Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Man Might Not Have to Pay Alimony at 125% of Poverty Level
Husband, as Sponsor for Alien Wife, Agreed to Provide for Her; Panel Says Her Earnings Must Be Taken Into Account
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has reversed an order requiring a man to pay his wife, the respondent in a divorce action, $1,569 a month, without taking into account her need, basing the sum on his agreement, as a condition of the woman being admitted to the U.S., to provide maintenance at no less than 125 percent of the poverty level.
The issue in the case “appears to be one of first impression in California,” Acting Presiding Justice Maurice Sanchez said in an opinion filed Friday.
The appellant is nurse-practitioner Sunday Adeyeye, a U.S. citizen. After he married Adebukola Faramaye, a Nigerian citizen, he executed under oath, in support of a petition seeking permanent residency for her, a United States Citizenship and Immigration Service form I-864. The document obligated him, as her sponsor, to “[p]rovide the intending immigrant any support necessary to maintain…her at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for his or her household size....”
San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Christian Towns on May 21, 2024, ordered Adeyeye to pay Faramaye spousal support, rejecting the husband’s protest that his wife was, by virtue of her earnings, decidedly above the poverty level, then set at $18,825 per annum. She had garnered $57,900 in 2023.
Sanchez’s Opinion
Sanchez wrote that “[c]onsidering the plain language and statutory purpose of the I-864 affidavit,” the order must fall. He explained:
“The I-864 affidavit states Adeyeye had to provide “any support necessary to maintain” Faramaye “at an income that is at least 125 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines . . . .” (Italics added.) It does not impose an unconditional obligation to pay 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Rather, Adeyeye had to provide “any support necessary” to satisfy the minimal requirement, which necessarily requires consideration of Faramaye’s income.”
The justice continued: “This interpretation is consistent with the clear statutory purpose behind the I-864 affidavit, which is to prevent the sponsored immigrant from becoming a public charge. An interpretation that ignores the sponsored immigrant’s own income and requires payment of the full 125 percent amount in all cases would impose a greater burden than contemplated and is not supported by the language of the I-864 affidavit.”
Case Remanded
Sanchez declared:
“For the foregoing reasons, we remand for the trial court to consider Faramaye’s income in determining whether, and to what extent, she is entitled to support under the I-864 affidavit. Adeyeye is required to pay the difference, if any, between Faramaye’s income and 125 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.”
Towns had found that Adeyeye was contractually obligated to pay Faramaye support at 125% of the poverty level because none of the five circumstances, specified by the Code of Federal Regulations as a ground for terminating support—such as the immigrant leaving the U.S.—exists.
“While these five circumstances
concern the termination of a sponsor’s obligations,” Sanchez said,
they do not address what, if anything, the sponsor owes to maintain the
sponsored immigrant at an annual income that is at least 125 percent of the
federal poverty guidelines.”
The case is Adeyeye v. Faramaye, G064553.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company