Kornilova v. Henderson
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:21-cv-04516
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Kornilova v. Henderson, Judge Van Keulen granted Henderson’s dismissal motion because the complaint failed to allege the required income shortfall and repeated a previously litigated issue.
The ruling directly affected Alisa Kornilova’s claim against Darryl Lance Henderson to enforce the Form I-864 affidavit of support. The court granted Henderson’s motion to dismiss but allowed Kornilova a final opportunity to amend under the stated conditions.
What happened
Alisa Kornilova sued Darryl Lance Henderson, alleging that he failed to provide support required by an immigration sponsorship affidavit. Henderson sponsored Kornilova and her mother and signed the affidavit on October 22, 2018. His dismissal motion was unopposed.
The court ruled that it had authority to hear the claim, but found that the complaint did not allege that Kornilova’s income fell below the required 125 percent of the federal poverty line. The court also ruled that the support issue had already been litigated and dismissed the complaint on that basis. It did not address Henderson’s separate argument that the federal court could not review the state-court decision.
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted the motion to dismiss. The court gave Kornilova one final opportunity to amend if she had a reasonable, good-faith belief that the prior-litigation rule did not apply. If no amended complaint was received by February 18, 2022, the case would be dismissed with prejudice on that date.
The detailed version
- Kornilova v. Henderson · No. 5:21-cv-04516
- Susan Van Keulen
- Dec. 27, 2021
Background
Alisa Kornilova alleged that Darryl Lance Henderson breached an obligation to support her under a Form I-864 affidavit of support that he filed in connection with her immigration to the United States. The opinion states that Henderson sponsored Kornilova and her mother and signed a Form I-864 listing Kornilova as a beneficiary on October 22, 2018. Kornilova alleged that Henderson later left her and her mother without means of subsistence. She also alleged that she depended entirely on her mother’s earnings, which were insufficient for day-to-day expenses and extracurricular activities.
Henderson filed an unopposed motion to dismiss. After an initial service problem, he re-served the motion on November 2, 2021, and Kornilova again filed no response. The court nevertheless treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and decided the motion based on Henderson’s arguments.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected Henderson’s argument that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(e), a sponsored immigrant may sue to enforce an affidavit of support in an appropriate court. The court concluded that this federal-law claim came within its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The court nevertheless concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim. An I-864 sponsor agrees to provide support sufficient to maintain the sponsored immigrant at an annual income of at least 125 percent of the federal poverty line while the affidavit is enforceable. The court found that Kornilova’s allegations did not state that her income was below that specific threshold.
The court also considered Henderson’s argument that the claim was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which generally concerns federal-court review of state-court judgments. The court took notice of an April 15, 2021 Santa Clara County Superior Court order concerning Henderson’s obligations under the I-864 affidavit toward Kornilova and her mother. Because the support issue had previously been litigated, the court ruled that the action could be dismissed under res judicata, a rule generally barring relitigation of an issue or claim already resolved. The court dismissed the complaint on that ground and stated that it therefore did not need to address the Rooker-Feldman argument.
Disposition
The court granted the motion to dismiss. Kornilova had not requested permission to amend, but the court offered one final opportunity to amend if she had a reasonable, good-faith belief that res judicata did not apply. The deadline to file an amended complaint was February 4, 2022. The court stated that, if it did not receive an amended complaint by February 18, 2022, the case would be dismissed with prejudice on that date. Judge Susan Van Keulen signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.