NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In re the Marriage of: RAKESH NATARAJAN, Petitioner/Appellant, v. MEGALA NATARAJAN, Respondent/Appellee. Nos. 1 CA-CV 20-0440 FC, 1 CA-CV 20-0541 FC (Consolidated) FILED 3-22-2022 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Nos. FC2020-050970, FC2019-055788 The Honorable Alison Bachus, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Rakesh Natarajan, London, England Petitioner/Appellant Megala Natarajan, Tamil Nadu, India Respondent/Appellee NATARAJAN v. NATARAJAN Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Peter B. Swann delivered the decision of the court, in which Judge David D. Weinzweig and Judge Paul J. McMurdie joined. S W A N N, Judge: ¶1 Rakesh Natarajan (“Father”) appeals from the superior court’s dismissal of his Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. Because the court correctly determined Father is not domiciled in Arizona, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Megala Natarajan (“Mother”) and Father are both Indian citizens who married in India on February 15, 2013. On April 19, 2013, Father moved to Arizona to join Mother, who had been working in Phoenix since 2008. Mother had been in Phoenix on a temporary L1-B work visa. Father held a dependent visa that allowed spouses of L1-B visa holders to live and work in the United States. The parties had a child in 2014. ¶3 Mother’s L1-B non-immigrant visa expired on August 27, 2017. Two days earlier, the family traveled to India to attend a wedding. Before leaving Arizona, Mother and Father applied for H1-B visas and awaited their lottery results. About two weeks after leaving Arizona, Father traveled to the United Kingdom for work. He returned to India in late October 2017 to reunite with Mother and the child. ¶4 Mother’s petition for an H1-B visa was approved on October 18, 2017. Father’s H1-B dependent visa was approved on November 16, 2017. On November 18, 2017, the parties contacted their Arizona apartment lease agent to renew the lease on their Arizona apartment for an additional year. The parties also purchased tickets for a return flight to Arizona scheduled for December 11, 2017. ¶5 Instead of returning to Arizona, the parties separated. The child remained in India with Mother and maternal grandparents. Father left India to work remotely from his company’s main office in the United Kingdom. He returned to India in May 2018, where he remained until flying to Arizona on October 1, 2018, to empty the couple’s storage unit. Father then returned to the United Kingdom, where he resided through the filing of this appeal. 2 NATARAJAN v. NATARAJAN Decision of the Court ¶6 On April 24, 2019, Mother allowed the child to travel to the United Kingdom to visit her father. Father then filed for a Child Arrangement Order in the United Kingdom’s High Courts of Justice. In November 2019, that court ruled that India was the child’s habitual residence, not the United Kingdom or the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals