Affidavit of Support, I-864, held enforceable even if an ex-wife is not looking for a job - a sponsored immigrant has no duty to mitigate.

An interesting case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. It was held that an immigrant, who was sponsored under the federal poverty guidelines and the I-864 Affidavit of Support was submitted to the DHS/USCIS, does not have a duty to mitigate (seek employment, apply for jobs), and her american ex-husband has a duty to support her after divorce at 125% federal poverty guidelines.

Timothy Mund, an American, married Wenfang Liu, a Chinese woman 19 years his junior, in China. Two years later the couple decided
to move to the United States. For Liu to be admitted as
a permanent  resident on the basis of her marriage to
an American, her husband had to sign an “I-864 affidavit,”
agreeing to support  his  wife  at 125 percent of the
poverty level (approximately $13,500 a year).

After divorce, ex-husband refused to provide the  support  specified in the federal  affidavit,  on the ground that his ex-wife wasn’t looking for work.  So she filed the present suit, in federal district court  in Wisconsin, seeking that  support  and contending that failure to mitigate damages is not a defense to the support obligation created by the affidavit. ... The district judge held that Liu was not  entitled to support pursuant to the I-864 affidavit during the 160-day period after she had filed her motion for summary judgment, because she hadn’t actively sought work during that period. The finding that she hadn’t sought work is well supported; the only substantial issue presented by  her appeal, and the only one we discuss, is whether in a suit to enforce the obligation of support created by the federal affidavit the plaintiff has a legal duty to mitigate damages. ... In sum, we can’t see much benefit to imposing a duty to mitigate on a sponsored immigrant. ... The judgment of the district court is reversed so far as concerns the court’s imposition of a duty of mitigation, and otherwise is affirmed.

Read case decision at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/K315C23H.pdf