The McCarran–Walter Act of the United States, enacted in 1952, codified and consolidated prior immigration laws into a single comprehensive statute and subsequently created various pathways to U.S. immigration, of which the K-1 visa under family-based immigration is one.

The K-1 fiancé visa plays a critical role in the family-based immigration framework under the Immigration and Nationality Act of the United States. It facilitates family reunification by enabling foreign nationals to enter the United States with the intent to marry the U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days of arrival. Thereafter, the foreign national may adjust status to that of a lawful permanent resident.

As part of the process of petitioning for a fiancé visa, a U.S. citizen sponsor is required to execute a legally enforceable contract obligating the sponsor to financially support the immigrant, as set forth in the accompanying Affidavit of Support. This binding obligation persists even in the event of divorce, underscoring the need to be informed of the liabilities thereof of the K-1 visa.

Under the governing rules, a K-1 visa applicant must marry the U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry into the United States and apply for adjustment of status. To complete this process, the U.S. citizen petitioner must submit Form I-864, committing to maintain the sponsored immigrant at 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines until the immigrant either becomes a U.S. citizen, accrues forty qualifying quarters of work under the Social Security Act, permanently departs the United States, or dies. Thus, the Affidavit of Support obligation is long-term and is not terminated by divorce, even though the K-1 visa itself is temporary.

These contractual obligations under the K-1 visa have been upheld in several court decisions, including Stump v. Stump, Erler v. Erler, and Wenfang Liu v. Mund, that reaffirm that an Affidavit of Support is not merely a moral commitment but a legally binding obligation requiring the sponsor to maintain the sponsored immigrant at 125 percent of the poverty line regardless of marital breakdown or fault.

Even settlement agreements do not waive rights under the I-864 unless such waivers are clear and unambiguous, as articulated in Chaudhry v. Malik. These obligations apply equally to joint sponsors.

The Case of Anoruo Asilonou v. Dr. Esther Chinyere Okeiyi

Sometime prior to November 2015, Anoruo Asilonou, residing in Nigeria, became engaged to marry the Defendant’s daughter, Blessing Okeiyi, a United States citizen.

Subsequently, Dr. Esther C. Okeiyi filed a Petition for Alien Fiancé with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), initiating the legal process to secure immigration benefits for the Plaintiff. USCIS approved the petition.

After obtaining a K-1 visa, Anoruo Asilonou entered the United States in December 2015. He and Blessing Okeiyi were married on January 8, 2016.

In April 2016, Anoruo Asilonou applied for permanent residency, and Blessing Okeiyi executed an Affidavit of Support. Because she did not meet the financial requirements to serve as the sole sponsor, the Defendant, Dr. Esther Chinyere Okeiyi, executed a separate Affidavit of Support as a joint sponsor. These documents were filed with USCIS in May 2016.

On September 22, 2016, USCIS approved Anoruo Asilonou’s application for permanent residency, granting him lawful permanent resident status. But for the spousal and joint sponsor affidavits of support, his application would not have been approved.

The affidavits constitute legally binding contracts between the sponsor(s) and the United States Government, enforceable by the immigrant beneficiary. The sponsors’ obligations to provide support at 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines commenced when Anoruo Asilonou became a lawful permanent resident and continue until a statutory terminating event occurs. Separation and divorce are not terminating events under the Affidavit of Support.

In November 2016, Anoruo Asilonou and Blessing Okeiyi separated. Over the next three years, he pursued a graduate degree. From 2017 through 2019, his income remained below 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. During this period, the Defendant provided no financial support.

In November 2018, through counsel, Anoruo Asilonou requested that the Defendant comply with her obligations under the Affidavit of Support and calculated that she owed $5,144 in support.

In November 2019, he filed a complaint against both the Defendant and Blessing Okeiyi in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to enforce the affidavits of support. He later voluntarily dismissed Blessing Okeiyi from the action.

The Defendant retained counsel—her daughter, Mary Okeiyi—and reportedly expended at least $100,000 in legal fees defending the claim.

The case proceeded to a jury trial. The Defendant rejected settlement offers until shortly before the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff.

Consistent with the jury’s verdict, the District Court entered judgment against the Defendant in May 2023 in the amount of $45,862.50.

The K-1 visa program exemplifies the United States’ commitment to family unification in immigration policy. However, the rigid enforcement of the Affidavit of Support can impose a substantial and enduring financial burden on U.S. citizen petitioners, particularly following divorce. These obligations remain enforceable in federal courts irrespective of the breakdown of the marital relationship or equitable considerations.

Prospective petitioners should carefully consider these legal consequences before initiating a K-1 visa petition.

Jonathan Balinia Adda, Esq.
Houston, Texas