Yvonne Love is a German citizen. She bore James Love a child in 2003, and the couple married in 2005. In order to facilitate Yvonne's lawful immigration status and permit her to become a permanent resident of the United States, James executed an affidavit pursuant to §213A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1183(a), on March 4, 2008. The affidavit required him to sponsor her and provide her with a minimum level of financial support equal to 125% of the Federal Poverty guidelines.
In 2009, James and Yvonne separated. Soon thereafter she filed a complaint requesting child support and, in an amended version, spousal support as well. The trial court ultimately awarded both but, in determining the amounts to award, refused to consider the affidavit James had signed. As a result, the spousal support it fixed was less than 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. Yvonne appealed.
The Superior Court held that, contrary to the trial court's conclusion, state courts do, in fact, have the authority to enforce §213A affidavits. The Court then adopted the Superior Court of New Jersey’s application of the Affidavit in Naik v. Naik, 944 A.2d 713 (N.J. Super. 2008).
Under that design, the sponsor’s obligation to provide additional support to the immigrant spouse pursuant to the Affidavit would not be triggered unless the immigrant spouse’s income from all available sources of support falls below 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. "If the sponsored immigrant's sources of support exceed this level, then no Form I-864EZ support is mandated by the INA.” In addition, once triggered, the Affidavit’s support obligation is limited to rectifying the deficiency between the sponsored immigrant’s income and the appropriate guideline amount. Other jurisdictions have taken the Naik Court’s lead and adopted this perspective in reported cases.