Sleuth Report: Lisa Tait Traces the Immigration Lawyer Behind Karyna Shuliak’s Green Card

UpdatedSeptember 16, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

In The Smirking Lawyer Behind Epstein’s Girlfriend’s Green Card, investigative writer Lisa Tait examines immigration attorney Mehmet Arda Beskardes and his documented work for Jeffrey Epstein, Karyna Shuliak, and other women connected to Epstein’s network.

Tait’s reporting brings together Department of Justice records, congressional findings, immigration communications, marriage records, financial information, and evidence of Beskardes’s position within the City University of New York system. Tait also credits Resistance Kitty for assistance with the research.

The records establish that Beskardes was not involved in a single isolated immigration matter. He communicated with Epstein and Epstein’s employees over several years, handled immigration questions for women in Epstein’s circle, and received repeated payments for immigration services. The most serious allegation is a congressional finding that he may have helped facilitate what investigators described as an illusory marriage involving Karyna Shuliak and an Epstein survivor. (jeffreyepsteinfocus.substack.com)

Who Was Arda Beskardes?

Mehmet Arda Beskardes is an immigration attorney whose name appears repeatedly in the Epstein document archive. Records show that he discussed visas, permanent residency, school programs, immigration appointments, supporting documents, and other immigration matters with Epstein, Shuliak, Lesley Groff, Darren Indyke, and other Epstein linked individuals.

A report issued by Democratic staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform states that Beskardes worked closely with Epstein from 2013 through 2018. According to the committee, he helped arrange visas and immigration documents for women within Epstein’s network.

Bank records provided to congressional investigators reportedly show that Epstein paid Beskardes for immigration work on 12 separate occasions between 2014 and 2018. Those payments totaled almost $50,000. The full set of bank documents behind that total has not been publicly itemized, although related financial material appears in EFTA01681865. (Oversight Democrats)

The Marriage Discussed Before Karyna Shuliak’s Wedding

One of the most important records highlighted by Tait is an August 2, 2013 email involving Epstein, Shuliak, and Beskardes.

In EFTA00576208, Beskardes tells Epstein that they should discuss “the marriage” as soon as possible and asks whether Epstein is in New York.

The timing matters. A marriage certificate preserved as EFTA00523813 records Shuliak’s marriage to a woman on October 9, 2013, approximately two months after the email about discussing the marriage.

The certificate proves that the marriage was formally registered. The earlier email proves that Beskardes and Epstein were discussing a marriage before that registration. Neither record, standing alone, establishes the complete purpose of the marriage or proves that Beskardes knew it was fraudulent.

However, the House Oversight report adds significant context. Congressional investigators stated that Beskardes may have facilitated an illusory marriage between Shuliak and an Epstein survivor, apparently to give Shuliak a legal basis to remain in the United States. (Oversight Democrats)

The Survivor Said Epstein Forced Her Into the Marriage

The congressional report cites a personal statement provided by an Epstein survivor to Epstein’s estate.

According to the committee’s account of that statement, Epstein forced the survivor into the marriage. The survivor said she was shocked to learn after the ceremony that Shuliak had a deportation hearing scheduled only days later.

This testimony substantially changes the meaning of the marriage records. It raises the possibility that the marriage was not a voluntary personal relationship but an arrangement imposed by Epstein to resolve Shuliak’s immigration problem.

The underlying survivor statement has not been released in full with the publicly available evidence identified in the report. Therefore, the survivor’s account should be attributed directly to the House committee rather than presented as an independently reviewed document.

The committee also reported that Epstein accountant Richard Kahn submitted a letter supporting the marriage and later acknowledged that the letter was embellished. (Oversight Democrats)

Shuliak Thanked Beskardes After Receiving Her Green Card

A January 27, 2015 email provides direct evidence that Beskardes assisted Shuliak with her permanent residency matter.

In EFTA00536964, Shuliak tells Beskardes that she received her green card and thanks him for all his help.

The email does not explain every service Beskardes performed. It does, however, directly connect his immigration assistance to Shuliak’s successful receipt of permanent resident status.

A later communication, EFTA00533755, documents continued communication between Shuliak and Beskardes concerning her green card in June 2016.

Tait also notes that Shuliak later became a United States citizen in 2018 and eventually divorced the woman she married. Le Monde separately reported on the marriage, Shuliak’s immigration history, and her position in Epstein’s estate. (jeffreyepsteinfocus.substack.com)

The Immigration Work Continued for Years

The evidence reviewed by Tait shows that Beskardes remained involved in immigration matters connected to Epstein long after Shuliak obtained her green card.

EFTA00700607 contains a June 2015 immigration related exchange involving Beskardes, Epstein, and a redacted individual. The communication concerns preparations and arrangements for an immigration appointment.

EFTA00813416 contains another immigration related communication from October 2016. In that exchange, a woman refers to information she received from Arda while discussing documents, a spouse, and a joint account.

The House committee also cited EFTA01619774, an April 2019 communication in which a woman told Epstein that she hoped his friend Arda would be able to help because she wanted to return to the United States.

Taken together, the records support Tait’s conclusion that Beskardes served as a recurring immigration resource for Epstein and people within Epstein’s network. They do not resemble a single consultation or an incidental professional contact. (Oversight Democrats)

Beskardes Discussed Using a School Program for a Visa

An April 2019 email provides another clear example of Epstein’s staff asking Beskardes to help a woman obtain immigration status.

In EFTA00493112, Lesley Groff asks Beskardes whether a woman could obtain a visa in time to attend a physical therapy aide course in Brooklyn.

Beskardes responds that he knows the school and describes himself as CUNY’s attorney. He says he will contact the school directly to determine whether it issues visa documents. He also warns that the proposed April 16 start date is not realistic.

The exchange confirms that Groff and Epstein were relying on Beskardes to evaluate whether an educational program could provide a path for a woman to enter or remain in the United States.

The document does not identify the woman in the publicly visible text. It also does not establish that any visa was issued or that the proposed educational plan violated immigration law. (Epstein Data)

His Position Within CUNY Added Institutional Access

Tait’s report also examines Beskardes’s connection to the City University of New York.

The official CUNY International Student Guidelines identify M. Arda Beskardes as an immigration attorney working with International Student Services in the CUNY Office of Enrollment Management.

This role is relevant because CUNY employees and advisers working with international students operate within a system responsible for visa documentation, regulatory compliance, student status, and communication with federal immigration programs.

The available evidence confirms that Beskardes held an immigration position within CUNY and used his institutional knowledge when responding to Groff. It does not prove that CUNY knew about his private work for Epstein or that CUNY resources were improperly used. (The City University of New York)

The Approved O1B Petition

Tait includes a 2017 record concerning an approved O1B petition for a nonimmigrant worker.

The document, EFTA00705227, concerns a petition associated with Sublime Art LLC. Beskardes received the approval communication and forwarded it to Epstein.

An O1B classification is generally used for individuals claiming extraordinary ability or achievement in the arts, motion pictures, or television.

The record is important because it demonstrates that Beskardes handled another successful immigration petition connected to Epstein’s circle. However, an approved petition is not proof that the application contained false information. The document does not, by itself, establish fraud, trafficking knowledge, or criminal intent.

The Interior Design Support Letter

Tait also highlights a March 2012 email chain involving Beskardes, Darren Indyke, Kathleen Gallagher, Mark Zeff, and a redacted individual.

The House report states that Indyke forwarded a letter from Beskardes explaining that they were trying to locate an interior designer who would sign a supporting letter. The purpose was to increase the likelihood that immigration authorities would approve a visa.

The recipient then contacted an interior designer and said she was trying to hire a South African woman to help with an interior design business. The communication indicated that they were having difficulty obtaining approval for the woman’s visa.

The exchange begins in EFTA00537636. The committee viewed it as part of a broader pattern involving immigration documents, nominal employment arrangements, and businesses associated with Epstein’s staff.

Tait notes that the immigration work involved Epstein linked businesses, including SLK Designs, a company associated with Sarah Kellen.

The email chain shows an effort to obtain a signed professional reference that could strengthen a visa application. It does not independently prove that the proposed job was fictional or that Beskardes knew any representation would be false. The concerning context comes from the language used by the participants and the broader findings of congressional investigators. (Oversight Democrats)

The Larger Pattern Identified by Congress

The Beskardes records appear within a broader section of the House report examining how Epstein used visas, marriages, educational programs, employment claims, sponsorship letters, housing, and financial support to move women through his network.

Congressional investigators reported finding 55 passports and identification cards belonging to young women from 16 countries among documents produced by Epstein’s estate.

The committee concluded that obtaining and maintaining visas was a frequent subject in Epstein’s communications. It also stated that some women were guided through allegedly fraudulent marriages or visa applications and that immigration status could be used as a form of control.

Those broad conclusions apply to Epstein’s operation as a whole. They should not automatically be treated as proof that every lawyer, employee, school, sponsor, or business appearing in an immigration record knowingly participated in trafficking. (Oversight Democrats)

Key Takeaways

First, Lisa Tait identified a sustained professional relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and immigration attorney Mehmet Arda Beskardes.

Second, Beskardes discussed “the marriage” with Epstein before Karyna Shuliak married an Epstein survivor in October 2013.

Third, the House Oversight report states that Beskardes may have facilitated an illusory marriage intended to allow Shuliak to remain in the United States.

Fourth, a survivor told Epstein’s estate that Epstein forced her into the marriage and that she did not understand the immediate immigration purpose until after the ceremony.

Fifth, Shuliak directly thanked Beskardes after receiving her green card.

Sixth, congressional investigators reported that Epstein paid Beskardes almost $50,000 across 12 immigration related payments between 2014 and 2018.

Seventh, Beskardes continued discussing visas and immigration matters with Epstein’s staff through at least April 2019.

Eighth, official CUNY records confirm that Beskardes held an immigration attorney role within the university’s international student system.

Ninth, other evidence concerns an approved O1B petition, a proposed school based visa route, and an effort to obtain an interior designer’s supporting letter for a South African woman.

Tenth, the records establish repeated immigration work and access. They do not, without additional evidence, establish that Beskardes knowingly participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking crimes.

Fact Check and Evidentiary Limits

The core claims in Tait’s article are supported by the House Oversight report and the cited Epstein evidence files.

The August 2013 marriage discussion, October 2013 marriage certificate, January 2015 green card email, June 2016 follow up, April 2019 school discussion, and March 2012 support letter exchange are documented in publicly accessible records.

The statement that Beskardes received almost $50,000 across 12 payments comes from the House committee’s review of bank records. The committee did not publish a complete public itemization of all 12 payments in the cited report.

The survivor’s statement concerning the marriage is summarized by congressional investigators. The complete underlying statement was not available for independent review in the public evidence examined for this report.

The committee used qualified language when discussing Beskardes. It stated that he “may have facilitated” an illusory marriage. This is a congressional investigative conclusion, not a criminal conviction or judicial finding.

No reviewed source establishes that Beskardes was criminally charged or convicted for Epstein related conduct.

No reviewed court decision establishes that Beskardes knowingly participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse or trafficking operation.

Professional representation, communications, institutional knowledge, successful applications, and payments are important evidence of a working relationship. They are not automatic proof of criminal intent. (EPSTEIN WIKI)

Source List

PostedJuly 16, 2026

ByEpsteinWiki

Tags: