Background - Safa Motlagh (U.S. citizen) signed Form I-864 Affidavit of Support for Djaloliya Motlagh (Tajikistan citizen) before she entered the U.S.; they married in 2011 and have one minor child. - Divorce proceedings began in 2014; a five-day evidentiary hearing occurred between 2015–2016. - Trial court awarded Ms. Motlagh spousal support of $900/month for 24 months, ordered child custody to Ms. Motlagh, and barred either party from removing the child from the U.S. - The court ordered Ms. Motlagh to post a $100,000 surety bond to secure compliance with the travel restriction and stated each party is responsible for their own attorney fees. - The trial court found the I-864 obligation had been met for 2011–2016 (in part because Ms. Motlagh received gifts from her brother), but it did not ensure support for 2017 and beyond met the I-864 125% federal poverty-line requirement. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Whether trial court erred by not ordering I-864 support sufficient to reach 125% of FPL | Motlagh: court must enforce I-864 so her total income meets 125% FPL and should order specific performance for future years | Motlagh (sponsor): argued trial court’s spousal support satisfied obligations and court can use spousal support or specific enforcement | Court: remanded — trial court erred by not ensuring 2017 income meets 125% FPL; enforcement may be via spousal support, I-864 order, or combination; household size = one person for computation | | Whether trial court improperly commingled spousal support and I-864 enforcement | Motlagh: court impermissibly conflated equitable spousal support with separate federal contractual I-864 duties | Motlagh (sponsor): a divorce court may address support under state law without separate I-864 order | Court: no reversible error—reminded they are distinct but enforcement remedies can overlap; court must ensure ordered relief achieves I-864 minimum support | | Validity of $100,000 surety bond to prevent removal of child abroad | Motlagh: bond is unduly burdensome and unsupported by evidence | Motlagh (sponsor): bond justified by evidence of her ties abroad and evaluator’s concern about relocation | Court: affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion in ordering bond given record evidence | | Award of attorney fees under state law and 8 U.S.C. §1183a(c) | Motlagh: seeks fees under R.C. 3105.73 and federal statute for I-864 enforcement | Motlagh (sponsor): trial court denied state-law fees as equitable; court did not consider federal-fee claim | Court: affirmed denial of state-law fees; reversed in part for failure to consider attorney fees under 8 U.S.C. §1183a(c) and remanded for consideration | ### Key Cases Cited Shumye v. Fellecke, 555 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (I-864 creates an enforceable contract obligating sponsor to maintain sponsored immigrant at 125% of FPL) Davis v. U.S., 499 F.3d 590 (6th Cir.) (federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to enforce I-864; state courts may enforce in divorce proceedings) Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016) (household-size issues for I-864 enforcement when parties separate; guidance on calculating support post-separation) Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2011) (I-864 obligations survive divorce and can be enforced in state proceedings) Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio St.3d 415 (Ohio 1997) (trial courts have broad discretion in custody determinations) Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)