USCA11 Case: 19-14668 Date Filed: 11/01/2021 Page: 1 of 12 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-14668 ____________________ VALENTIN BELEVICH, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KLAVDIA THOMAS & TATIANA KUZNITSNYNA, Defendants-Appellants, ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-01193-AKK ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. USCA11 Case: 19-14668 Date Filed: 11/01/2021 Page: 2 of 12 2 Opinion of the Court 19-14668 BRASHER, Circuit Judge: The question in this appeal is whether certain equitable de- fenses may excuse an immigrant’s sponsor from her financial obli- gation to support the immigrant under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a. Tatiana Kuznitsnyna and her daughter, Klavdia Thomas, sponsored Kuz- nitsnyna’s husband, Valentin Belevich, for admission into the United States by executing Form I-864 affidavits, which the Depart- ment of Homeland Security approved. By signing these affidavits, the sponsors promised the United States that they would support Belevich at 125% of the poverty income level if the United States granted Belevich a visa. After Belevich immigrated from Russia, the sponsors cut off all financial support and accused him of sexually abusing Thomas’s six-year-old daughter. Belevich sued to enforce their obligations, and the sponsors raised the affirmative defenses of unclean hands, anticipatory breach, and equitable estoppel. The district court re- jected those defenses as a matter of law and awarded damages to Belevich. The sponsors argue that the district court erred in rejecting their defenses. We hold that these defenses are foreclosed by the statute and regulation that govern the Form I-864 affidavit, as well as the text of the affidavit itself. Accordingly, we affirm. I. BACKGROUND USCA11 Case: 19-14668 Date Filed: 11/01/2021 Page: 3 of 12 19-14668 Opinion of the Court 3 Federal law provides that “[a]ny alien who . . . is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.” 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A). A family-based immigrant is presumptively likely to become a public charge. See 8 C.F.R. § 213a.2(a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(2)(i). But that presumption can be overcome if a sponsoring relative ex- ecutes an “affidavit of support.” Id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii), (a)(4)(D). In that Form I-864 affidavit, the sponsor promises the United States that he or she will support the immigrant “at an an- nual income that is not less than 125 percent of the Federal poverty line.” 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(1)(A). Kuznitsnyna and Thomas co-sponsored the immigration of Kuznitsnyna’s husband, Belevich, and signed Form I-864 affidavits. The affidavits said that their obligation to support Belevich would terminate if he became a citizen, worked forty quarters, no longer had lawful permanent resident status and departed the United States, attained a new affidavit of support, or died. The affidavit also said that “divorce does not terminate your obligations under this Form I-864.” The Department of Homeland Security approved the affidavits and, because of the promised financial support, granted Belevich a visa. Belevich and Kuznitsnyna lived together in the United States for several years. While Belevich …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals