/what-terminates-obligations-under-i864/

 

.  

No trying to be argumentative here, but I wonder what led them to that conclusion. Since under the laws of social security, previous work credits are dropped. There’s gotta be a case out there somewhere I’m not finding. This is the second time I’ve seen lawyers say this.

[Tost 0]

Here’s some digging I did into the actual INA (where the I-864 originates) documents regarding the I-864. Here is the official INA section 213 word on the matter:

 

 

So my take on this is that they DID specify the alien has to remain married. But this, again, brings up the point that it specifically says “Termination of period of enforceability upon completion of required employment, etc.” What specifically does “termination of period of enforceability” mean? Does that give room for reinstatement of conditions that were previously met to end the contract? Is someone good at legal terminology that can help me understand this. 

 

So the main question, could it essentially be reinstated after being fulfilled due to a subtraction of quarters? Part (ii) makes it clear that it only qualifies if they remain married. HOWEVER, once again this brings up the terminology of the previous statements, and I don’t see (ii) as a clause specifying the contracts fulfillment will be reinstated if qualifying quarters are subtracted.
 

So as a recap, the ONLY TWO things I see here that could possibly lead to reverting back and reinstatement is:

 

1. How it starts in paragraph (A) by saying “in general”

 

And 

 

2. What the specific meaning of “termination of period of enforceability” is.

 

Now I’m obviously no expert, although I love matters of law. However this is very interesting to me. If anyone has anything to add or is better at understanding legal terminology and logic, please explain

Edited September 9, 2022 by Tost

[Mike E 11,727]

It isn’t logical to permanently waive I-865 at the outset if the married couple has combined 40 credits and not permanently terminate the requirement once the couple attains the 40 credits.  
 

Nothing in section (B) (ii) implies to me that the I-864 contract  is reinstated. Instead what it says to me is that only the quarters the couple worked while married count.  That’s the point of that prose.  So if the couple has 39 credits combined while marrying, with the petitioner at 38 credits and the beneficiary at 1 quarter, and then they divorce, the petitioner had to work 39 quarters and not just 1 quarter to let the petitioner off the hook.  
 

The exception is if the spouse dies.  So that exception would release a joint sponsor in this scenario:

 

Steve  is a joint sponsor of John who was petitioner by wife Mary.  Combined John and Mary work 36 quarters, each with 18 quarters. Mary passed away.  Instead of waiting for John to work 22 quarters, Steve is released after John works 4 quarters.  

Edited September 9, 2022 by Mike E

[Boiler 43,771]

Does it matter?

 

I can see it may be a Divorce settlement issue but the extent that a Judge takes that into account or not in a Family Court from what I have seen is unclear.

 

And the Feds do not enforce it, well not come across an example.

[Tost 0]

2 hours ago, Mike E said:

It isn’t logical to permanently waive I-865 at the outset if the married couple has combined 40 credits and not permanently terminate the requirement once the couple attains the 40 credits.  
 

Nothing in section (B) (ii) implies to me that the I-864 contract  is reinstated. Instead what it says to me is that only the quarters the couple worked while married count.  That’s the point of that prose.  So if the couple has 39 credits combined while marrying, with the petitioner at 38 credits and the beneficiary at 1 quarter, and then they divorce, the petitioner had to work 39 quarters and not just 1 quarter to let the petitioner off the hook.  
 

The exception is if the spouse dies.  So that exception would release a joint sponsor in this scenario:

 

Steve  is a joint sponsor of John who was petitioner by wife Mary.  Combined John and Mary work 36 quarters, each with 18 quarters. Mary passed away.  Instead of waiting for John to work 22 quarters, Steve is released after John works 4 quarters.  

I see what you mean. Although I would note that there is a conjunction in (B) (ii). Notice: “all of the qualifying quarters worked by a sponsor of such alien during their marriage AND the alien remains married to such spouse”. Notice there is two conditions that must be met. During their marriage AND the alien remains married. And yes, the exception (“OR”)  that they die.  
 

Naturally this is how it works with social security in their documents as well. Credits can be taken away from one spouse in the case of a divorce and not be credited with them. 
 

I mean, I agree with you in some sense that it indicates it should be terminated after 5 years where both contributed to the 40 quarters, but I suppose I see how they prevented that in the case of it counting quarters BEFORE the 5 years each (or 10 years however added together) with the AND conjunction. 

[Tost 0]

49 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Does it matter?

It could matter. Not that it is of great concern, but hopefully from my curiosity it can cause someone to examine on their own with a defense in a possible litigation. 
 

 

53 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I  can see it may be a Divorce settlement issue but the extent that a Judge takes that into account or not in a Family Court from what I have seen is unclear.

 

And the Feds do not enforce it, well not come across an example.

And it’s true, I haven’t seen a case from all the ones I’ve read where the state or federal government pursued a sponsor for reimbursement. I’m not sure if there even is one, but it doesn’t surprise me since they aren’t really concerned with a few grand when the amount of effort they would have to put into it might cost them more. I do think under the trump era, if things had continued it might have ended up to where we started seeing more cases of federal and state government pursing reimbursement, since the administration started putting out instructions on holding sponsors liable, but never carried it out. 
 

All cases going through court ive read through have been where the immigrant demanded payment. Almost Every case they’ve been awarded, but they can waive their right and/or reduce the amount. Some states has cases that are more lenient, such as florida. However, they can’t waive the part where the federal government can still pursue reimbursement. That remains until the conditions for the obligation ending are met.

[Mike E 11,727]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Does it matter?

yes. 

Quote

 

I can see it may be a Divorce settlement issue

Marriage is a power of the State. 

Quote

 

but the extent that a Judge takes that into account or not in a Family Court from what I have seen is unclear.

I-864 enforcement is litigated in federal court. 

Quote

 

And the Feds do not enforce it, well not come across an example.

The executive branch might not enforce it. That doesn’t prevent a beneficiary from suing a primary and/or joint sponsor for financial support. These suits do happen and when  they do, the court (sometimes reluctantly) rules for the beneficiary 

 

Even if the beneficiary is a child rapist and child pornographer 

 

https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201914668.pdf

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Mike E

[Mike E 11,727]

@Tost we clearly have a different understanding of those written words. Until there is a test case we can each believe what we want. 

[Tost 0]

26 minutes ago, Mike E said:

@Tost we clearly have a different understanding of those written words. Until there is a test case we can each believe what we want. 

Ahhh, I hope it doesn’t seem I’m being argumentative. Just a friendly discussion and trying to come to a better understanding. I had to go digging again, but here is what it says on the SSAs official website regarding counting quarters between former spouses.

 

 

Of course this is in reference to determining SSI eligibility (which is done somewhat frequently). I can see why we have mixup in reference the INA’s section 213, since it’s quite vague. But it does reference title 2 as determine the quarters. And what I just posted is the word on the matter from the SSA

[Mike E 11,727]

It says “before determination of eligibility”

 

Anyway, here is a test case that supports my assertion:

 

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/6/2012/2012-ohio-2088.pdf

 

Granted it is a state court but  the state court ruled that it had standing to adjudicate I-864 and further more the beneficiary  tried to sue in federal court and federal court declined to interfere. 
 

So the playbook is:

 

* get 40 combined  quarters while married 

* get divorced 

* get a divorce settlement and cite the decision I cited. 
 

I-864 is then terminated by the state divorce court and the feds are unlikely to interfere.  
 

So I apologize to @Boiler because contrary to my earlier view today, there is a subtle interplay between state divorce court and federal court when it comes to I-864 enforcement