In re Marriage of Bychina, 2021 IL App (2d) 200303

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bychina, 2021 IL App (2d) 200303 (Ill. App. Ct. June 18, 2021). Petitioner-Appellant: Elena Bychina; Respondent-Appellee: Boris Astrakhantsev.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether an Illinois circuit court may adjudicate a third‑party beneficiary claim to enforce a federal Affidavit of Support (Form I‑864) executed under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a (and implementing regs), or whether such a claim must be pursued in federal court.
2) Whether the trial court properly declined to rule on the I‑864 breach claim and directed the plaintiff to federal court.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed and remanded. It held the trial court erred in refusing to adjudicate petitioner’s breach‑of‑contract claim based on the I‑864 (the trial court could reach the merits and should not have abdicated jurisdiction by directing petitioner to federal court).

- Significant legal reasoning (short form)
- The I‑864 is a contract between the sponsor and the United States for the benefit of the sponsored immigrant; the statute expressly permits the immigrant to enforce the sponsor’s obligations “in any appropriate court” (8 U.S.C. § 1183a(e)).
- The Form I‑864 itself contains a consent-to-jurisdiction provision in which the sponsor agreed to submit to the personal jurisdiction of any federal or state court having subject‑matter jurisdiction to enforce the obligation. That provision supports state courts as an appropriate forum.
- The appellate court emphasized that federal substantive law governs the rights and obligations arising under the I‑864 (and relevant federal regulations identify events that terminate obligations), but that does not require exclusive federal‑court jurisdiction or foreclose state courts from adjudicating such claims. The trial court abused its discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction based on forum preference or perceived convenience.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Include an I‑864 enforcement count in dissolution matters when relevant; state family courts may adjudicate breach claims and award relief under federal I‑864 obligations.
- Plead the I‑864, attach it, and cite 8 U.S.C. § 1183a and 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2; anticipate that federal law governs interpretation and termination events (citizenship, 40 quarters, death, departure, etc.).
- Sponsors’ consent-to-jurisdiction in the I‑864 limits forum‑avoidance defenses; however, expect federal‑law affirmative defenses and plan proof accordingly (benefits paid, income thresholds, timing).
- Consider coordination between maintenance claims and I‑864 enforcement to avoid double recovery; preserve arguments about termination events and reimbursement for means‑tested public benefits.
- Be aware of potential strategic removal/parallel proceedings; but courts should not reflexively defer to federal court.