Case Update (2020): Pachal v. Bugreeff; I-864, support of an immigrant, interplay with alimony and divorce suit

Nov 12

This is a really interesting case that addresses the issue of an I-864 contract. This immigration form is completed by a U.S. citizen who commits to ensuring that an applicant for residency maintains an income of 125% of the federal poverty level. This obligation is indefinite, unless a specific "terminating event" occurs. In the case of Pachal v. Bugreeff, Ms. Bugreeff signed an I-864EZ on behalf of Mr. Pachal, her fiance. Prior to marrying, they also signed a prenuptial agreement waiving alimony. About five years later, Bugreeff filed for divorce. The proceeding progressed, and nearly 2 years after the filing, Pachal was ordered to leave the marital home, at which time he sought temporary alimony. Separate from the ongoing state court divorce proceedings, Pachal filed a federal suit to enforce the I-864EZ. Ms. Bugreeff filed to dismiss the federal suit, using the abstention doctrine.

As a refresher, the Younger doctrine mandates a federal court to abstain if four requirements are met: "(1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves."

In addressing point 4 specifically, the federal court concluded abstention was not appropriate. An I-864 claim survives divorce. The parties had discussed the I-864 claim in the divorce proceedings, but, Pachal never filed a breach of contract claim under the I-864 in state court.

Bugreeff also argued the Colorado River doctrine. The court doubted its application, given that there was no parallel proceeding. The court nonetheless analyzed the 8 factors in Colorado River and concluded that the overwhelming number of factors support retaining jurisdiction over the I-864 case.

This case is a good reminder of the abstention doctrine's basic elements, along with the basic rules of an I-864.

Melissa Kucinski

Melissa Kucinski works with family lawyers to strategically resolve their clients’ complex international cases. A fellow of the AAML, the IAFL, and chair of international family law committees in the American Bar and New York State Bar Associations, Melissa is a respected colleague to have on any legal team. A former consultant for the Hague Conference on Private International Law, member of the Uniform Law Commission’s Joint Editorial Board on Uniform Family Laws, and member of the U.S. Secretary of State’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law, Melissa maintains a robust network to help her clients in international disputes.

https://mkfamily.law/