Whether the State Appellate Court's order invalidating the 'act of state' of the Philippines violates the act-of-state-doctrine and separation-of-powers

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The US Supreme Court for over a century thru its cases and guidance prohibits state and federal courts from invalidating official acts of sovereign states. This is called the “act of state doctrine.” Kirkpatrick v. Envi, ronmental Tectonics Corp., 493 U.S. 400 (1990). The Philippines as a sovereign state thru an official “act of state” declared that a Filipino with expired passport is allowed entry to his homeland, the Philippines. See Pet.App. D. The New York Appellate Court affirming the dismissal of the New York Supreme Court Queens County invalidated the “act of state” of the Philippines, by declaring that it is well settled that a valid(unexpired) passport is required for entry of a Filipino to his homeland. See Pet.App. A,B. 1. Whether the State Appellate Court’s order : that invalidates and defies the “act of state” of the Philippines (act of state of the Philippines allowing its own . Filipino citizens entry to his homeland with expired passport) is a violation of the “act of state doctrine” and the separation of powers provision as consistently ruled and upheld by the US Supreme Court? Pursuant to the separation of powers provision and act of state doctrine, the US Supreme Court consistently held that the “conduct of foreign affairs” belong to the “executive branch” and not to the “courts” and that because of this an “act of a state” (in this case the Philippine official act of allowing its own citizens ; . entry to his homeland with expired passports) becomes the “rule of decision of the courts” in the United States, li ; QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued and thus, the US Courts (state/federal) should not invalidate (in fact must uphold) such official act (of the Philippines) of a sovereign state. Banco Nacional de , Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., 493 U.S. 400 (1990). 2. Whether the US Supreme Court’s consistent rulings and guidance (on the act of state doctrine, separation of powers) still holds true, or can the State and Federal Courts now, after a century of consistent US Supreme Court rulings and guidance from the case of Underhill to Kirkpatrick, be allowed to mandate how “foreign relations” should be conducted? 3. Whether the US Supreme Court’s holding in American Airlines v. Wolens that under Federal Law an : Airlines’ own Statute of Limitations (incorporated by reference in an Airlines’ own ticket for any actions against the same Airline) is “Enforceable”, still holds true? 4. Whether the State Appellate Court’s refusal to “Enforce” Japan Airlines’ own two (2) yr Statute of Limitations (incorporated by reference in Japan Airlines’ own ticket for all actions against Japan Airlines), is a clear defiance of the Federal Law, US Constitution (Federal Preemption), and this Court’s precedent in the case of American Airlines v. Wolens?