Source: http://www.i-864.net/blog/category/Case+law+update
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:03:31+00:00

Document:
In a December 13, 2016 order, an I-864 enforcement case in federal district court for the Western District of Wisconsin has been resolved. See Santana v. Hatch, No. 15-cv-89-wmc (W.D. Wisc. Dec. 13. 2016) (memo. op.). Following an April order granting partial summary judgment to the immigrant-plaintiff, the only remaining issues were a damages calculation and specific performance of the I-864 duty. "Specific performance" is an order from a court requiring a party to continue a performance required by a contract - here, to make payments required to keep the I-864 beneficiary at 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines. The damages calculation was resolved on an agreed calculation, so the only issue addressed in the December 13th order is that of specific performance. It is common for plaintiffs in I-864 enforcement cases to request both a damages award and also an order of specific performance. But there is a challenge in terms of the logistics required for such an order. The payments due by the I-864 sponsor require an understanding of how much (if any) income the I-864 beneficiary is earning. The sponsor also needs to know if the beneficiary becomes a United States citizen or has been credited with 40 quarters of work.
At Immigration Support Advocates, we typically structure settlements in a way that requires monthly payments by the sponsor. Generally, our clients have little or no income, and depend on the monthly support payments to meet basic needs. In prior cases we have agreed to provide monthly accountings to the sponsor, showing what public benefits were being received and what income had been earned for the month.
Under the circumstances, the court concludes that an order of specific performance on a yearly basis is appropriate. Plaintiffs have shown the determination and ability to earn income, as well as support themselves, despite defendant's obligations to provide minimal support. Currently, Evelyn Santana has a steady job that provides income sufficient to keep her and her family above 125% of the poverty level. [. . .] Thus, at least as of now, there appears to be no justification for requiring defendant to make specific performance on a monthly or bi-weekly basis. On the contrary, as defendant points out, such a requirement could lead to an overpayment to plaintiffs.
In Santana, the plaintiff did not even seek monthly support payments. We believe that in many cases it would be easy to demonstrate that such a payment schedule would be appropriate. A plaintiff who needs ongoing I-864 support by definition has no other income. It would be absurd to make such an individual wait until the end of the year for support that she needs to meet monthly survival needs.
Given that the plaintiff in Santana did not seek monthly support payments, and made no attempt to show why they would be appropriate, we do not believe this case will be injurious to future plaintiffs who do seek orders of specific performance for monthly support payments.
A recent Pennsylvania case illustrates one way that family law attorney can fruitfully use the I-864: to catch sponsors who under-report income and assets in divorce cases. F.B. v. M.M.R. involved a United States citizen (USC) who petitioned for his foreign national (FN) Egyptian wife. No. 31715 (Mar. 17, 2015 Penn. Sup. Crt.). The background is somewhat confusing but important for understanding the case. The USC and FN appear to have been married in Egypt before starting the immigration process. Apparently due to concern that the marriage wouldn't be considered valid, the USC petitioned for his wife as a fiancee.
Fiancee "non-immigrant" visas, unlike marriage based "immigrant" visas do not require a form I-864. In fact, it is a violation of the Foreign Affairs Manual for the consulate to require an I-864 in fiancee cases. Rather, the USC completes a non-binding form I-134, Affidavit of Support, the predecessor to the contractually binding I-864.
The marriage fell apart during the immigration process, though the wife entered the US on the fiancee visa and thereafter lived with her USC husband for six years. The couple drafted paperwork to complete the adjustment of status process, including the Form I-864. But these papers were never actually filed.
In subsequent divorce proceedings, the wife argued that she was entitled to financial support based on the Form I-864.
Initially the trial court granted support based on the I-864. But the court later granted reconsideration and reversed it's decision, on evidence that the I-864 had not actually been filed. The Court determined that the obligation under the Form I-864 didn't begin unless the wife became a resident based on submission of the Form. This is consistent with a straight-forward reading of the I-864 provisions.
But the Court did use the I-134 Affidavit of Support in a different, interesting way.On the Form I-134, the sponsor had reported that he earned $128,000 per year and had assets worth more than $3.7 million. Like any sponsor, during the immigration process he had the incentive to demonstrate substantial income. Later, in the divorce Court, his incentive was the opposite. But the wife was able to use his Affidavit of Support to show his income-earning ability and previously reported assets.
Now generally it would be tough for a sponsor to overstate income and assets on an Affidavit of Support. Especially the I-864 - as opposed to I-134 - is minutely scrutinized by the State Department, which takes a careful look at supporting documentation. Both income and assets have to be shown by documentation.
But this does serve to emphasize that a sponsor might want to be careful about reporting assets, period. For the Form I-864 the sponsor is not required to report assets at all if his income is at or above the sponsored level. In this case the sponsor's income would almost certainly have been enough, regardless of assets. Where the income is enough, it would be a good idea for the sponsor - of the attorney advising him - not to include assets. If assets are unnecessarily reported the I-864 could later be used as evidence in a divorce proceeding, such as this case. On the flip side, family law attorneys will want to be sure to request the Form I-864 in discovery for exactly this reason. Even in cases where the I-864 beneficiary earns too much to sue for I-864 immigration financial support, the Form I-864 might be helpful evidence to examine the sponsor/spouse's income and assets.
In Pavlenco v. Pearsall the District Court for the Eastern District of New York has offered the most detailed analysis to date on the application of abstention doctrines in the context of suing on the I-864. No. 13-CV-1953 (JS)(AKT), 2013 WL 6198299 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2013) (memo. order). In Pavlenco the parties had a pending state court divorce matter, approximately one month from trial, in which the beneficiary had sought to raise issues pertaining to the I-864.The beneficiary had sought enforcement of the I-864 in the divorce proceeding but alleged that the defendant-sponsor had noted “allow[ed]” her to do so. Subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded easily that it possessed federal question jurisdiction over an I-864 enforcement suit, following the prevailing view on that issue. The Pavlenco court cited only to previous federal decisions that had reached the same view. The Middle District of Florida appears to be the only jurisdiction currently holding that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over suits to enforce the I-864. See, e.g., Vavilova v. Rimoczi, 6:12-cv-1471-Orl-28GJK, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183714 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2012) (report and recommendation of magistrate judge).
(1) there is an ongoing state proceeding; (2) an important state interest is implicated in that proceeding; and (3) the state proceeding affords the federal plaintiff an adequate opportunity for judicial review of the federal constitutional claims.
Application of the doctrine turned on whether the plaintiff-beneficiary would have a full opportunity to pursue her federal claim in the state court action, and whether the federal action stood to interfere with the state court matter. Because the plaintiff-beneficiary had not yet succeeded in bringing I-864 enforcement issues to the attention of the state court, enforcement in the federal lawsuit would not have the effect of enjoining any state court action. And the court noted that the mere existence of a parallel state court action does not implicate Younger abstention.
(1) whether the controversy involves a res over which one of the courts has assumed jurisdiction; (2) whether the federal forum is less inconvenient than the other for the parties; (3) whether staying or dismissing the federal action will avoid piecemeal litigation; (4) the order in which the actions were filed, and whether proceedings have advanced more in one forum than in the other; (5) whether federal law provides the rule of decision; and (6) whether the state procedures are adequate to protect the plaintiff's federal rights.
The court found that three factors weighed in favor of abstention. First, a stay would avoid piecemeal litigation as the court believed it was likely the state court would address the I-864 issue. This reasoning is somewhat confusing – although the defendant-sponsor argued to the federal court that the I-864 should be raised in state court, it is unclear why the defendant would have any incentive not to fight adjudication of the issue in state court as well. Second, the court noted the advance stage of the state court litigation (approximately a week before trial). Lastly, the court noted that although the I-864 involved “federal law,” state courts were equipped to adjudicate I-864 obligations in the context of a divorce proceeding. The court therefore entered a six-month stay on the federal action.
What is household size? Erler v. Erler (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2013).
All non-citizens sponsored under the current I-864.
Household size may also include the sponsor’s parent, adult child, brother or sister, if that person’s income is used for the current I-864.
Instead, the court determined that it must “strike a balance between ensuring that the immigrant’s income is sufficient to prevent her from becoming a public charge while preventing unjust enrichment to the immigrant.” Where an immigrant “lives alone, or only temporarily with others, she should receive payments based on a one-person household.” But the court believed the plaintiff-beneficiary would be “unjustly enriched” if she received income support from her I-864 sponsor, since her adult child was in fact providing support.
Note the Hobson’s choice with which an immigrant is left by this holding. An I-864 beneficiary may elect to attempt to live on her own with no financial support – in which case she may seek recovery from her I-864 sponsor – or else she may impose herself on a family member, thereby waiving I-864 support. Imputing income from the family member may seem unproblematic for the “millionaire” families envisioned by the Erler court, but that hypothetical is likely distant from the reality of many immigrant families. Indeed, the beneficiary’s son in Erler earned only two and one-half times the Federal Poverty Guidelines for a household of two.
Delima v. Burres, No. 2:12–cv–00469–DBP, 2013 WL 690536 (D.Utah Feb. 26, 2013). In this Federal contact suit by an I-864 Beneficiary the Court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Sponsor-defendant.
It appears the parties hired a Utah law firm to prepare the I-864, but executed the form in Montana… at least there was no evidence this took place in Utah.
The magistrate judge first analyzed whether the Beneficiary/Plaintiff had demonstrated minimum contacts with Utah sufficient for the State’s long-arm statute and due process. The Court found that Plaintiff’s hiring of a Utah law firm to prepare the Form was not a minimum contact, and that Plaintiff had failed to show other plausible grounds. The magistrate then turned briefly to 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(d), which is generally read to waive the defense of personal jurisdiction by a Sponsor who signs the I-864. The magistrate then summarily concluded that the “Defendant’s decision to sign the Form I-864… does [not?] constitute a waiver or replacement of her constitutional due process rights related to personal jurisdiction."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 213