17 F.4th 1048
11th Cir.2021Background
- Tatiana Kuznitsnyna and Klavdia Thomas signed Form I-864 affidavits to sponsor Valentin Belevich, promising to support him at 125% of the federal poverty line; DHS approved and Belevich received a visa.
- After return from Russia, the sponsors cut off support, obtained a protection-from-abuse order, and filed for divorce; Belevich was later criminally charged for abuse and child pornography.
- Belevich sued to enforce the I-864 affidavits; sponsors raised equitable defenses (unclean hands, anticipatory breach, equitable estoppel) and argued termination when Belevich became "subject to removal."
- The district court limited discovery on Belevich’s criminal charges, granted Belevich summary judgment on breach, and a jury awarded damages; sponsors appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit held that the statute, regulation, and I-864 text list exclusive terminating events and foreclose the sponsors’ equitable defenses, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non‑statutory equitable defenses (unclean hands, anticipatory breach, equitable estoppel) can terminate a sponsor’s I‑864 obligation | Belevich: No—statute/regulation/affidavit provide exclusive termination grounds; equitable defenses unavailable | Sponsors: Equity should allow termination based on beneficiary misconduct or anticipatory breach | Court: Defenses foreclosed; statute/regulation/affidavit list exclusive terminating events |
| Whether federal law or state contract law governs the scope and defenses to I‑864 obligations | Belevich: Federal statute and regulation govern scope and remedies | Sponsors: State contract/equitable doctrines can supply defenses | Court: Federal law governs; statute creates federal cause of action and defines terminating events |
Key Cases Cited
- Erler v. Erler, 824 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejected non‑statutory defenses to I‑864 obligations)
- Wenfang Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2012) (same)
- Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara Cnty., 563 U.S. 110 (2011) (contracts with government may incorporate statutory obligations)
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (2015) (private beneficiaries do not always gain enforcement rights under ordinary contract law)
- Indus. Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte GmbH, 141 F.3d 1434 (11th Cir. 1998) (textual exclusivity limits judicially created defenses)
- Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) (language like "including" signals illustrative lists)
- Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co. v. 6.04 Acres, 910 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2018) (equitable remedies can supplement statutes unless text forecloses them)