RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1643-19T3 D.G.,1 Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.M.K., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Argued December 14, 2020 – Decided January 4, 2021 Before Judges Mayer and Susswein. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket No. FV-12-0745-20. Brian D. Kenney argued the cause for appellant (Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost & Botwinick P.C., attorneys; Brian D. Kenney, of counsel and on the briefs; Matheu D. Nunn, on the briefs). Dalya Youseff argued the cause for respondent (Central Jersey Legal Services, Inc., attorneys; Dalya Youssef, on the brief). 1 We refer to the parties by initials in accordance with Rule 1:38-3(d)(10). PER CURIAM Defendant A.M.K. appeals from a November 14, 2019 final restraining order (FRO) entered in favor of plaintiff D.G. pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. We affirm. We provide a detailed recitation of the facts based on the testimony presented during the domestic violence trial. Plaintiff and defendant were married for approximately two months when plaintiff filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The couple knew each other for "about six months" before they married. Prior to marrying defendant, who lived in the United States, plaintiff lived with her two daughters in Qatar for nine years. The couple did not have children together. Both parties testified at trial regarding the events leading to the entry of the TRO. In addition, the principal of the school attended by plaintiff's older daughter testified. Plaintiff testified regarding the incidents that precipitated her application for the TRO. In late September 2019, defendant asked plaintiff to help him cheat on his engineering exam. Plaintiff helped defendant complete the exam and assisted with his homework until October 10, 2019. On that date, plaintiff told A-1643-19T3 2 defendant she would no longer help with his schoolwork and was leaving the marriage. Defendant explained if plaintiff was unwilling to help him, he would not assist with her immigration application or furnish money for the application. Despite defendant's statement, plaintiff repeated she was leaving the marriage. Defendant then stated, "[A]ll of you are bitches. I have a gun with 15 bullets . . . . I'm going to put five in your head, five in [my ex-wife's] head, I'm going to have five to spare." 2 Defendant's threat to shoot plaintiff was witnessed by plaintiff's daughters, who "were crying and screaming." Plaintiff begged defendant to stop his behavior in front of the children. Plaintiff then fled with the children to her uncle's house. Plaintiff testified to an earlier incident on September 30, 2019, when defendant, plaintiff, and the children went out to dinner. While defendant was driving home, plaintiff ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals