Whether a state court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over a foreign marriage dissolution that has already been validly dissolved by a court in another nation, in potential violation of due process and judicial comity

No question identified. : 3. As shown by the opinion below, this case concerns the exercise and upholding of jurisdiction by the state courts of Texas to dissolve the foreign-made marriage of Dmitry and Luiza Nikolenko, after a prior, complete, and valid dissolution of that marriage by a court of competent jurisdiction in a foreign nation, the Russian Federation. Throughout the proceedings, Dmitry Nikolenko challenged the validity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, of a Texas court asserting subject matter jurisdiction over an already-dissolved foreign marriage between two aliens, Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner, a non-resident alien with no continuing contacts to the United States, also challenges the validity under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of Texas state court proceedings which deprived Dmitry Nikolenko of his liberty and property without due process, including the denial to Petitioner Dmitry Nikolenko of meaningful opportunity to participate personally in contest of the court proceedings; and his unfair treatment as a party litigant by the Texas court in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also concerns violations of the Supremacy Clause in the obstruction of national immigration and visa policy and impairment of judicial comity with foreign nations. 4. Petitioner’s counsel has identified five Questions to be Presented worthy of extensive research and argument to the Court. The case thus presents important questions under the Constitution of the United States which were determined adversely to Petitioner by the courts below. 5. The undersigned counsel has been retained as a new appellate attorney for purposes of appeal to this Court. Filing on December 7 would pose a challenge for undersigned counsel because of preexisting obligations to the federal judiciary and other courts. For example, the following matters before this Court and other federal and state appeals courts have competed for his time and attention: Preparation and filing of the petition for certiorari in this Court for Mark Sami Ibrahim v. United States, No. 23-459, docketed by the Clerk of the Court on November 1, 2023, and distributed for the Court’s conference on December 1, 2023; Preparation and presentation of the two-hour TRT CLE course on the topic of federal criminal appeals, recorded on October 2, 2023: Preparation and assistance as retained appellate counsel in anticipation of attendance at trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, originally scheduled for the week of November 6, 2023, in the case of United States v. Christopher Warnagiris, No. 21-CR-00382 (PLF), and now rescheduled to begin on January 22, 2024; Preparation and filing of the Appellant's opening brief and accompanying Record Excerpts, due December 6, 2023, in the Fifth Circuit case of Cassandra Lea Sanchez v. Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc., No. 23-40536; Preparation for oral argument before a panel of the Fifth Circuit in the first full week of January 2024 (specific day yet to be determined) in the case of United States v. Antonio Wiley, No. 23-60068; Preparation of the appellee brief to be filed no later than December 28, 2023, in the Mississippi Supreme Court case of Michelle Bagnaud v. Jamie A. Begnaud, after filing of the Appellant brief expected on November 28, 2023, in case No. 2023-CA-00822; Preparation to assist, advise, and possibly attend at a sentencing hearing to be scheduled sometime in January 2024 in the case of United States v. Francisco Javier Pineda, No. 4:21-CR-299 (E.D. Tex.), in anticipation of the retained appeal from the judgment and conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit: and Other family and business matters that counsel must address. Counsel will require additional time to familiarize himself with the Texas divorce court record (including exhibits and transcripts of testimony) and to per