Minnesota Court of Appeals in an unpublished ruling decided that district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony regarding the U visa process and the victim’s immigration status from the criminal case. As the district court observed, Niola failed to establish any connection between the U visa process and the child’s allegations that would make immigration evidence more than minimally relevant to this case. The district court excluded evidence of the child’s and her mother’s immigration status as both irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.