Attorney sues to overturn VAWA!!!!!

[tristan]

This is fantastic news!!!  Tomorrow, February 14, 2008, an attorney in NYC will deliver a spectacular Valentine's Day gift to kneejerk feminists.

Roy Den Hollander, who recently brought a class action suit against various nightclubs for discriminating against men during Ladies Nights, will file a federal lawsuit against VAWA tomorrow!

Roy sent me a copy of his press release and it is copied below.  I spoke to Roy recently in an attempt to solicit him to sue IMBRA, but he said he had bigger fish to fry.  And does he!

Congratulations, Roy!  You are a real American!

ROY DEN HOLLANDER
Federal lawsuit charges parts of the Violence against Women Act are unconstitutional.

Attorney Roy Den Hollander filed on Valentine’s Day, February 14th, a suit in the U.S. Southern District Court of N.Y. attacking sections of the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) and other U.S. statutes for violating the Constitutional rights of American men who marry alien females. 

The defendants are the United States of America, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive Office of Immigration Review.  Roy Den Hollander is the sole plaintiff. 

The VAWA infringes American men’s rights to freedom of speech, freedom of choice in marital relationships, right of access to deportation proceedings, procedural due process, and equal protection under the law in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The unconstitutional statutes, enacted at the behest of the feminist lobby, create a fast track to permanent U.S. residency and citizenship for alien wives or ex-wives of American husbands whenever the alien female alleges abuse.  Once she mentions the magic words “battery” or “extreme cruelty”, the Government institutes secret, “Star Chamber” immigration proceedings to determine whether the citizen husband is responsible, and, if yes, grants the alien female permanent U.S. residency.  The American husband or ex-husband receives no notice of the proceedings, has no opportunity to defend his name, and the Government’s findings of abuse are based almost exclusively on what the alien female says. 

The feminist lobby created the statutes in order to deter American men from looking overseas for wives.  If a man’s marriage to his foreign wife doesn’t workout, the alien female can accuse him of “battery” or “extreme cruelty” and he will have no opportunity to prove his innocence.  The husband is barred from the proceedings that are conducted behind closed doors and any evidence that the Government might receive from him is discarded.  So not only is the husband presumed guilty, but he’s not even allowed to prove differently.

The feminists didn’t create these statutes out of bleeding hearts for alien wives but to intimidate American men into shopping at home for wives.  If an American wife accuses her husband of abuse, he at least gets his day in court and the abuse has to fit specific legal definitions.  But under the VAWA, a husband can be found guilty of “battery” and “extreme cruelty” for anything from an “offensive” remark to felony assault.   
 
While the VAWA wouldn’t send an American man to jail or fine him—not yet anyway, his rights are violated with impunity and his reputation destroyed.  Both his alien wife or ex-wife and certain feminist groups can release what happened in the secret proceedings, and in New York State, the husband will have no recourse to a defamation, false light or prima facie tort cause of action no matter how false or harmful the accusations against him. 
        
Even terrorists have more rights than American men accused of abuse by their alien wives.

[Luna]

Very good news indeed! VAWA like IMBRA are wrong on many levels, the most elemental being their sheer unconstitutionality. I believe wholeheartedly they can be defeated. These regulations are anti-American and do not represent the mindset of the men and women of this country. Great momentum.

[frank johnson]

This is great news Tristan. Please send the link to his press release when you have it so that I can send it to a couple of places. Good news deserves to travel fast.

I imagine Layli and the "volunteer$" won't be getting much sleep tonight. Ha Ha Ha

Hopefully Roy doesn't plan on flying anytime soon especially on the Bahai Expre$$.

[frank johnson]

"Even terrorists have more rights than American men accused of abuse by their alien wives."

And even less than that when accused of abuse by Bahai Faith lyin' feminists with agenda$

[bugman7]

Luna: Welcome to the Online Dating Rights website and its good to have another person contributing to our cause and fight to overturn IMBRA. Its a noble fight indeed.

Yes you have brought out the fact that VAWA and IMBRA are wrong on many levels. It allows the government to regulate and control the loves lives and communication between consenting adults and sets the stage for more government intervention for the future.

The lawsuit being filed against VAWA is important because under VAWA foreign immigrant women can file abuse charges "without their husbands knowledge and consent". On the surface the proponents of this law suggest this is a ostensible good measure but there's a ominous twist. Because these women can file without their husbands consent they are filing false abuse charges in exchange for a green card and they don't have to prove anything. Strictly on the immigrants word the foreign lady immigrant gets a free green card while here American sponsor citizen gets a Federal file for life.

This green card scam is very apparent. The New York Times reported  In 1998,

fewer than 2,500 foreign women applied to become permanent residents under the Violence Against Women Act (of which IMBRA is a part) which allows abused wives to apply for residence without the support of their husbands. In the fiscal year that ended in September, 2006 there were 9,500  that applied

.

That's a 400 per cent increase. The paper quotes the INS saying some 37,500 women entered the country last year on fiancee visas or temporary visas for spouses of American citizens -- up 50 percent from three years before.

But the truth reveals the overwhelming majority(of the 9500 abused brides mentioned above) of these so called abused spouses are not abused at all. Whats even more frightening is the fact that Women Advocacy groups want to use these fraudulent statistics to get out corrupt legislators to regulate marriage and correspondence based upon these false and misleading statistics.

An article written by Bonnie Erbe (a Women Rights Activists) claims the US should ban the practice of Mail order brides because of the epidemic of abuse cited in her article. Click on this link for her article.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061022/ai_n16800315

Its time for American men and women to stand up for our rights to date marry and romance a person of our choosing. If we don';t stand up and fight Tahirih now we loose these rights forever. Let's start an action plan now.

[tristan]

Frank,

I have no link to the news release as it was sent to me by Roy via email.

I will post further details as I obtain them.

[Taylor]

This is very good news.  There is no doubt that the feminists promoted IMBRA to force men to marry domestically.  They know perfectly well that a large number of foreign women are simply using American men via these international matchmaking agencies to gain citizenship in the United States.

[frank johnson]

"They know perfectly well that a large number of foreign women are simply using American men"

And the proof of that is what? The high 90 % success rate of these marriages? How many is a "large number?"

Don't buy into that feminist propaganda myth which is designed to persuade men not to marry foreign women.

Granted there are always one or two bad apples but they usually stand out like a sore thumb. The overwhelming MAJORITY of foreign women are very honest and sincere in their intentions.

Of course if you want to avoid golddiggers or women who only want you so they can use you, I'm sure you will be perfectly happy with American women. They are much more sincere, honest and faithful than any foreign woman could ever hope to be. American women are only concerned with your character and NEVER how you look or how much money you have!

Any feminist can tell you that marriage with a feminist is the way to go if you really want to be happy.

I think Taylor would be happy if International Friendship Services were forced to do background checks of their female members to see if they have criminal records or worse yet psychological tendencies to "use men" to get a green card. I'm sure it would be very "easy" to do in a foreign country and even easier when these places hear from dozens if not hundreds of ladies every day!

Besides this is already planned for IMBRA 2 - Revenge of the Bahais.

Or as one American man said "I'd rather marry a foreign golddigger prostitute than an American feminist."

[tristan]

Here is the Complaint in three parts, also posted in Downloads.  The last paragraph is a zinger and it reads:

151. In practice and intent, the Violence Against Women Act and certain sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and Immigration and Nationality Act create a process by which the Constitutional rights of American men who take or consider taking foreign wives are violated in order to rectify the feminists inability to make American men love them.

Tristan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
Roy Den Hollander
Plaintiff, Docket No. 08 CV 01521(WHP)
-against- COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY RELIEF
United States of America,
Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service)
of the Department of Homeland Security, and
Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review
of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
I. Introduction and Summary
1. This action seeks a judgment declaring that certain provisions of the Violence Against
Women Act (“VAWA”), the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act (“IIRIRA”), and the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) on their face, as
applied, or their intended purposes, unconstitutionally abridged the plaintiff’s rights to
freedom of speech, freedom of choice in marital relationships, right of access to deportation
proceedings, procedural due process, and equal protection under the law in violation of the
First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
2. The plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated by the statutorily created process by which
the defendants (“Government”) grant permanent U.S. residency to the alien wives (the terms
“wives” and “wife” also refer to ex-wives and ex-wife) of U.S. citizen husbands (the terms
“husbands” and “husband” also refer to ex-husbands and ex-husband) through a secretive
“Star Chamber” type proceeding evoked solely on the unsubstantiated allegations by the
alien wife that the citizen husband abused her.
3. While the process can also grant permanent residency to alien husbands of U.S. citizen
wives, it is intended, geared toward, and overwhelmingly used by alien wives—aided by
private feminist organizations—against U.S. citizen husbands.
4. The process as enacted into law was created by feminist organizations to provide alien wives
alleging abuse a fast track to permanent residency by violating the Constitutional rights of
citizen husbands.
5. The laws creating the process are bills of attainder meant to punish American men for going
overseas to find wives.
2
6. Once an alien wife merely alleges abuse by a U.S. citizen husband, the IIRIRA, codified as 8
U.S.C. § 1367(a)(2), drops a curtain of secrecy over immigration proceedings by prohibiting
the disclosure of any information to the U.S. citizen husband concerning allegations of and
Government findings that he committed “battery” or “extreme cruelty” against his alien wife.
7. Behind the Star Chamber curtain, the alien wife, femininst advocates, and profit-driven
immigration attorneys are free to submit irrelevant, untrustworthy, hearsay, character trait,
and even fabricated information of criminal and non-criminal conduct by the U.S. citizen
husband because there is no one to refute their statements nor attack their credibilty.
8. Virtually any lie, prevarication or dissemblance is used for showing “battery” or “extreme
cruelty” under the Orwellian newspeak terminology “credible evidence” as set forth in 8
U.S.C. § 1154(a)(1)(J), 8 C.F.R. § 204.2(c)(1)(iv), 61 Fed. Reg. 13,066, and Virtue INS
Memorandum, 76 Interpreter Releases 162, 168-169 (1999).
9. “Credible evidence” means whatever Government officials decide it to mean. Id.
10. The primary “credible evidence,” and often times the only evidence, relied on by the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and the Executive Office for Immigration
Review (“EOIR”) in finding the citizen husband guilty1 of “battery” and “ extreme cruelty” is
an affidavit by the alien wife that was prepared by her immigration attorney, which goes
unchallenged as to her strong motive to lie in order to stay in America.
11. The U.S. citizen husband receives no notice of the Government proceedings that inevitably
destroy his reputation and forever fix in Government records a false evil image of him that he
had no opportunity to refute.
12. The Government records can be widely disseminated by his alien wife or self-interested
feminists organization for which he will have no defamation, prima facie or false light causes
of action in New York State.
13. In case the U.S. citizen husband happens to provide the USCIS or the EOIR with relevant,
trustworthy, and non-hearsay evidence of the type admissible in a court of law that counters
the alien wife’s fabricate tales of “battery” and “extreme cruelty,” the law requires officials
to ignore the husband’s evidence unless the Government acquires independent corroboration.
8 U.S.C. 1367(a)(1)(A), Virtue INS Memorandum, 74 Interpreter Releases 795 (1997).
14. While the labels “battery” and “extreme cruelty” evoke visions of Visigoth brutality, the
standards used by the Government are so overbroad and unspecific as to include not just
violent acts but also non-violent2 and even acts of kindness.
1 The word guilty means responsibility for a crime or responsibility for a civil wrong. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th
ed. 1999.
2 “Extreme cruelty” can include insulting an alien wife at home or in public. VAWA Manual for Immigration Relief
for Abused Immigrants, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, pp.1-6 (2002).
3
15. The Government refuses to establish even a partial list of acts constituting “battery” and
“extreme cruelty” for fear of “misinterpretation,” 61 Fed. Reg. 13,061, 13,066, which opens
the door to arbitrary decision making by the Government, something the Founding Fathers
thought abhorrent.
16. The preferential treatment provided allegedly abused alien wives in derogation of the rights
of U.S. husbands, and in the case of the plaintiff, occur throughout three procedures by which
the alien wife acquires permanent residency: (1) self-petition, (2) cancellation of deportation
proceeding, if such a proceeding is pending, and (3) adjustment of status.
II. The Alien Wife’s Path to Permanent Residency
17. The path to permanent U.S. residency for an alien wife alleging domestic abuse by her
citizen husband requires her to submit a “self-petition” for immediate relative classification
pursuant to the VAWA, codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(A)(iii).
18. In situations where the USCIS has already started deportation proceedings (euphemistically
called “removal”) against the alien wife, she will apply for cancellation of the deportation
proceeding pursuant to the VAWA, codified in 8 U.S.C. §1229b(b)(2).
19. If the alien wife admitted to engaging in crimes of moral turpitude, such as tax evasion, or to
previously working as a prostitute or procurer or in commercialized vice, the USCIS or EOIR
will not deport her so long as she claims her conduct was connected to having been abused
and deportation would cause her “extreme hardship.” Id.
20. The USCIS or EOIR will also cancel deportation proceedings of an alien wife claiming abuse
even though she committed marriage fraud or made misrepresentations to gain admission to
the U.S. if her acts were connected to having been abused and she claims deportation would
cause her “extreme hardship.” VAWA, codified in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(2) & 1182(i).
21. “Extreme hardship” is an overbroad and vague standard that is left to officials of the USCIS
and EOIR to decide. It can include alleged psychological effects of the claimed abuse, or the
alien wife’s asserted need for social services available in America but not reasonably
accessible in her home country, or even the husband’s ability to travel to his wife’s home
country.
22. After cancellation of any deportation proceeding, the allegedly abused, alien wife will apply
to change her status from a temporary resident to a permanent resident pursuant to the
VAWA, codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a).
III. Facts Pertaining to the Plaintiff.
23. In 2000, the plaintiff finished working in Moscow, Russia as Acting Manager of Kroll
Associates’ operations in the former Soviet Union.
4
24. In March, the plaintiff married Alina (a.k.a. Angelina) Alexandrovna Shipilina (a.k.a.
Chipilina) in Krasnodar, Russia, a city of over one million, located near the Black Sea and
about 300 miles from Chechnya. Ms. Shipilina uses the name “Angelina Shipilina” in her
various occupations.
25. Ms. Shipilina received a temporary residency visa from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow in May
2000.
26. The plaintiff brought Ms. Shipilina to New York City in July 2000 where they lived as
husband and wife.
27. Over the objections of the plaintiff, Ms. Shipilina began working as a lap dancer at the strip
club Flash Dancers on Broadway in Times Square, New York City.
28. In August 2000, the plaintiff became suspicious of Ms. Shipilina’s involvement in
prostitution when she began secretly contacting Flash Dancers’ customers.
29. At the time, Ms. Shipilina continued to secretly slip narcotics into the plaintiff’s meals in
order to deter him from learning about her hidden Russian and Chechen mafia activities and
connections3.
30. She had begun surreptitiously feeding the plaintiff narcotics months earlier so as to assure
marriage to the plaintiff and entry into America. The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation
tested the type of narcotics believed used but refused to provide the results to the plaintiff.
31. In October 2000, the plaintiff learned that Ms. Shipilina worked as a prostitute and had used
her marriage to him to gain access to the lucrative sex market in America where a few hours
of time returns the average monthly income of a family in Russia.
32. The plaintiff advised Ms. Shipilina to obtain counsel, since he was going to seek an
annulment or a divorce.
33. At the end of October 2000, Ms. Shipilina’s attorney advised the plaintiff to swear to a
fraudulent affidavit for the USCIS (at that time the Immigration and Naturalization Service)
that the marriage lasted longer than it did, Ms. Shipilina did not enter into the marriage to
gain admission to the U.S., she was of good moral character, and the plaintiff would sponsor
her for permanent residency. The plaintiff refused.
34. To pressure the plaintiff into signing a fraudulent affidavit and to fabricate an alternative
means to permanent residency using the VAWA abused wife route, Ms. Shipilina filed a
3 The plaintiff learned some time later from Russian Military Intelligence and other sources the extent of Ms.
Shipilina’s involvement in Russian and Chechen organized crime, which included her working as a mistress to the
Chechen warlord Ruslan Labazanov when she was a teenager.
5
complaint with the 114th Police Precinct in Queens falsely stating the plaintiff had threaten
her and tried to extort money from her.
35. In December 2000, Ms. Shipilina offered the plaintiff a monetary reward for complying with
her attorney’s request to provide a false affidavit to the USCIS in order for her to obtain
permanent residency. The plaintiff refused.
36. On January 31, 2001, Ms. Shipilina obtained a temporary order of protection based on false
testimony in an ex parte court proceeding at the Queens Family Court. The Order was
dismissed for failure to prosecute in July 2001.
37. The Order falsely accused the plaintiff of aggravated harassment in the second degree,
harassment in the first degree, harassment in the second degree, menacing in the second
degree, menacing in the third degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree,
attempted assault, disorderly conduct, reckless endangerment, stalking in the first degree,
stalking in the second degree, stalking in the third degree, and stalking in the fourth degree.
38. In February 2001, the plaintiff filed for an annulment or, alternatively, a divorce to which
Ms. Shipilina’s attorney responded with false accusations of the plaintiff beating his wife and
the false accusation of extortion.
39. A divorce settlement was finalized without trial in December 2000 following a telephone
threat to the plaintiff by a man, apparently an organized crime associate of Ms. Shipilina.
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation knows the identification of the threatener, but it has
refused to provide his identification to the plaintiff, citing privacy concerns of the threatener.
40. The plaintiff provided evidence to the USCIS office at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow on some
of Ms. Shipilina’s violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
41. USCIS at the Embassy requested additional information for a deportation proceeding which
the plaintiff provided with the result of two more threatening telephone calls to the plaintiff
from the same individual that had threatened him into settling the annulment and divorce
proceeding.
42. The purpose of the threatening calls was to prevent the plaintiff from providing further
information to the USCIS for its deportation proceeding against Ms. Shipilina.
43. The plaintiff provided the USCIS over a period of time the following:
a. 130 pages of Ms. Shipilina’s handwritten diary;
b. a private investigator’s report confirming that Ms. Shipilina worked at the
Limasol, Cyprus brothels “Zygos” and “Tramps” in 1999;
c. a private investigator’s affidavit that when Ms. Shipilina worked as a stripper at
the “Gentlemen’s Club” in Mexico City in 1999, the strippers engaged in
prostitution;
d. documents showing that Ms. Shipilina had been arrested at the Gentlemen’s Club
in Mexico City, jailed and deported under armed guard back to Russia in 1999;
6
e. summaries of interviews with Ms. Shipilina’s former Krasnodar procurer and her
former Moscow procurer, both of whom confirmed she worked as a call girl;
f. promotional clips from Ms. Shipilina’s masturbation video that her former
Moscow procurer produced and marketed;
g. full frontal and back nude photographs that Ms. Shipilina’s former Moscow
procurer used to advertise her sexual services;
h. two letters from Ms. Shipilina to her former Moscow procurer requesting work
when she returned to Russia from Cyprus;
i. summaries of interviews conducted by the plaintiff and his attorneys in Krasnodar
and Moscow with various individuals who knew of Ms. Shipilina’s prostitution;
j. a partial list of Ms. Shipilina’s prostitution clients in Cyprus, Mexico, and Italy
for 1999 and 2000;
k. Ms. Shipilina’s work schedules at Flash Dancers;
l. annulment and divorce proceeding documents that include Ms. Shipilina’s
perjured net worth statement and an income tax filing by which she evaded U.S.
and New York State and City income taxes and lied about her occupation;
m. summaries or transcripts of the threatening telephone calls received by the
plaintiff;
n. Ms. Shipilina’s voter registration records on which she falsely swore to being a
U.S. citizen; and
o. referral letters and documents that the Commissioners of the New York City
Board of Elections sent to the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York
and the Queens District Attorney about Ms. Shipilina’s Federal and State felony
of falsely claming citizenship.
44. The plaintiff also offered the USCIS three affidavits by residents of Krasnodar attesting to
Ms. Shipilina’s prostitution prior to her receiving a U.S. visa.
45. The USCIS deportation proceedings against Ms. Shipilina charged, on information and
belief:
a. falsely claiming U.S. Citizenship in registering to vote,
b. perjury in applying for a visa to live and work in America as a temporary resident,
c. marriage fraud,
d. prostitution,
e. procuring,
f. commercialized vice in the form of her masturbation video,
g. income tax evasion,
h. filing a fraudulent income tax return,
i. prior arrest and imprisonment as a result of her deportation from Mexico,
j. perjury before the New York State Supreme Court over her occupation and net
worth in the annulment and divorce case,
k. coercion and intimidation in arranging for the threatening telephone calls to the
plaintiff, and
l. tampering with a witness and obstructing the deportation proceeding by arranging
for threats against the plaintiff to stop providing the USCIS with information.
7
46. While the information provided by the plaintiff to the USCIS was intended for the
deportation proceeding, it should have been used to counter Ms. Shipilina’s credibility and to
call into question the veracity of the information provided by her, on information and belief,
that the plaintiff allegedly “battered” and subjected her to “extreme cruelty.”
47. Under 8 U.S.C. 1367(a)(1)(A), however, the USCIS and EOIR could not use any of the
evidence provided by the plaintiff in Ms. Shipilina’s VAWA proceedings because the
plaintiff was the one who handed it over.
48. For example, because the plaintiff had provided the present sense impression evidence of Ms.
Shipilina’s diary, the USCIS and EOIR, on information and belief, ignored it in evaluating
her credibility, but had Ms. Shipilina provided such as an exhibit to her affidavit, it would
have been considered primary evidence, which, of course, she didn’t because it would have
assured her deportation.
49. Had the Constitution not been suspended for the plaintiff, the diary and other evidence he
provided the USCIS would have countered the believability of Ms. Shipilina’s allegations of
“battery” and “extreme cruelty” by showing
a. she registered to vote by swearing to be a U.S. citizen while still an alien;
b. she committed marriage fraud in marrying the plaintiff so as to obtain entry into
the U.S.;
c. she worked for call girl operations in Moscow and Krasnodar, Russia;
d. she work as a prostitute and stripper in brothels in Cyprus and Mexico City;
e. she filed fraudulent income tax returns; and
f. she lacked good moral character as shown by her arrest at a Mexican strip club
and brothel and immediate deportation under guard from Mexico, her commercial
masturbation video, her trying to procure females for a Mexico City strip club, her
adultery, and her surreptitiously feeding the plaintiff narcotics.
50. In March 2007, the plaintiff came across a N.Y. Post article on the Internet from October
2006 about Ms. Shipilina working at the Hawaiian Tropic Zone restaurant in Times Square.

[tristan]

51. In order for Ms. Shipilina to legally work in the U.S., the deportation proceeding must have
failed as a result of her using the VAWA process for “abused” alien wives to acquire
permanent residency and the right to work in America.
52. The curtain of secrecy surrounding the VAWA process that Ms. Shipilina, on information
and belief, used to obtained permanent residency and to work legally in America requires
that some of the following factual allegations in this section be made “on information and
belief.”
53. On information and belief, the three steps by which Ms. Shipilina gained permanent
residency based on false allegations against the plaintiff of “battery” and “extreme cruelty”
consisted of
a. self-petitioning for immediate relative classification pursuant to VAWA, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1154(a)(A)(iii);
8
b. applying for cancellation of her deportation proceeding pursuant to VAWA, 8
U.S.C. §1229b(b)(2); and
c. applying for adjustment of status to permanent resident pursuant to VAWA, 8
U.S.C. § 1255(a).
54. Any or all of the three steps may have resulted in appeals to the USCIS Administrative
Appeals Office, the EOIR Immigration Courts or the EOIR Board of Immigration Appeals
but because of the secrecy surrounding proceedings concerning VAWA alien wives, the
plaintiff has not been able to determine whether any appeals were taken.
55. On information and belief, in the three steps to permanent residency, Ms. Shipilina submitted
USCIS form I-360; her accompanying affidavit; personal testimony; her attorney’s cover
letter; statements or affidavits or testimony by others, including feminist counselors; and
additional information allegedly demonstrating the plaintiff was guilty4 of “battery” and
“extreme cruelty.”
56. On information and belief, the USCIS and EOIR created documents and records based solely
on the information provided by Ms. Shipilina, her lawyer, and her feminist advocates, which
information was not only false and misleading as to “battery” and “extreme cruelty” by the
plaintiff, but was irrelevant, untrustworthy, unauthenticated, plagued by multiple hearsay,
lacked credibility, and included character trait evidence.
57. On information and belief, anonymous USCIS and EOIR officials failed to ascertain the truth
in making decisions that the plaintiff was guilty of “battery” and “extreme cruelty” because
the decisions were based solely on the information provided by Ms. Shipilina, her lawyer,
and her feminist advocates, which was not only false and misleading, but irrelevant,
untrustworthy, unauthenticated, plagued with multiple hearsay, lacked credibility, and
included character trait evidence.
58. On information and belief, the USCIS and EOIR’s ignoring of the plaintiff’s Constitutional
rights calls into question the integrity of truth seeking functions in determining whether alien
wives are actually abused.
59. In any proceedings by the USCIS and EOIR that found the plaintiff guilty of “battery” and
“extreme cruelty,” the plaintiff
a. received no notice of the proceeding,
b. had no opportunity to argue on his own behalf,
c. could not present evidence or witnesses,
d. could not confront and cross examine witnesses or evidence used against him, and
e. received no written decision with a statement of the reasons for that decision or
the weight provided the information on which the Government relied in reaching
its decision.
4 The extent of the wrong that the U.S. Government held the plaintiff responsible for is unknown, but the
misrepresentations could conceivably extend from an insult to a loud argument to demanding an annulment to
infliction of emotional distress without any physical manifestations to felony assault.
9
60. On information and belief, the anonymous decision makers in the USCIS and the EOIR
proceedings who decided that the plaintiff committed “battery” and “extreme cruelty” on his
alien wife could not have been neutral because they based their decisions on only one side of
the story and were uninformed as to all the relevant facts which resulted in them making an
arbitrary and erroneous decision.
IV. USCIS Vermont Service Center is biased against U.S. citizen husbands.
61. The Vermont Service Center for the USCIS has a small corps of officers that makes the
Service’s decisions concerning VAWA self-petitions, which means these officers decide
whether a citizen husband committed “battery” or “extreme cruelty” against his alien wife.
62. The VAWA Unit for the Vermont Service Center has been unduly influenced by a special
interest group biased against men and made up of a coalition of feminist organizations often
funded by taxpayer dollars under the VAWA or granted tax exemption by the Internal
Revenue Service.
63. On information and belief, some of the feminist organizations exerting undue influence on
the VAWA Unit are A.I.S.T.A., Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Catholic Legal
Immigration Network, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the
National Network on Behalf of Battered Immigrant Women.
64. Through administrative advocacy, training of VAWA officers, and provision of
informational materials by private feminist organizations, feminist influence has reached
such an extent that the VAWA Unit now operates as a virtual extension of the feminist
special interest group by making decisions that largely further the group’s anti-male agenda.
65. As Gail Pendleton of the National Immigration Project for the National Lawyers Guild says
“The Vermont VAWA supervisors are extremely sympathetic to those applying …. [and] are
adept at teaching adjudicators the errors of their ways, and appreciate hearing about problems
occurring in the field.” The VAWA supervisors also “communicate regularly with VAWA
advocates” and an immigration lawyer is “more likely to prevail swiftly with the VAWA
supervisors at [the Vermont Service Center]….” Applications for Immigration Status under
the Violence Against Women Act, by Gail Pendleton and Ann Block, pp. 14, 16 (2001).
66. Ms. Pendleton also counsels immigration lawyers to contact the National Immigration
Project “to discuss your legal arguments and a strategy for convincing Vermont you are
right,” id., and to contact the National Immigration Project if lawyers for alien wives are
experiencing any “problems” with a local district office, id. at 17.
67. The National Immigration Project also provides legal advice to immigration lawyers for alien
wives in the form of sample briefs and motions and is working to make certain “problem”
USCIS districts more amendable to ruling in favor of alien wives by finding U.S. husbands
guilty of “battery” and “extreme cruelty.” See Id. at 16.
10
68. Ms. Pendleton counsels that “practice pointers gleaned from working closely with both
[USCIS] and numerous advocates for battered immigrants are essential sources of
information on how to win VAWA cases.” Id. at 27.
69. For example, the National Immigration Project advises immigration lawyers to move to
suppress any information provided by an alien wife’s U.S. husband. Id. at 16.
70. Ms. Pendleton also asserts about the EOIR that it is more “VAWA friendly” after receiving
special training. Id. at 21.
71. The officials of the VAWA Unit at the Vermont Service Center have virtually unfettered
discretion through the determination of the type and importance of information submitted to
make decisions that further the feminist agenda of deterring American men from marrying
foreign females through the threat of finding citizen husbands guilty of “battery” and
“extreme cruelty” in secret VAWA self-petition proceedings.
.
72. The officials of the VAWA Unit also have the discretion to waive crimes of moral turpitude,
prostitution, procuring and commercial vice committed by the allegedly abused alien wife, 8
U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(C); and to waive fraud and material misrepresentations made by the
alien wife to gain entry into America, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i).
V. VAWA, IIRIRA and INA provisions that infringed the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Secrecy
73. Federal laws 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(2) & (c) prohibit any employee of the Department of
Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State from disclosing any
information concerning proceedings involving the VAWA self-petitioning alien wife. The
provisions are intended to conceal proceedings from the husband merely because he has been
accused of “battery” and “extreme cruelty.” Secrecy is maintained with respect to other
individuals unless they fall within certain exceptions. A Government violator may face
disciplinary action and a fine up to $5,000.
Procedural Due Process
74. On information and belief, the secrecy maintained by the USCIS and EOIR over its
procedures by which Ms. Shipilina acquired permanent residency denied the plaintiff of
procedural due process to refute accusations of “battery” and “extreme cruelty” and to at
least have a shot at preventing administrative decisions that found him guilty of “battery” and
“extreme cruelty.”
75. On information and belief, the USCIS and EOIR’s secrecy infringed the plaintiff’s First
Amendment right to speak by denying him any opportunity to be heard on his own behalf in
order to counter accusations and prevent findings of “battery” and “extreme cruelty.”
11
76. On information and belief, the statutory secrecy of the USCIS and EOIR infringed the
plaintiff’s First Amendment right of access to deportation proceedings by making it
impossible for the plaintiff to determine if, when or where any proceedings would be held in
which he would be charged and adjudged responsible for “battery” and “extreme cruelty.”
77. On information and belief, the statutory secrecy used by the USCIS and EOIR abridged the
plaintiff’s right to freedom of choice in marital decisions by presenting him with a Faustian
choice of perjury before the USCIS in sponsoring his wife for permanent residency or a Star
Chamber proceeding by which the U.S. Government finds him guilty of “battery” and
“extreme cruelty.”
78. On information and belief, the behind closed-doors proceedings permitted the U.S.
Government, Ms. Shipilina, and private feminist advocacy organizations to lie with impunity
because there were no procedures by which the plaintiff could counter their falsehoods.
79. On information and belief, the secrecy provisions prevented the plaintiff from protecting his
personal reputation because not only couldn’t he determine what someone had said about
him, but also who had said it.
80. In New York State, a defamation action requires that the exact words by pleaded.
81. Federal laws 8 U.S.C. § 1367(b)(2)(4) & (5) allow information concerning the husband’s
“battery” and “extreme cruelty” to be disclosed to his alien wife; law enforcement officials;
and private feminist organizations and Federal, State and local public agencies that provide
benefits to alien wives if in the opinion of those organizations the husband abused the alien
wife.
82. Any information concerning “battery” and “extreme cruelty” that is available to these groups
will include the findings and decisions by the USCIS and EOIR as well as any information
submitted by Ms. Shipilina, her immigration lawyer, and feminist counselors.
83. In the event that Ms. Shipilina or the private feminist organizations make any information
available to the general public, the plaintiff would have no cause of action under the New
York State law for defamation because the information was produced in an official
proceeding of an administrative agency.
84. The plaintiff would also have no action for false light invasion of privacy because there are
none in New York State unless the information was used for commercial purposes, and the
plaintiff would have no prima facie tort action.
85. On information and belief, the secret proceedings that granted Ms. Shipilina permanent
residency arbitrarily denied the plaintiff the right to institute a judicial action to correct
inaccurate government records because the plaintiff is prohibited from accessing the records
while the alien wife, her lawyer, private feminist groups and law enforcement officials aren’t.
12
Equal Protection – national origin
86. On their face, the statutory provisions for secret proceedings do not apply to alien spouses
but only apply to U.S. citizen spouses which is a violation of the equal protection rights
under the Fifth Amendment accorded U.S. citizens.
87. On information and belief, the secret proceedings of the USCIS and EOIR invidiously
discriminated against the plaintiff’s national origin—America, because the secrecy of the
proceedings applied only to him but not to Ms. Shipilina—a Russian.
Equal Protection – sex
88. The secrecy proceedings were intended and are overwhelmingly used for alien wives and not
alien husbands; therefore, the statute as applied and in effect invidiously discriminates on the
basis of sex against U.S. husbands.
89. On information and belief, the secret proceedings of the USCIS and EOIR violated the
plaintiff’s equal protection rights because the secrecy applied to him due to his sex; whereas,
had he been an American female the entire VAWA process would most likely not have been
evoked against the plaintiff, and if it had, it would likely have failed.
Turning a blind eye
90. Federal law 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1)(A) prohibits any employee of the Department of Justice,
Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State from making an adverse
determination of inadmissibility or deportability of a VAWA self-petitioning alien wife
based solely on evidence provided by the U.S. citizen husband.
91. Evidence provided by a U.S. citizen husband cannot be used against an alien wife unless the
USCIS or EOIR acquire independent corroboration from a third party unrelated to the
husband. Virtue Memorandum INS, 74 Interpreter Releases 795 (1997).
Procedural Due Process
92. On information and belief, the USCIS and EOIR violated the plaintiff’s procedural due
process rights by failing to take into account the deportation evidence provided by the
plaintiff that called into question Ms. Shipilina’s credibility on which the agencies relied for
finding the plaintiff guilty of “battery” and “extreme cruelty.”
93. On information and belief, the USCIS and EOIR infringed the plaintiff’s freedom of speech
by ignoring any of the deportation evidence submitted by him that would have countered
statements by Ms. Shipilina about the plaintiff’s alleged abuse by calling into question her
credibility.
94. The statutory requirement of ignoring any evidence submitted by the plaintiff adverse to Ms.
Shipilina, on information and belief, abridged the plaintiff’s right to freedom of choice in
13
marital decisions because it left him with only the options to perjure himself before the
USCIS in order to win Ms. Shipilina permanent residency or to have any evidence as to his
innocence of “battery” and “extreme cruelty” discarded no matter how relevant, trustworthy,
and credible.
95. Among the evidence that could have diminished Ms. Shipilina’s credibility was a resolution
by the Commissioners of the New York City Board of Elections that provided evidence to
Federal and City prosecutors that Ms. Shipilina committed a Federal and State felony by
falsely claiming U.S. citizenship when she registered to vote.
96. On information and belief, any evidence provided by the plaintiff that may have protected his
personal reputation was ignored.
Equal Protection – national origin
97. Section 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(1) on its face violates equal protection as incorporated into the
Fifth Amendment by giving an alien’s word credibility while discounting the believability of
a U.S. citizen’s statement. The unconstitutional classification is one of national origin: alien
v. American.
98. On information and belief, the USCIS and EOIR violated the plaintiff’s equal protection
rights by believing statements and evidence provided by Ms. Shipilina while ignoring any
statements or evidence from the plaintiff because of his national origin—America.
Equal Protection - sex
99. The discounting of evidence supplied by a U.S. citizen was intended and overwhelmingly
occurs in cases involving alien wives; therefore, the statute as applied and in effect
invidiously discriminates on the basis of sex against U.S. husbands.
100. Under the statute’s evidentiary standard, the alien wife need only accuse her husband of
“battery” or “extreme cruelty” and magically she doesn’t have to disprove any evidence the
husband may present to protect his reputation because his evidence is ignored unless the
USCIS and EOIR decide to make the effort to find independent corroboration from a third
party unconnected with the husband.