RANDY KRIS RAMGOOLAM v. RITU GUPTA - Articles

All Content

RANDY KRIS RAMGOOLAM v. RITU GUPTA

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 2, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Gregory H. McLawsen, SOUND IMMIGRATION, Seattle, Washington, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Seth D. Gould, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Rochester, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Gregory H. McLawsen, SOUND IMMIGRATION, Seattle, Washington, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Seth D. Gould, Jacob M. Campbell, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Rochester, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; LARSEN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint

SUTTON, Chief Judge. Ritu Gupta, an American, married Randy Ramgoolam, a Canadian, in 2017. Three years later, Ramgoolam applied for residency in the United States. Federal law allows an immigrant to become a permanent resident only if he can demonstrate that he will not end up on the public dole. To help her husband clear that hurdle, Gupta signed an Affidavit of Support, thereby committing to ensure that Ramgoolam’s income remains above 125% of the federal poverty line each year. The residency application was successful, but the marriage was not. When the couple divorced in 2022, they agreed that neither would pay spousal support to the other. Ramgoolam nonetheless filed this lawsuit against Gupta in federal court, claiming that she had failed to provide him the financial support promised by the Affidavit of Support. The district court dismissed the case, reasoning that the state court’s judgment of divorce precluded Ramgoolam’s claim. We affirm.

Attachments: