Ayla Erler v. Yashar Erler
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10361
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ayla Erler, a Turkish immigrant, was sponsored by husband Yashar via Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support) when she immigrated in 2008; the affidavit promises support to maintain the immigrant at ≥125% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for the immigrant’s household size.
- Ayla and Yashar separated in March 2011 and divorced in May 2012; a premarital agreement and the divorce judgment waived spousal support.
- After separation Ayla lived with her adult son Dogukan, who pays household expenses and earns about $3,200/month; Ayla reports no earned income since separation.
- Ayla sued Yashar in district court to enforce the I-864; the district court held the I-864 survived divorce but credited Dogukan’s income, finding no breach by Yashar and granting summary judgment for Yashar.
- The Ninth Circuit majority affirms that the I-864 obligation survives divorce but reverses the district court’s method of measuring post-separation household size and income, and remands for further factual work on Ayla’s income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a premarital agreement or divorce judgment terminates the I-864 obligation | Erler: Federal I-864 survives divorce; plaintiff seeks enforcement | Yashar: Premarital agreement/divorce judgment eliminate obligation | Court: I-864 is a federal contract; divorce/premarital agreement do not terminate it — obligation survives |
| How to measure household size for a sponsored immigrant post-separation | Erler: Sponsor must support immigrant alone (household size = sponsored immigrants) | Yashar: Court should count actual household members and their income (credit third-party income) | Court: Use household size equal to number of sponsored immigrants living together; do not include non-sponsored household members |
| Whether third-party household members’ income may be credited against sponsor’s obligation | Erler: Disregard income of non-sponsored household members; sponsor only contracted to support sponsored immigrant(s) | Yashar: Credit Dogukan’s income so no breach occurred | Court: Do not consider income of non‑sponsored household members when measuring whether sponsor met 125% threshold |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the record | Erler: District court misapplied measurement rule; factual issues (food stamps, Turkish pension) remain | Yashar: Even excluding Dogukan, Ayla’s benefits/pension might meet 125% level | Court: Vacate summary judgment for Yashar; remand for district court to determine Ayla’s income (treatment of benefits/pension) |
Key Cases Cited
- Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2012) (federal affidavit-of-support creates a right of support separate from state divorce law)