Opinion
Case No. 3:22 CV 1260
2023-06-06
Kholoud IBRHIM, Plaintiff, v. Robbie Muhammad ABDELHOQ, et al., Defendants.
Gregory McLawsen, Sound Immigration, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff. Edward A. Bajoka, Bajoka Law, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.
Gregory McLawsen, Sound Immigration, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff. Edward A. Bajoka, Bajoka Law, Detroit, MI, for Defendants.
ORDER RE: JURISDICTION
JACK ZOUHARY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
Defendants Robbie, Muhammad, and Chafica Abdelhoq signed Affidavits of Support (I-864) promising to provide Plaintiff Kholoud Ibrhim a specified level of income as part of her family-based United States Visa application (Docs. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). Ibrhim brings this case against her sponsors, alleging they breached their Affidavit support obligations following her marital separation from Robbie in 2014 (Doc. 1). The parties contest whether this Court has jurisdiction to enforce an immigration sponsor's Affidavit. This threshold issue has been briefed (Docs. 18, 20-22) and this Court held a Record Hearing.
BACKGROUND
Ibrhim and Robbie Abdelhoq were married from 2012 to 2015 (Doc. 1-7 at 3). Ibrhim is a citizen of Palestine now residing in Bowling Green, Ohio. Abdelhoq is a United States citizen currently residing in nearby Northwood, Ohio. In April 2012, Abdelhoq filed a Visa Petition so that Ibrhim could become a United States permanent resident (Doc. 1-4). Because Ibrhim did not qualify under the listed exemptions to the financial-sponsor requirement, Abdelhoq and his parents -- also named defendants in this case -- signed up to be Ibrhim's joint immigration sponsors. Abdelhoq and his parents each signed Affidavits of Support promising to provide Ibrhim an income of at least 125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for her household size (Docs. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). Ibrhim and Abdelhoq share one minor child.
Ibrhim and Abdelhoq divorced in 2015 and those proceedings have concluded (Doc. 1-7). Their divorce judgment decreed "that neither party will pay spousal support to the other, and both parties understand that by waiving it at this time, they are forever foreclosed from making such claim of the other party in the future" (Id. at 10). No mention is made as to the I-864. The divorce decree further designates Ibrhim as the child's residential parent and legal custodian (Id. at 4). Abdelhoq was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $144 per month (Id.). No information is provided as to whether he made any payments. There is no corollary state court action pending.
This federal case is brought eight years after the divorce, alleging damages of $109,451.50 for the breach of the I-864 Affidavit (Doc. 1 at 20). Defendants counter that this case is merely a breach-of-contract claim arising from a divorce, and therefore belongs in state court.
ANALYSIS
I.
In an attempt to prohibit the entry of immigrants who are likely to "become a public charge," the Government requires a sponsor of a family-based visa applicant to sign an Affidavit promising to provide financial support necessary to maintain the sponsored alien. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(C); 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(1)(A). The Affidavit is a contract between the federal government and the sponsor and may be enforced by the immigrant "in any appropriate court." 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(1)(B); 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(e). The statute does not define "appropriate court."
Federal courts have federal-question jurisdiction over any civil action "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. "A claim arises under federal law when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal laws or the federal Constitution." Cobb v. Cont. Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 548 (6th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). This Court has been unable to locate applicable precedent in the Sixth Circuit on whether this statute "arises under" federal law.
II.
Defendants argue that "[e]nforcement of the I-864 is a simple breach of contract case" (Doc. 21 at 3). They point to Davis v. United States, where the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 499 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2007). However, that case is distinguishable for several reasons.
First, the court held the sponsor was prohibited from seeking enforcement of the Affidavit in federal court because the statute does not give the sponsor any enforcement right or other cause of action. Id. at 594-95. The sponsors in this case are not seeking enforcement -- quite the opposite. Here, the sponsored immigrant is seeking enforcement while the sponsors hope to avoid it. In fact, the court in Davis found that the statute expressly provides the sponsored immigrant with a cause of action in this scenario: "Section 1183a . . . clearly states that '[a]n action to enforce an [A]ffidavit of [S]upport . . . may be brought against the sponsor in any appropriate court . . . by a sponsored alien, with respect to financial support . . . .' " Id. at 594. (citation omitted).
Second, Defendants point to the Davis court finding that "specific performance of the Affidavit as ordered by the Ohio Court of Appeals is thus explicitly permitted under the statute," but there was no similar state order of specific performance of the Affidavit in this case (Doc. 21 at 5). In Davis, the sponsor and sponsored immigrant had previously litigated their divorce and spousal maintenance in state court, but the county court of common pleas at first declined to specifically enforce the Affidavit in the divorce proceedings. 499 F.3d at 592. The sponsored immigrant appealed to the state appellate court where the case was remanded with explicit instruction to enforce the Affidavit in its calculation of spousal support. Id. The county court then awarded the sponsored immigrant $900 per month. Id. Ibrhim and Abdelhoq's divorce papers award no amount of maintenance to either party (Doc. 1-7 at 10), and nothing indicates the Affidavit was even considered in the divorce proceeding. Neither can this Court assume that standard divorce proceedings relieve the parties of their duties -- the Affidavit expressly states: "divorce does not terminate your obligations under this Form I-864" (Doc. 1-1 at 8). The threshold issue in this case is whether the federal statute permits the cause of action in federal court, not whether a state court is precluded from enforcing the Affidavit in divorce proceedings or otherwise.
Third, Defendants also argue that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here (Doc. 21 at 5). Not so. Under this doctrine, lower federal courts lack jurisdiction over "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). The plaintiff in Davis was seeking federal review of a state court order enforcing the Affidavit in his divorce case; his challenges were rooted in the state court interpretation of the Affidavit and its calculation of the support level. 499 F.3d at 595. Defendants do not assert the Affidavit was considered -- or even admitted -- in divorce proceedings. Because the sponsor may be someone other than a spouse, as is the case here with Abdelhoq's parents, obligations under the Affidavit cannot be automatically categorized as spousal support. In short, Rooker-Feldman does not affect the controlling question in this case: whether federal court is an "appropriate court" under Section 1183a(e).
III.
A claim "arises under" federal law when federal law (1) creates a private right of action; and (2) furnishes the substantive rules of decision. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 378-79, 132 S.Ct. 740, 181 L.Ed.2d 881 (2012). "That principle endures unless Congress divests federal courts of their [Section] 1331 adjudicatory authority." Id. As to the first prong, the parties do not dispute Section 1183a creates a private right of action for the sponsored immigrant. Indeed, the Sixth Circuit decision in Davis says as much. 499 F.3d at 594.
The second prong is also met because "[t]he statute and the applicable regulation define the scope of the sponsors' obligations, including the relevant terminating events." Belevich v. Thomas, 17 F.4th 1048, 1051 (11th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2754, 213 L.Ed.2d 998 (2022). As Plaintiff correctly points out, Section 1183a outlines the nature of the sponsor's financial obligations, defines critical terms in the statute, and specifies when the sponsor's duties commence and terminate. The federal statute provides the necessary guidance on how the Affidavit may be enforced.
This Court takes direction from the Circuits that have ruled on this issue. See Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418, 419-20 (7th Cir. 2012) (holding that "[t]he right of support conferred by federal law exists apart from whatever rights [a sponsored immigrant] might or might not have under [state] divorce law."); Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 2016) (adopting the Seventh Circuit's holding in Liu v. Mund); Belevich v. Thomas, 17 F.4th at 1051 (11th Cir. 2021) (finding that federal law, not state contract law, governs this question). This Court agrees that Section 1183a "creates a federal cause of action so that 'the sponsored alien, the Federal Government, [or] any State' may enforce a support Affidavit against a sponsor. This federal cause of action gives the sponsored immigrant enforcement rights that he would not necessarily have under contract law." Id. (citations omitted).
CONCLUSION
Because federal law gives rise to the enforcement of an Affidavit of Support under Section 1183a and specifies the substantive rules of decision, this Court finds it has subject-matter jurisdiction. This holding does not reflect the final decision in this case. Is Plaintiff entitled to damages? Why did Plaintiff wait nearly ten years to make a claim? Still more questions for this Court to answer. A Status Conference is set for June 8, 2023 at 1:30 PM via Zoom to discuss next steps.
IT IS SO ORDERED.