PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This action arises out of an unlawful and unjustified Designation (“Designation”) entered

against Validimir Plahotniuc and his immediate family members by Defendants under Section

7031(c) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs

Appropriations Act of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. Plaintiff brings this action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), codified at 5

U.S.C. §702 and the Declaratory Judgment Act (“DCA”), codified at 28 U.S.C. §2201.

3. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed or waived.

THE PARTIES

4. Validimir Plahotniuc is sui juris before this Court, and a nonresident alien over the age of

18.

5. State Department is a federal executive department of the United States that is

responsible for carrying out United States foreign policy and international relations. At all

material times herein, State Department was the department responsible for ensuring

compliance with applicable federal immigration laws, including the Act.

6. Pompeo is the highest ranking official within the State Department. Pompeo is sued in

his official capacity as an agent of the government of the United States and is charged by

statute with the administration and enforcement of immigration laws. In that capacity, he

issued the Designation.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Validimir Plahotniuc’s claims pursuant to

2
28 U.S.C. §1331, as this case arises under the United States Constitution and federal statutes.

8. Defendants are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. §302(a)

which provides that: “…a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary

who, either "in person or through an agent": (i) "transacts any business within the state or

contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state"; (ii) "commits a tortious act

within the state"; (iii) "commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or

property within the state ... if he [a] regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any

other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or

consumed or services rendered, in the state, or [b] expects or should reasonably expect the act

to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or

international commerce"; or (iv) "owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within

the state." N.Y. C.P.L.R. §302(a)(1)-(4).

9. "[C]ourts have explained that section 302 is a `single act statute' and proof of one

transaction in New York is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, even though the defendant never

enters New York, so long as the defendant's activities here were purposeful and there is a

substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted." Chloe v. Queen Bee

of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 170 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted);

see also Baron Philippe de Rothschild, S.A. v. Paramount Distillers, Inc., 923 F.Supp. 433,

436 (S.D.N.Y.1996) ("Personal jurisdiction pursuant to section 302(a)(1) may be satisfied

with proof that just one transaction occurred in New York as long as defendants' activities

were purposeful and substantially related to plaintiffs' claim.").

10. This Court is authorized to award the requested declaratory and injunctive relief under the

3
 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202.

11. Jurisdiction and venue are thus proper.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

12. Validimir Plahotniuc is a native of Moldova, and among other things, between 2010 and

2019, served as a member of the Parliament in Moldova, however, such service was not

continuous with periodic gaps in parliamentary service.

Validimir Plahotniuc’s Governmental Involvement and Anti-Russian Efforts.

13. In December 2010, at the meeting of the National Political Council of the Democratic

Party, Validimir Plahotniuc was appointed as the vice-president of the Democratic Party of

Moldova (“PDM”).

14. In or around December 2010, Validimir Plahotniuc was elected first vice-president of the

Parliament of the Republic of Moldova.

15. In 2014, ordinary parliamentary elections were held, where the PDM took even more

seats in Parliament, forming a pro-Western majority coalition with right-wing parties.

16. From 2009 to 2016, all these Parliamentary Coalitions were comprised of multiple

parties. Among them, the liberal Democratic Party of Moldova (PLDM) held more seats in

the Coalition than PDM. Consequently, PDM held a secondary role to PLDM, which mainly

dictated the course of the coalition.

17. In 2016, Prime Minister Vlad Filat was detained after he was found guilty of aiding and

abetting theft from the banking system of the Republic of Moldova. After this, the

Governing coalition was reorganized. The parliament voted to form a new Government

4
composed of members of the PDM who supported pro-Euro Atlantic foreign policies as

opposed to pro-Russian foreign policies.

18. On December 24, 2016, during the eighth Congress of the Democratic Party, Validimir

Plahotniuc was elected President of the Democratic Party of Moldova.

19. Validimir Plahotniuc always opposed the views of the Kremlin and supported the view

that Moldova must align itself with the West, especially Europe and the United States.

20. Since January 2016, all of PDM’s actions have been devoted to the fight to remove

Moldova from Russia's influence.

21. One of Validimir Plahotniuc's goals was to stop the Russian interference in Moldova,

which has spread to all spheres of the Moldovan economy, such as the media, banking,

insurance, NGOs, and political organizations.

22. To minimize the influence of Russia in the region, Validimir Plahotniuc, together with the

democratic government coalition, pioneered anti-communist and anti-Russian reforms such

as anti-propaganda laws and financial reforms based on the EU directives, which greatly

upset the leadership of the Russian Federation.

23. Problems arose for Validimir Plahotniuc because of his pro-European reforms and his

desire to improve the quality of life and security of his native country. Thus, Validimir

Plahotniuc developed a platform of programs that aimed at unifying Moldova with Europe

and separating Moldova's interests from Russia.

24. In 2009, conflicts arose as a result of Validimir Plahotniuc's anti- Russian position.

25. Validimir Plahotniuc took a series of actions that disturbed the decision-makers in

Moscow. As a result, Validimir Plahotniuc became the target of the Russian Federation and

5
the new Moldovan pro-Russian government, the Russian secret services, and the criminal

groups led by Russian government officials and their affiliates operating throughout the

former USSR.

26. Immediately after assuming power as President of the Governing Coalition, PDM, led by

Validimir Plahotniuc, assumed an ambitious and possibly dangerous agenda that aimed to

free the country from Russian influence.

27. Validimir Plahotniuc has a demonstrated history of anti-corruption efforts.

a. Validimir Plahotniuc and the PDM, under Validimir Plahotniuc's leadership,

took the following actions and steps in furtherance of their anti-Russia agenda:

b. May 2009 - Validimir Plahotniuc entered the Moldovan politics, intending to

remove the Communist Party of Republic of Moldova from the Government;

c. May 29, 2009 – the Democratic Party of Moldova entered the Parliament as

result of early elections;

d. August 2009- PDM refused an offer from “Kremlin” representatives to

establish a pro-Russian coalition with the MOLDOVA’S COMMUNIST PARTY;

e. December 30, 2010- PDM refused , for the second time, Putin’s

Administration Chief of Staff Mr. Serghei Narishkin's offer to establish a pro-

Russian Governing coalition with MOLDOVA’S COMMUNIST PARTY; as a

consequence, PDM creates a pro-European coalition with the Liberal Democrats

Party and the Liberal Party;

f. 2014 - Moldovan law enforcement institutions launched investigations on

“Laundromat,” a money-laundering scheme involving more than $70 billion US

6
Dollars laundered through the Moldovan banking and judicial sector, which was

engineered and implemented by the Russian Federation's secret services. Those

funds were then used for various geopolitical and economic purposes by Russian

secret services, politicians and businesspersons. Mr. Veaceslav Platon, a citizen of

Moldova and the Russian Federation, was an agent of the Russian secret services

(FSB)). He is the main engineer and executor of the “Laundromat” money

laundering scheme and was, directly and indirectly, in control of Moldovan

financial markets (banking and non-banking sector) and a large list of judges,

prosecutors, investigators, and law enforcement officers. Mr. Platon fled to the

Russian Federation to avoid prosecution. Notably, at that time Mr. Platon owned

three (3) of Moldova’s largest banks (70% of Moldova’s banking market), which

gave him effective control over Moldova’s banking industry, and all of the

laundered funds were transferred through the banks of Mr. Platon.;

g. November 26, 2014- removal of Mr. Renato Usatai (a Russian secret service

representative) from Moldovan parliamentary elections due to illegal campaign

funding from the Russian Federation. Renato Usatai fled to the Russian

Federation;

h. July 26, 2016- the arrest of Veaceslav Platon, in Kiev, Ukraine, in a joint

operation of Ukrainian and Moldovan law enforcement bodies;

i. December 2016– Mr. Igor Dodon, the leader of Socialists Party of Republic of

Moldova is elected as President of Republic of Moldova, having the support of

pro-Russian electorate after which the Moldovan Parliament passed the laws

7
reducing the Presidential powers;

j. February 8, 2017- the Governing Coalition lead by Plaintiff adopted a

Declaration – to limit all official contacts with Russia;

k. March 16, 2017- refusal of representatives of the Coalition of the

Parliamentary Majority and the Chairman of the Parliament of the Republic of

Moldova to take part in the jubilee ceremony of the creation of the Community of

Independent States;

l. March 31, 2017- Moldova signs agreement with a Ukrainian company to

provide electricity supply, reducing the energy dependence on Russian

Federation;

m. May 10, 2017- Validimir Plahotniuc condemned the presence of Russian

military forces on the territory of Republic of Moldova and requested their

withdrawal;

n. May 29, 2017- Expulsion of five (5) Russian diplomats from Moldova, in

connection with non-diplomatic activities and for conducting the activities

connected to the Russian secret services;

o. July 21, 2017- the Declaration of the Parliament of Moldova (Coalition of the

Parliamentary Majority) on the need for the withdrawal of Russian military troops

from the territory of Moldova, and requesting the Government of Moldova to

initiate all actions necessary to involve international organizations in the process

of withdrawal of Russian military troops;

p. July 18, 2017- Setting up of a joint Moldavian-Ukrainian border checkpoint,

8
on the Ukrainian territory (Cuchiurgan checkpoint), before entering into the

territory of Transdnistria. Resulting in a seventy percent (70%) increase of

control over goods and citizens entering Transdnistria;

q. July 20, 2017- Moldova refused entrance on its territory to a delegation led by

Deputy Prime Minister of Russian Federation, Rogozin. The delegation intended

to celebrate the twenty-fifth (25th) anniversary of occupation by Russian military

troops on Transdnistria's territory;

r. August 2, 2017- Rogozin made an offensive and humiliating statement

concerning the Moldovan people. The Government of Republic of Moldova

declared Mr. Rogozin, the Russian Deputy Prime Minister, as persona non-grata;

s. December 2017- Moldovan Parliament passed the law introducing the ban on

Russian propaganda on the territory of the Republic of Moldova;

t. December, 2017- Plaintiff successfully fought pressure from Russia and pro-

Russian government officials and helped NATO open an office in Moldova;

u. March 2, 2018- an International Parliamentary Conference on International

Security has been organized in Chisinau, at the initiative of Moldovan Parliament,

jointly with Georgian and Ukrainian Parliaments, jointly with Atlantic Council;

v. March 27, 2018- Moldovan authorities expel 3 Russian diplomats, as

solidarity action with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland after

Russian direction of the poisoning of Sergie and Yulia Skirpal in London.

w. June 4, 2018 - The ruling of the Constitutional Court of Moldova, the decision

to deprive the Russian language of the status of the language of inter-ethnic

9
 communication.

x. June 22, 2018- The vote, at the initiative of the Moldovan authorities, in the

UN General Assembly of the draft resolution on the withdrawal of Russian troops

from the territory of Moldova.

y. June 2019- Validimir Plahotniuc’s refusal in the name of the Democratic Party

of Moldova to the proposal of the Representative of Vladimir Putin, vice-premier

minister of Russia, D. Kozak to form a coalition with the pro-Russian party

MOLDOVA’S PRO- RUSSIA PARTY to change the course of Moldova to the

pro-Russian.

28. After Validimir Plahotniuc and the Democratic Party of Moldova took the above-

referenced actions, Russia began a retaliatory campaign against them.

a. September 2016 - Russian Federation secret services have launched a series

of intimidation tactics targeting high-level Moldovan officials and diplomats,

members with a pro-Western orientation, including but not limited to detention for

multiple hours, interrogation, and full-body search.

b. September 2016 - the Russian Federation secret services initiated different

false and unfounded criminal cases (more than 15) against Moldovan politicians

with pro-European orientation, and multiple attempts to issue international search

warrants through Interpol;

c. October 2016- Russia started a massive propaganda attack through its media

broadcasting and social media outlets, including Facebook, against pro-European

political leaders. Including campaigning for Moldovan Presidency using

10
fabricated false documents and reports.

d. The Parliament of the Russian Federation condemned the Plaintiff's efforts to

fight against pro-Russian political propaganda in Moldova;

e. April 7, 2017– FSB attempts to assassinate Validimir Plahotniuc. Moldovan

and Ukrainian law enforcement services discovered and prevented this

assassination attempt;

f. December 5, 2017 - Moscow Basman Courts issues an arrest warrant against

Validimir Plahotniuc, at the request of the Russian Federation Investigative

Committee;

g. 2017 through the present – Russia repeatedly abuses Interpol rules by issuing

more than 10 politically motivated Red Notices based on fabricated allegations of

crimes to cause Validimir Plahotniuc's arrest so that he can be brought to Russia,

imprisoned, tortured, and killed.

h. January 2018 - Russian Federation State Duma approved a Declaration

condemning the Moldovan attempts to fight Russian propaganda;

i. February 22, 2019- Two days before the election, the Russian Interior

Ministry publicly circulated fabricated allegations against Validimir Plahotniuc,

falsely accusing him of money laundering that allegedly took place five years

earlier in 2014.

j. Due to Plaintiff’s active involvement in anti-propaganda and his success in

promoting Pro-U.S. and Pro-European values, he was very popular. At the same

time, the image of the Russian Federation faded. Subsequently, the Russian

11
 Federation used media outlets including, tv, radio, internet, and social media, to

tarnish the Plaintiff’s reputation and diminish his reputation in Moldova, Europe,

and the U.S. 95% of Moldovian citizens speak Russian fluently, Moldovia having

formed part of the USSR twenty-five (25) years ago. Consequently, Russian

Television and Russian propaganda posted on the Internet has an enormous

influence on the Moldovian population.

29. Moldova held its last elections in February 2019.

30. Despite the aggressive interference in the elections by Russia, the Non-Communist, pro-

Russian party of socialists of Moldova managed to obtain only 35 votes out of 101 in

parliament.

31. The Democratic Party obtained 30 deputies.

32. The representative of Putin, Vice Prime Minister Kozak, made an offer to Plaintiff to

form a coalition with the socialists, and change the political stance from Euro-US to pro-

Russian.

33. Plaintiff and the Democratic Party refused publicly. Subsequently, the socialists

convinced the other two parties to form a coalition unconstitutionally and seized power by

threatening protests and potential massive casualties.

34. Presently the government, parliament, constitutional court, and all other authorities in

Moldova, including the prosecutor’s office and even the judiciary, are under control of the

pro-Russian President Dodon and his neo-communist party of socialists. The plaintiff was

forced to leave Moldova because he was at risk of being assassinated.

12
Validimir Plahotniuc Leaves Moldova Fearful for His Life.

35. From 2017 to the present, there have been several assassination attempts on his life and

his family’s lives, the first assassination attempt was on April 7, 2017. The murder attempt

was thwarted by the Chisinau authorities with the help of their Ukrainian colleagues. One of

the organizers of the assassination was caught in Kiev. Police have shown a video in which

three men discuss Validimir Plahotniuc’s murder. Given the ammunition arsenal found by

police, which included grenade launchers, it became obvious that the plot didn’t take into

account that there were many people working in the building with Validimir Plahotniuc, and

this would have caused the death of many people that were working in the same building

with Validimir Plahotniuc, Global Business Center from Chisinau. Multiple people were

arrested and ties to Moscow were abundantly clear.

36. The second attempt was the kidnapping of Validimir Plahotniuc’s family, when in 2019, a

Ukranian citizen-Russian individual hired Albanian mobsters to kidnap Validimir

Plahotniuc’s children. The Ukrainian person who ordered the abduction was detained in

Belarus but was later released because Belarus is a Russian satellite state.

37. Although Validimir Plahotniuc did not know about it at the time, the third attempt was in

June of 2019, at the height of the power struggle between the PDM and the Socialist Party.

This attempt was revealed by the president of the parliamentary committee on national

security. He said publicly that Validimir Plahotniuc had to leave the country in June because

there was real danger to Validimir Plahotniuc’s life and security.

38. Pro-Russian president Dodon, publicly declared Plaintiff his enemy and said that enemies

must be terminated.

13
39. The statements were repeated on November 21, 2019, by the president of the

parliamentary committee on national security, the deputy of ACUM bloc, PPDA, Chiril

Motpan. He stated that “there is information that there was danger to his (Validimir

Plahotniuc) life, he had to be liquidated by some foreign structures, mercenaries from the so-

called Wagner detachment, who are also known as being involved in Syria.”

40. Russia wants to punish Plaintiff with death or life imprisonment with the aim of an

illustrative example for other leaders of East European countries and countries of the former

USSR, so that they do not try to pursue a policy of reducing Russian influence in their

countries.

41. Validimir Plahotniuc justifiably believes that the government of Moldova, acting under

orders from its patron, Russia, will either: (1) abuse the judicial and law enforcement process

to engage in a politically motivated and unfounded prosecution against him and during which

time he will be held in squalid conditions and potentially subjected to torture; or (2)

assassinate him and/ or his family.

42. Validimir Plahotniuc reasonably believes that the Moldovan government will do this

because of his long standing and consistent political opposition to Russian dominance in

Moldova.

43. The current government of Moldova has allied itself very closely with Russia and

Validimir Plahotniuc knows that Russia views him as an enemy.

44. In fact, over the last several years, Russia has brought multiple false charges against

Validimir Plahotniuc in Russian courts. They have sought his international capture by

placing Red Notice requests on Interpol. However, Interpol has rejected these requests as

14
 politically motivated.

45. The Russian government and its agents were behind a well-documented assassination

attempt against Validimir Plahotniuc in 2017, and Russia will not hesitate to assassinate him

anywhere in Europe as they seek to achieve geopolitical dominance throughout the former

Soviet bloc.

46. Validimir Plahotniuc recently discovered that the Russian government is continuing its

efforts to assassinate him to this day.

47. On or about June 14, 2019, Validimir Plahotniuc fled Moldova, fearing persecution and

threats of violence.

48. Validimir Plahotniucarrived in the United States on June 15, 2019.

Validimir Plahotniuc Seeks Asylum in the United States.

49. In or around September 2019, Validimir Plahotniuc applied for political asylum before the

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services division of the Department of Homeland

Security (hereinafter referred to as “USCIS”).

50. On January 10, 2020, USCIS issued a Referral Notice stating that USCIS had not found

Validimir Plahotniuc eligible for asylum and referring his asylum application to an

immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings.

51. On or about January 10, 2020, under 22 C.F.R. 41.122(a), Validimir Plahotniuc’s visa was

revoked.

52. 22 C.F.R. 41.122(a) provides that a consular officer, the Secretary of State, or a

Department of State official to whom the Secretary of State has delegated authority is

15
 authorized to revoke a nonimmigrant visa at any time, in his or her discretion.

53. Validimir Plahotniuc and his family’s visas are now revoked and they are inadmissible.

54. However, 9 FAM 41.122 N3 has instructed consular officers that “[u]nder no

circumstances should you revoke the visa of an alien believed to be physically in the United

States, or to have commenced an uninterrupted journey to the United States.” Since

Validimir Plahotniucis in the United States, his visa cannot be legally revoked, rather it can

be canceled.

55. Validimir Plahotniuc’s visa is effectively canceled per Section 221(i).

56. The visa revocation will have the effect of invalidating the visa from the date of its

issuance. Subsequently, Validimir Plahotniuc’s entry into the United States would effectively

be canceled and he would be removeable under the traditional statute as an alien who

overstayed his visa in the United States, but also as an arriving alien.

57. The Referral Notice indicated that a hearing was scheduled for February 26, 2020.

58. Subsequently, on January 13, 2020, one business day after the Referral Notice was issued,

Pompeo issued the Designation. A true and correct copy of said Designation is attached

hereto as “Exhibit A.”

Procedural Issues with the Designation.

59. The Designation states in pertinent part that Pompeo is “designating former Moldovan

official and oligarch Validimir Plahotniuc due to his involvement in significant corruption.”

Validimir Plahotniuc’s wife, son and his minor child were also designated. Id.

60. Under Section 7031(c)(1)(A) of the Act, “officials of foreign governments and their

immediate family members about whom the Secretary of State has credible information have

16
been involved in significant corruption…shall be ineligible for entry into the United States.”

61. Section 7031(c) is not part of the Foreign Affairs Manual (“FAM”) or the Immigration

and Nationality Act (“INA”).

62. However, no mechanism was ever invoked which would demonstrate to Validimir

Plahotniuc(or anyone else for that matter) of either (i) what “credible information” the

Secretary relied upon; or (ii) how the “credible information” was secured against Validimir

Plahotniuc.

63. Validimir Plahotniuc has had no due process either before the Designation was issued or

now that it has been issued.

64. This violation severely deprives Validimir Plahotniuc of his due process in the pending

asylum proceedings and thereby places his life and liberty in grave danger.

65. Under the Act, current officials of foreign governments whom the Secretary of State

designates as having involvement in significant corruption are “ineligible for entry into the

United States.”

66. Thus, the effect of the Designation is that Validimir Plahotniuc is ineligible for entry into

the United States.

67. Further, unless the Designation is challenged, Validimir Plahotniuc could not be eligible

for asylum, because it would be illegal for him to “enter” the United States.

68. Under these circumstances, the Designation unquestionably deprives Validimir

Plahotniuc(and his immediate family) of his rights to due process in the pending asylum

proceedings and places his life and liberty in grave danger.

69. The U.S. government is effectively denying Validimir Plahotniuc the ability to obtain a

17
hearing before an immigration judge in the asylum proceedings, using a federal statute (the

Act) that was never intended to apply to an individual who has already entered the United

States.

70. Thus, even if Validimir Plahotniuc meets all of the requirements for asylum, he will have

no opportunity to do so because he is deemed not eligible for entry under the Act and the

Designation.

71. The application of the Act under these circumstances is an abuse of discretion and

undermines basic principles of due process that Validimir Plahotniuc possesses under the

Fifth Amendment.

72. The Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge (citation below) stated that the government

cannot deprive individuals of their “liberty” or “property” interests without procedural due

process.

73. The fundamental requirement of procedural due process is the opportunity to be heard

either before or after the deprivation in a meaningful manner before a neutral decision maker.

74. The Mathews test balances three factors: “First, the private interest that will be affected

by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the

procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural

safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the

fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement

would entail.” (Zevallos v. Obama, 10 F. Supp. 3d 111, 125 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd, 793 F.3d

106 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.

2d 18(1976)).

18
75. Validimir Plahotniuc’s case herein is analogous to Zevallos.

76. In Zevallos, the Plaintiff was designated as a “Significant Foreign Narcotics Trafficker”

under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. Among other claims, the Plaintiff

challenged the designation as a deprivation of the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment procedural due

process rights. The District Court in the District of Columbia found that no pre-deprivation

hearing was necessary under the test articulated by the Supreme Court in Calero-Toledo v.

Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 US 663 (1974). The Court also found, to be distinguished

from the facts herein, that no post-deprivation process was necessary because the Plaintiff

was provided with notice and an “opportunity to present, at least in written form, such

evidence . . . to rebut the administrative record or otherwise negate the proposition.” Id. at

129.

77. Validimir Plahotniuc has not been given any post hearing due process. Indeed, his post

hearing due process has been stolen from him with the stroke of a pen.

78. Validimir Plahotniuc recognizes that under the Doctrine of Consular Non-Reviewability,

there is no judicial review for challenging the designation, see Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128 –

2015.

79. However, the instant matter is clearly distinguishable.

80. Specifically, Validimir Plahotniucdid not have his visa revoked at the U.S. Embassy,

rather he was designated per a section of the Department of State appropriation bill, therefore

subject to procedural challenges.

81. Accordingly, Validimir Plahotniucis entitled to a meaningful opportunity to be heard in

front of a neutral decision maker to challenge the Designation under 7031(c).

19
 COUNT I: DECLARATORY RELIEF

82. Validimir Plahotniucre asserts and incorporates by reference the allegations in all

preceding paragraphs above.

83. A claim for declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201,

2202) requires a controversy that can be decided by the court, i.e., the presence of a claim of

a substantive right that will trigger the court's adjudicative function. See S. Jackson & Son.

Inc. v. Coffee. Sugar & Cocoa Exchange. Inc., 24 F.3d 427, 431 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[A] mere

demand for declaratory relief does not by itself establish a case or controversy necessary to

confer subject matter jurisdiction.").

84. The legality of the Designation demonstrates a controversy to be decided in a Court of

law.

85. In general, asylum seekers, like Validimir Plahotniuc, must prove their claims thousands

of miles from where key evidence is located.

86. They must substantiate their claims without jeopardizing family, friends, or themselves.

87. They must do so without the right to appointed counsel in a complex area of law, often

without understanding any English and with minimal, if any, financial resources. See, e.g.

Peter Afrasiabi, Show Trials: How Property Gets More Legal Protection than People in Our

Failed Immigration System, at 31-33, 197-208 (Envelope Books Ltd. 2012) (detailing

dissonance between the robust protections afforded property in Article III courts and the

process for adjudicating life-liberty interests in immigration courts).

88. Validimir Plahotniuc’s Statement, filed in further support of his asylum application

thoroughly details the reasons returning to Moldova, or anywhere in Europe for that matter,

20
would put his life and liberty in grave danger.

89. Validimir Plahotniuc has every reason to believe that the government of Moldova, acting

under orders from its patron, Russia, will either: (1) abuse the judicial and law enforcement

process to engage in a politically motivated and unfounded prosecution against him and

during which time he will be held in squalid conditions and potentially subjected to torture;

or (2) assassinate him and/ or his family.

90. Validimir Plahotniuc believes that the Moldovan government will do this because of his

long standing and consistent political opposition to Russian dominance in Moldova. The

current government of Moldova has allied itself very closely with Russia and Validimir

Plahotniuc knows that Russia views him as an enemy. Over the last several years, Russia has

brought multiple false charges against Validimir Plahotniuc in Russian courts. They have

sought his international capture by placing Red Notice requests on Interpol. However,

Interpol has rejected these requests as politically motivated.

91. The Russian government and its agents were behind a well-documented assassination

attempt against Validimir Plahotniuc in 2017, and he knows that Russia will not hesitate to

assassinate him anywhere in Europe as they seek to achieve geopolitical dominance

throughout the former Soviet bloc. Validimir Plahotniuc’s fears are real and genuine. An

unsupported Designation which interferes with a fair adjudication of his asylum application

would be a clear violation of Validimir Plahotniuc’s due process right to be heard.

92. Under the Second Circuit's traditional standard, a district court is entitled to grant a

preliminary injunction where a plaintiff demonstrated (i) "irreparable harm," and (ii) either

(a) "a likelihood of success on the merits" or (b) "sufficiently serious questions going to the

21
 merits of its claims to make them fair ground for litigation, plus a balance of the hardships

tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party." Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. N.Y. Dep't

of Fin. Servs., 769 F.3d 105, 110 (2d Cir.2014) (quoting Lynch v. City of N.Y., 589 F.3d 94, 98

(2d Cir.2009)).

93. Unless enjoined by this Court, the Designation will continue to deprive Validimir

Plahotniuc of his procedural due process to have his asylum application reviewed by a neutral

decision maker.

COUNT II: JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

94. Validimir Plahotniuc reasserts and incorporates by reference the allegations in all

preceding paragraphs above.

95. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), “[a] person suffering legal wrong

because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the

meaning of a relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.” See 5 U.S.C. §702.

96. A reviewing court "will uphold a decision by the [agency] if it is not `arbitrary,

capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law' . . . or

`unsupported by substantial evidence.'" Unified Turbines, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 581 F.

App'x 16, 17 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary order) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706). This standard is

deferential and does not permit a court to "substitute its judgment for that of the agency."

Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42, 53 (2011). The Court must "assess, among other matters,

whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there

has been a clear error of judgment." Bechtel v. Admin. Review Bd., U.S. Dep't of Labor, 710

22
F.3d 443, 446 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Judulang, 565 U.S. at 53).

97. The deferential standard under the APA for judicial review of agency action is well-

established. A federal court must "hold unlawful and set aside" agency actions or decisions

found to be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with

law." 5 U.S.C. §706(2)(A); see also Cty. of Westchester v. U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban

Development, 116 F. Supp. 3d 251, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

98. The arbitrary and capricious standard is met when an agency 1) relied on factors

Congress did not intend for it to consider; 2) failed to consider important factors of an issue;

3) made decisions contrary to the evidence they have; or 4) made decisions that are

inexcusably implausible. See Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assoc. of the U.S., Inc. v. State

Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

99. Section 702 waives the Government's sovereign immunity. See Alabama-Coushatta

Tribe of Tex. v. United States, 757 F.3d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 2014).

100.But the waiver is a limited one. It applies only to "actions against federal government

agencies, seeking non-monetary relief, if the agency conduct is otherwise subject to judicial

review." Id. (quoting Sheehan v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 619 F.2d 1132, 1139 (5th Cir.

1980), rev'd on other grounds, 456 U.S. 728 (1982)).

101.There are additional limits on the waiver. Relevant to this case is the one found in 5

U.S.C. § 704. That section restricts judicial review under the APA to "final agency action for

which there is no other adequate remedy in a court." 5 U.S.C. § 704; see Jobs, Training &

Servs., Inc. v. E. Tex. Council of Gov'ts, 50 F.3d 1318, 1323 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995).

102.Section 704 reflects Congress's intent that "the general grant of review in the APA [not]

23
duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action." Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487

U.S. 879, 903 (1988). The alternative remedy need only be "adequate." See Garcia v.

Vilsack, 563 F.3d 519, 525 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

103.Section 704 does not require that the alternative be "as effective as an APA lawsuit,"

merely that it provide the "same genre" of relief. Id.; compare Bowen, 487 U.S. at 906-08

(concluding that an alternative remedy in the Claims Court was inadequate because the

Claims Court lacked the power to grant equitable relief), with Citizens for Responsibility &

Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235, 1245-46 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (concluding

that the Freedom of Information Act was adequate alternative remedy even though it only

provided for making documents available to the plaintiff and the plaintiff also sought an

order making documents available to public).

104.A plaintiff however, need not pursue a remedy whose existence is "doubtful" or

"uncertain." Citizens for Responsibility, 846 F.3d at 1245. Nor is the plaintiff required to run

the risk of enforcement proceedings or pursue an "arduous, expensive, and long" permitting

process to seek review of an already-final agency action. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs v.

Hawkes Co., 136 S. Ct. 1807, 1815 (2016).

105.Citizens for Responsibility and U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs are applicable here as the

instant case presents a situation where remedy of a “waiver” identified in the designation is

"doubtful" and "uncertain."

106.The Designation and the overall appropriation does not even provide a form or

instructions to seek the waiver, and it appears that the entire “designation” was created solely

for the purpose of having Validimir Plahotniuc designated without giving him an opportunity

24
to respond to the allegations contained therein.

107.Asylum claims implicate both life and property.

108.Although “deportation is not technically a criminal proceeding,” it “cannot be doubted”

that “deportation is a penalty -- at times a most serious one. Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135,

154 (1945). “A removed alien may lose his family, his friends and his livelihood forever.

Return to his native land may result in poverty, persecution and even death.” Id. at 164

(Murphy, J., concurring).

109.Moreover, agency decisions on asylum applications must be supported by “reasonable,

substantial, and probative evidence.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).

110.Validimir Plahotniuc has not been offered any meaningful opportunity to be heard and to

review the “credible information” relied upon by Defendants in issuing the Designation. The

Designation has thus deprived Validimir Plahotniuc of his rights to due process in the

pending asylum proceedings, thereby placing his life and liberty in grave danger.

COUNT III: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION – UNLAWFUL BILL OF ATTAINDER

111.Validimir Plahotniuc reasserts and incorporates by reference the allegations in all

preceding paragraphs above.

112.A bill of attainder…"inflicts punishment without a judicial trial," Cummings v. Missouri,

4 Wall. 277, 323, and is therefore forbidden by Article I, §9 of the Constitution. See also

United States v. Lovett, 328 US 303 - Supreme Court 1946.

113.The distinguishing characteristic of a bill of attainder is the substitution of legislative

25
determination of guilt and legislative imposition of punishment for judicial finding and

sentence.

114."A bill of attainder, by the common law, as our fathers imported it from England and

practiced it themselves, before the adoption of the Constitution, was an act of sovereign

power, in the form of a special statute . . . by which a man was pronounced guilty or attainted

of some crime, and punished by deprivation of his vested rights, without trial or judgment per

legem terrae." Farrar, Manual of the Constitution (1867) 419. And see 2 Story,

Commentaries on the Constitution (5th ed., 1891) 216; 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations

(8th ed., 1927) 536.

115.The Constitution was framed in an era when dispensing justice was a well-established

function of the legislature. The prohibition against bills of attainder must be viewed in the

background of the historic situation when moves in specific litigation that are now the

conventional and, for the most part, the exclusive concern of courts were commonplace

legislative practices. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627, 660;

Baltimore & Susquehanna R. Co. v. Nesbit, 10 How. 395; Pound, Justice According to Law, II

(1914) 14 Col. L. Rev. 1-12; Woodruff, Chancery in Massachusetts (1889) 5 L.Q. Rev. 370.

Cf. Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700.

116.Section 7031(c), as applied to Validimir Plahotniuc, constitutes an unconstitutional bill of

attainder.

26