Whether the parties’ marriage was fraudulent; Enforceability of the I-864 Affidavit of Support; 8 USC §§ 1183a(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), & (a)(3); 8 CFR § 213a(e)(2)(j); Mao v Bright (SD OH); Whether divorce terminates an immigration sponsor’s financial obligation; I-130 petition; 8 USC § 1186a(b); Ranjit Singh v United States (ND OH) (Unpub); Matter of P Singh (BIA); Matter of Monroe (BIA); Annulment; Gillett v Gillett; Judgment of divorce (JOD); Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

The court held that the trial court did not err by declining to find that the parties’ marriage was based on fraud perpetrated by defendant-ex-husband to gain immigration benefits. The parties were married in 2015, and in 2018 defendant was approved for his green card. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff-ex-wife claimed, defendant told her he didn’t love her and only married her to get his green card. The trial court later granted the JOD, but declined to find the marriage was fraudulent. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that there was clear and convincing evidence that defendant fraudulently induced her to marry him, and that the trial court erred by not issuing such a finding. “The issue of defendant’s motives for marrying came down to a classic he said-she said credibility contest, with no witnesses or documentation supporting either party’s positions. Plaintiff’s protestations regarding defendant’s marital motives, relying entirely on her own account of events, do not leave us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made.” The court also declined plaintiff’s requests that the court: (1) find her to be relieved of her obligations under the I-864 based on a fraudulent marriage, and 2) find the marriage should be annulled and the JOD amended to stand as an annulment, noting it would not declare her “entitled to a remedy that is without legal underpinning.” It first found that “no matter what the trial court had included in the [JOD], plaintiff remains obligated under the I-864 that she signed, except through one of the five events stated in” § 213a.2(e)(2)(i). Plaintiff failed to establish that she qualified for any of them. As to her request for remand for an annulment, the court noted that “[b]ecause marital status does not factor into any of” the five bases under § 213a.2(e)(2)(i), “changing the divorce to an annulment would not provide plaintiff with the relief that she is seeking.” As such, “declining to consider this issue further would not result in manifest injustice, nor is consideration of it necessary for a proper determination of this case.” Affirmed.