Months ago, I wrote how the federal government, aided by the deep state and nonprofit lawyers, facilitates foreign predators’ use of sham marriages to distort federal laws, abuse our legal system, and victimize citizens. It may have sounded speculative, even fanciful, but it is exacting a heavy price on Americans. One man is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. So outrageous is his fate that even the 9th Circuit may get this one right.
Meet Edward Dorsaneo, who grew up and spent most of his life in Marin County, Calif. In 2011, as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, he deployed with American Armed Forces in northern Afghanistan. In January of 2012, he spent Christmas holidays in Kiev, Ukraine. On Jan. 7, on a quiet Saturday evening, downing burgers and fries at McDonald’s, he caught the eye of Tetyana Semenivna Shkoda, a slender, 27-year-old, blue-eyed blonde. They engaged in lighthearted banter, exchanged telephone numbers, and agreed to keep in contact. Too soon, he returned to Afghanistan.
Over the days and weeks ahead, he and “Tanya” talked on the telephone, texted, and Skyped. Dorsaneo, who liked her on their meeting and stroll through Old Kiev, was falling in love. Despite the eight-hour flight from Kabul to Kiev, he returned five times to court Tanya. On Sept. 7, 2012, he flew to Kiev, an engagement ring in his pocket. On Sept. 11, they ambled, along with other lovebirds, in their favorite park, amid the late summer flower beds. Tanya wore white slacks and a matching blouse, a colorful scarf about her slender neck, and a long-sleeve red sweater to guard against an afternoon chill. Dorsaneo took a knee and proposed. Tanya accepted. Five days later, euphoric over the week’s events, he returned to Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, Tanya kept three terrible secrets from him. First, her maiden name was not Shkoda but Pavyluchk. In fact, at 21, she wed Serhiy Valeriyovych Shkoda in Lviv, and their marriage lasted four years. Second, worse yet, she was hardly the innocent she portrayed. Instead, she was “Elena” on the notorious “Gia High Class Escort” website from which she worked as a prostitute. Third, and worst of all, she had no intention of living in lifelong wedded bliss.
Oblivious to all this, but smitten, in October of 2012, Dorsaneo obtained the Petition for Alien Fiancee and in July of 2013, the K-1 Visa. On Aug. 27, 2013, Tanya entered the United States as a “K-1 fiancee,” authorized to stay until Nov. 24, 2013. Less than a month later, they married in Marin County. In October, additional paperwork was completed and, in November, they met with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of ensuring theirs was a valid, not sham, marriage. Sadly, in December, 88 days after they were married, they separated.
Dorsaneo immediately filed for divorce. Nonetheless, the bureaucracy being what it is, despite the separation and divorce, in February 2014, CIS sent Tanya her green card as a permanent resident alien. Although the divorce was final in May 2014, Tanya, who was now with friends in Scranton, Penn., where she eventually married a Russian man, failed to notify CIS of the dramatic change in her circumstances, specifically, that the marriage that allowed her into the United States was over.
Nearly two years later, Tanya notified CIS of those facts but argued she would suffer “undue hardship” were she deported. A year later, CIS demanded evidence of the hardship she might suffer were she forced to depart. Less than 30 days later, rather than answering CIS, she filed a lawsuit against Dorsaneo demanding he fulfill his contractual obligation, with the United States government, to provide for her financial support. Less than six weeks later, with the assistance of a “victims advocacy” legal nonprofit group in Scranton, Tanya advised CIS that she suffered unspecified “abuse.”
Then, the roof fell in for Dorsaneo. Just five months after Tanya filed her lawsuit, a federal district court in California granted her summary judgment, that is, without hearing witnesses, and struck Dorsaneo’s argument, among others, that his contract with the federal government was null, void, and unenforceable because of Tanya’s fraud on him and on the federal government. Ruled the judge, the document the government told him he had to sign or he could not bring his fiancee to America was a contract to ensure those entering the United States for marriage did not end up on the public dole.
Fraud was not a defense. Nothing else mattered, declared the judge, neither the common law nor common sense. Worse yet, Dorsaneo’s attorney, who argued Tanya committed federal crimes for which she should be prosecuted, was sanctioned by the judge and withdrew from the case.
Dorsaneo’s argument at the 9th Circuit, through new legal counsel, is that facts do matter, especially in his case. And, as a matter of law, even a contract with the federal government may not be enforced if fraud has been committed. Dorsaneo, who has mortgaged his home to fight this battle, is not the only one eagerly awaiting arguments and a ruling. Thousands across America stand in his shoes.
William Perry Pendley (@Sagebrush_Rebel) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an attorney and the author of Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today.
