Nevarez v. Nevarez

664 F.Supp.3d 680

Liudmila NEVAREZ, Plaintiff, v. Ruben NEVAREZ, Defendant.

EP-22-CV-00442-DCG

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

Signed March 24, 2023

Gregory Hortman McLawsen, Sound Immigration, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.

Robert J. Perez, Attorney at Law, El Paso, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING JURISDICTION

DAVID C. GUADERRAMA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court ordered the parties to brief

(1) "whether this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this case—and, even if it may, whether it should;" and

(2) "whether this Court should stay this case until the [parties'] divorce proceedings are over."

Briefing Order, ECF No. 20, at 2.¹ Having reviewed the parties' submissions² and the applicable law, the Court concludes that it may and should exercise jurisdiction over this case, and that a stay is unwarranted.

I. BACKGROUND

The federal Immigration and Nationality Act lists several categories of aliens who are "ineligible to be admitted to the United States." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a). As relevant here, "[a]ny alien who . . . is likely at any time to become a public charge"—that is, who is likely to depend on public benefits for her subsistence³—is "inadmissible" to the United States. Id. § 1182(a)(4).

Certain aliens "seeking to immigrate to the United States based on their family ties" are presumptively inadmissible as a public charge unless one of several exceptions applies.⁴ For example, the public charge prohibition does not render a family-sponsored immigrant inadmissible if "the person petitioning for the alien's admission . . . has executed an affidavit of support"—also known as a "Form I-864" affidavit⁵—"with respect to such alien." 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii). An affidavit of support is a "contract between the sponsor" on one side "and both the United States Government and the sponsored immigrant" on the other⁶ whereby "the sponsor agrees to provide support to maintain the sponsored alien at an annual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line." Id. § 1183a(a)(1). "[A] sponsored alien" may bring "[a]n action to enforce an affidavit of support . . . against the sponsor in any appropriate court." Id. § 1183a(e).

Plaintiff Liudmila Nevarez alleges that her spouse, Defendant Ruben Nevarez, executed such an Affidavit of Support for her benefit. Compl., ECF No. 4, at 9; Aff. Support at 15-24. Plaintiff and Defendant are now estranged, Compl. at 2, 10, and Defendant has filed for divorce in state court, see Divorce Case Docket, ECF No. 23-2. The divorce proceedings currently remain pending. See Divorce Case Docket; Kubinski Decl., ECF No. 26-1, at 2.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant "has failed to provide [her] with the basic level of financial support [he] promised in the Affidavit of Support." Compl. at 2. Plaintiff therefore filed this federal lawsuit against Defendant to enforce that obligation. See generally id.

In his Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant asserted that "this Court has no jurisdiction over this matter" because "[t]here is a pending divorce proceeding in Texas State Court that has jurisdiction over the support issues between Plaintiff and Defendant." Answer, ECF No. 19, at 12. Because a federal court must "decide, sua sponte if necessary, whether it has jurisdiction before" reaching a case's merits, e.g., Filer v. Donley, 690 F.3d 643, 646 (5th Cir. 2012), the Court ordered the parties to brief Defendant's challenges to the Court's jurisdiction, see generally Briefing Order.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction. E.g., Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). A federal court "must presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction" unless "the party seeking the federal forum"—here, Plaintiff—proves that the court may permissibly exercise subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See id.

One potential basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction—and the only one available here⁷—is "federal question jurisdiction," which allows federal courts to adjudicate "civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. "Generally, a case arises under federal law only where a federal question is presented on the face of a well-pleaded complaint"—i.e., "a complaint that asserts the plaintiff's right to recovery based on federal law." La. Indep. Pharmacies Ass'n v. Express Scripts, Inc., 41 F.4th 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2022). Thus, "[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists when a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law." Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff maintains that her suit to enforce the Affidavit of Support arises under federal law, and that the Court therefore has federal question jurisdiction over her claims.⁸ Br., ECF No. 21, at 5; Compl. at 2. Although Defendant does not appear to dispute that Plaintiff's cause of action arises under federal law, see generally Resp., the Court must independently determine whether that is true, see, e.g., United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) ("[S]ubject-matter jurisdiction, because it involves a court's power to hear a case, can never be forfeited or waived.").

Courts have disagreed whether a suit to enforce an affidavit of support arises under federal law.⁹ It doesn't appear that the Fifth Circuit has yet decided that question.

This Court adopts the majority view that an action to enforce an affidavit of support arises under federal law, and that federal courts therefore have subject matter jurisdiction over such cases.¹⁰ Plaintiff invokes a federal statute—namely, 8 U.S.C. § 1183a—as the legal basis for her claim. See Compl. at 2; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(e) ("An action to enforce an affidavit of support . . . may be brought against the sponsor in any appropriate court . . . . by a sponsored alien, with respect to financial support."). "The right of support conferred by" that federal statute "exists apart from whatever rights [Plaintiff] might or might not have under [state] divorce law." Wenfang Liu v. Mund, 686 F.3d 418, 419-20 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, but for the federal statute creating the Affidavit of Support, the rights Plaintiff seeks to vindicate in this lawsuit would not exist.¹¹ Therefore, on its face, Plaintiff's Complaint "asserts [a] right to recovery based on federal law." See La. Indep. Pharmacies Ass'n, 41 F.4th at 478; see also, e.g., Al-Mansour, 2011 WL 345876, at *3 ("This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case [to enforce an affidavit of support] because [the plaintiff's] claim involves a federal statute.").

Courts reaching the opposite conclusion have reasoned that an action to enforce an affidavit of support is, at bottom, a breach of contract claim, and "[a] breach of contract claim is a creature of state law." See Winters, 2012 WL 13137011, at *4 (emphasis added).¹² Thus, say these courts, such actions "do[ ] not involve the validity, construction or effect of . . . federal law," and therefore do not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Id.

The Court respectfully disagrees. As the Eleventh Circuit has observed, federal law—namely, 8 U.S.C. § 1183a and its implementing regulations—"define the scope of the sponsors' obligations" under an affidavit of support; the contract itself merely "incorporates [the] statutory obligations and records the sponsors' agreement to abide by them." Belevich, 17 F.4th at 1051 (cleaned up).¹³ Thus, a suit to enforce an affidavit of support does "involve the validity, construction or effect of . . . federal law;" it does not merely "involve[ ] construction of [a] contract." Contra Winters, 2012 WL 13137011, at *4. Furthermore, the federal statute "gives the sponsored immigrant enforcement rights that he would not necessarily have under contract law." Belevich, 17 F.4th at 1051. This Court therefore agrees that "federal law, not state contract law, governs" the enforcement of an affidavit of support, id.,¹⁴ and that federal courts consequently have federal question jurisdiction over such enforcement actions.¹⁵

The fact that an affidavit of support is a contract between the sponsor and the U.S. Government—albeit one that the sponsored beneficiary also enjoys the statutory right to enforce—bolsters that conclusion.¹⁶ Ordinarily, "[o]bligations to . . . the United States under its contracts are governed exclusively by federal law," not state law. Univ. Tex. Sys. v. United States, 759 F.3d 437, 443 (5th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added). Thus, a beneficiary's suit to enforce a sponsor's obligations to her and the federal government under an affidavit of support arises under federal law and thus confers federal subject matter jurisdiction. Cf. Clem Perrin Marine Towing, Inc. v. Pan. Canal Co., 730 F.2d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1984) ("[F]ederal common law governs the construction of government contracts in the usual case, and there is federal question jurisdiction over cases arising under federal common law." (internal citations omitted)).

Moreover, the Winters court's conclusion that a claim for a breach of an affidavit of support arises under state law rather than federal law—even though "the contract itself was anticipated by a federal statute"—does not comport with Supreme Court precedent. See Winters, 2012 WL 13137011, at *4 (emphasis added). In Jackson Transit Authority, the Supreme Court stated that "suits to enforce contracts contemplated by federal statutes" may indeed "set forth federal claims," such that "private parties in appropriate cases may sue in federal court to enforce contractual rights created by" those statutes. Jackson Transit Auth. v. Loc. Div. 1285, 457 U.S. 15, 22, 102 S.Ct. 2202, 72 L.Ed.2d 639 (1982).¹⁷

"[T]he critical factor" when...