Wenfang Liu v. Timothy Mund
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14223
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mund signed an I-864 affidavit agreeing to support Liu at 125% of the poverty level for permanent residence, even if they divorced.
- Mund and Liu divorced; Wisconsin court ordered Mund to support Liu for one year, contingent on Liu proving she had not found work despite applying to jobs.
- Mund refused to provide support under the I-864; Liu filed a federal suit to enforce the affidavit in the Wisconsin federal district court.
- The district court held Liu was not entitled to support during a 160-day window because she hadn’t actively sought work.
- Question presented concerns whether a sponsor has a duty to mitigate damages in enforcing the I-864; statute confers rights on third-party beneficiaries but is silent on mitigation.
- The court discusses whether imposing a duty to mitigate would advance or frustrate the statute’s goals and the governing policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to mitigate for I-864 beneficiaries | Liu has no duty to mitigate under the federal obligation. | Imposing mitigation aligns with statutory goals and should be allowed. | No duty to mitigate is imposed on the sponsored immigrant. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276 (7th Cir. 2009) (recognizes federal court as proper forum for enforcement actions under I-864)
- Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 131 S. Ct. 1342 (U.S. 2011) (private-right-of-action analysis; not applicable to third-party beneficiary here)
- Love v. Love, 33 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (discussion of public charge and sponsorship goals)
- Prudential Ins. Co. v. Athmer, 178 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1999) (consideration of common-law principles versus statutory objectives)