1) Whether the Texas court violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and interna-tional comity when it exercised subject matter jurisdiction over a foreign marriage of two aliens, that a foreign court of competent jurisdiction had already dissolved.

2) Whether the Texas court violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause when it exercised personal jurisdiction over defendant Dmitry Nikolenko, a foreign national who had insufficient contacts with Texas, had not been properly served, was not subject to the St ate's jurisdiction, and tried unsuccessfully to lawfully enter the United States to attend court proceedings.

3) Whether the Texas court violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause when it refused to continue trial to a llow defendant Dmitry Nikolenko time to obtain a United States visa and travel to attend court in person and denied Dmitry Nikolenko the promised alternative of attending trial remotely via video teleconferencing.

4) Whether the Texas court violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by rewarding Luiza Nikolenko, an alien not lawfully present in the United Stat es, with access to court process and a favorable judgment while denying Dmitry Nikolenko, an alien who complied with United States immigrat ion law and procedures, meaningful opportunity to appear and defend the court proceeding.

Whether the Texas court violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause and international comity