A jury convicted three California lawyers and two interpreters who prosecutors said had organized massive fraud in the filing of asylum claims, generating false documents and coaching hundreds of clients to make false claims of persecution in India, Romania, and other countries so as to obtain the right to remain in this country. [Sacramento Bee; Jagprit Singh Sekhon, Jagdip Singh Sekhon, and Manjit Kaur Rai] “Meanwhile, in Boston, federal immigration authorities have begun rejecting dozens of immigration applications filed by lawyer John K. Dvorak, The Boston Globe reports. Officials allege they have found fraud, such as fake employment letters, in a significant number of Dvorak’s cases.” [Ambrogi, LegalBlogWatch]
Posts tagged as:
asylum law
Your job is just to get in, we’ll provide the free lawyers once you do: “A decision to give legal aid to a failed asylum seeker and fraudster has been described as ‘barmy’. Zimbabwean Quentin Chapingidza was granted legal aid after he was charged with falsely claiming £23,500 in student loans from Harrow Council in north west London for a three-year computer course. His loan application included a fake Home Office letter claiming he had indefinite leave to remain in the UK.” [Independent]
Trouble with human rights law, cont’d: Phil Woolas, immigration minister in Gordon Brown’s Labor government, has won attention for his sharp criticisms of U.K. asylum law.
In an interview with the Guardian, Woolas described the legal professionals and NGO [non-governmental organization] workers as “an industry”, and said most asylum seekers were not fleeing persecution but were economic migrants.“The system is played by migration lawyers and NGOs to the nth degree,” Woolas said. “By giving false hope and by undermining the legal system, [they] actually cause more harm than they do good.”
(Patrick Barkham, “Asylum-seeker charities are just playing the system, says Woolas”, Guardian, Nov. 18). We’ve added a tag on asylum law.
Fun with international human rights law, continued:
Lawyers for two Iraqis accused of the murder of two British soldiers now maintain that the men cannot get a fair trial in Iraq, and are entitled to one here in Britain instead. A High Court judge will rule on the case this week. Lawyers have already received several thousand pounds for representing the Iraqis, who, although not British citizens, have their case in the British courts funded by British taxpayers. Win or lose, the lawyers will receive more from that source. If the judge rules against them, they will no doubt appeal. The appeals process is lengthy, and lucrative. If they win, then there will be another issue to be litigated: whether the Iraqis should be given asylum in the UK, on the grounds that Iraq is not a safe place for the accused.
(”Iraqi crimes have no place in our courts” (editorial), Telegraph, Nov. 16).
Here are my prepared remarks for the June 14 panel at the ACS convention. My actual remarks differed from this somewhat, as I extemporized a bit and, by my watch, I didn’t get my full ten minutes before the moderator cut me off:
{ 2 comments }
At Commentary’s “Contentions”, Ted Bromund notes the Gilbert-and-Sullivanesque nature of the Royal Navy’s fear that detaining pirates off the coast of Somalia, or denying them subsequent asylum if sought, might violate their international human rights (Apr. 18). Earlier here.
{ 2 comments }
A number of newspapers have picked up the tale of Kunal Sah, who will be competing in his second consecutive national spelling bee this year. His parents were recently deported after sixteen years of living in the States, and some bloggers have noted the irony: here’s a successful immigrant who owned a business and raised a successful son, and they’re being deported because of “tough U.S. immigration regulations in the post-9/11 atmosphere.”
Except the deported parents are not anywhere near as sympathetic as the press coverage makes them out to be. Kanhai Lal “Ken” Sah came to the United States in 1990, and, as his visa expired in 1991, applied for political asylum, and managed to keep his case alive for fifteen years. His son Kunal was born during that time, and got American citizenship as a result, and remains in the country. But the parents’ asylum application was denied, and they were deported
Sah’s asylum claim? He feared Muslim persecution in his home country. That might engender sympathy—until one realizes that his home country is India, which has 800 million fellow Hindus for Sah to live amongst. And that Sah’s basis for fearing persecution was because, as a member of the radical Hindu nationalist organization Vishwa Hindu Parishad, he “took a very active part in organizing and conducting [anti-mosque] meeting[s]” and that he “actively participated in the riots to [attempt to] demolish the Babri Mosque.” (Vishwa eventually succeeded in destroying the mosque in 1992, causing religious riots that killed 900 people.)
The Sahs are now engaging in a public relations campaign for citizenship on the basis of the hardship created by the fifteen years they spent in the country churning the bogus asylum application. None of the press coverage mentions Ken Sah’s role in his asylum denial as a radical Hindu. Don’t believe the hype. (Sah v. Gonzales (10th Cir. 2005)). (And welcome Malkin readers.)
{ 3 comments }
“A ‘high risk’ child rapist is to receive thousands of pounds in damages for ‘unlawful detention’ while held pending deportation to Somalia, a High Court judge ruled yesterday. The failed asylum seeker, who cannot be named and is referred to only as ‘A’, is threatened with removal after serving an eight-year prison sentence for attacking and sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl. But yesterday Mr Justice Calvert Smith ruled that there was a period between Dec. 3 2004 and July 20 2006 when the 31-year-old’s detention became unlawful, entitling him to compensation.” Deportation from the UK to Somalia has been difficult to accomplish until recently because airlines refused to transport deportees, and “A” refused to get on a plane voluntarily. (”Rapist wins pay-out over unlawful detention”, Daily Telegraph, Dec. 8; “A failed asylum seeker jailed for child rape receives £50,000″, Dec. 8).
{ 4 comments }
Nine Afghan asylum seekers who hijacked a plane at gunpoint to get to Britain should have been admitted to the country as genuine refugees and allowed to live and work here freely, the High Court ruled yesterday.
In a decision that astonished and dismayed MPs, the Home Office was accused of abusing its powers by failing to give the nine formal permission to enter Britain, in breach of their human rights.
(Philip Johnston, “Hijackers have a right to live in Britain”, Daily Telegraph, May 11; “Give us back our rights” (editorial), May 14).
{ 3 comments }
More on a subject we covered on Dec. 13, Sept. 14, and Jul. 16 of last year: in December British authorities rounded up and arrested the head and various officials of the British National Party, charging them with inciting racial hatred in political speeches (”Let the people of England speak”, The Spectator, Jan. 1). Also in December, the quasiofficial Press Complaints Commission announced a crackdown “on the use of the term ‘illegal asylum seeker’ by newspapers after research revealed its continued usage. Sir Christopher Meyer, the press watchdog’s chairman, has commissioned its cuttings agency to scan all British newspapers for use of the term after a study by the Liberal Democrats showed that the press has ignored the PCC’s guidance issued more than a year ago.” The culture spokesman of the bafflingly named LDP has written to Meyer “calling for harsher punishments for defiant newspapers”, and saying there is “a strong case for considering the imposition of fines on erring newspapers.” (Sarah Hall, “Newspapers flout ruling on asylum seekers”, The Guardian, Dec. 31).
In Devon, England, a community theater producer who faced accusations of hate speech last year after staging a Christmas pantomime entitled Snow White and the Seven Asylum Seekers has announced that he has begun production on a presumably less offensive show, Snow Person and the Seven Completely Ordinary People. The north Devon village of Merton near Okehampton had banned producer Bob Harrod’s pantomime last year following advice from the government’s Commission for Racial Equality and a regional race council, after complaints that the show’s satirical portrayal of asylum seekers might violate laws against racially offensive speech. The show featured seven asylum seekers with names like Chemical Ali, Comical Ali, Back Ali, Dark Ali, and Bowling Ali. The nearby village of Langtree, however, agreed to host the production. (”New target for Snow White writer”, BBC, Sept. 11; Nov. 3 and Dec. 1, 2003)(via Norvell). More on British hate speech laws: Jul. 16, 2004, Dec. 18-19, 2002,
In Miami, immigration lawyer Javier Lopera was sentenced to eight years in prison and faces deportation afterward for his role in operating a visa mill which may have provided as many as 3,500 persons with false papers qualifying them to enter the country as religious ministers or business executives. In another major fraud case, “Virginia lawyer Samuel Kooritzky was sentenced in March to 10 years in prison for crimes involving 2,700 applications submitted in 18 months.” (Catherine Wilson, “Probe of immigration lawyer balloons into massive visa fraud case”, AP/Atlanta Journal Constitution, Aug. 29). Last year Harvard Law-educated Robert Porges, who once ran the country’s largest political asylum practice, and his wife pleaded guilty to charges of racketeering, conspiracy and tax fraud and were sentenced to about eight years in prison for their role in filing 6,000 or more false asylum applications as well as false affidavits (see Sept. 22, 2000; Matt Hayes, “Corrupt Lawyers Aid Immigration Woes”, Fox News, Apr. 29, 2002; “Lawyer, wife admit Chinese smuggling scheme”, AP/Court TV, 2002; Elizabeth Amon, “The Snakehead Lawyers”, National Law Journal, Jul. 17, 2002).
“‘Father files suit after son fails to make MVP award’” (hockey, New Brunswick), Nov. 8-10, 2002.
“‘Sorry, Slimbo, you’re in my seats’“, June 7, 2001 (& updates Dec. 15-16, 2001, Oct. 25-27, 2002); “Obese fliers“, Dec. 20, 2000; “Welcome Toronto Star readers” (Jason Brooks column, disabled rights), Sept. 27-28, 2000.
Personal responsibility, 2002: “Skating first, instructions later” (Edmonton), Sept. 25-26; “‘Woman freezes; sues city, cabbie’” (Winnipeg), Sept. 18-19; Personal responsibility roundup” (social host alcohol liability), Sept. 12; “Paroled prisoner: pay for not supervising me“, Jan. 4-6. 2001: “Don’t rock the Coke machine“, July 20-22; “‘Gambling addiction’ class action” (Loto-Quebec), June 20 (& update May 20-21, 2002; “‘Woman who drove drunk gets $300,000′” (Barrie, Ont.), Feb. 7-8; “By reader acclaim” (sues alleged crack dealers over own addiction), Jan. 11. 2000: “Not my fault, I” (woman who murdered daughter sues psychiatrists), May 17; “Blue-ribbon excuse syndromes” (Metis Indian defendant allowed to cite cultural oppression as defense to stabbing charge), Feb. 12-13.
“Cash demanded for drug users and panhandlers inconvenienced by film crews” (Vancouver), Aug. 23-25, 2002.
“Activist judges north of the border“, May 31-Jun. 2, 2002 (& letter to the editor, Jun. 14).
“Flowers, perfume in airline cabins not OK?“, May 17-19, 2002; “Scented hair gel, deodorant could mean jail time for Canadian youth“, Apr. 24, 2000.
“‘Unharmed woman awarded $104,000′” (Manitoba chemical exposure), May 6, 2002.
“‘Targeting “big food”‘” (Lemieux, National Post), Apr. 29-30, 2002.
“Pharmaceutical roundup” (silicone implants popular), Apr. 16-17, 2002.
“Web speech roundup” (flag logo on website), Mar. 25-26, 2002.
“Tribulations of the light prison sleeper“, Mar. 25-26, 2002; “Prison litigation: ‘Kittens and Rainbows Suites’” (cellmate’s smoking violates rights), Jan. 11-13; “Paroled prisoner: pay for not supervising me“, Jan. 4-6, 2002.
“Couldn’t order 7-Up in French” (suing Air Canada for $525,000), Mar. 18, 2002; “Gotta regulate ‘em all” (Quebec official upset that Pok?n cards not in French), Dec. 16, 1999.
“Stop, they said” (Manitoba: stop sign too vague?), Feb. 4-5, 2002.
“Planners tie up land for twenty years” (plus B.C. land use story), Jan. 18-20, 2002.
Family law, 2002: “‘Avoiding court is best defence’” (Dave Brown), Jan. 14-15. 2001: “‘Crying wolf’” (Christie Blatchford on sexual abuse charges), Oct. 30; “Why she’s quitting law practice” (Karen Selick), Aug. 13-14; “Canadian court: divorce settlements never final“, May 15; “‘Victim is sued for support’“, Feb. 9-11; “Solomon’s child” (Donna LaFramboise), Jan. 26-28. 2000: “Pilloried, broke, alone” (LaFramboise on “deadbeat dads”), April 10. 1999: “Down repressed-memory lane: distracted when she signed” (Ont. judge voids separation agreement), Dec. 29-30.
“Front-row spectator sues ‘reckless’ exotic dancer” (B.C.), Jan. 7-8, 2002; “Embarrassing Lawsuit Hall of Fame” (injured by exotic dancer in Ottawa), Aug. 14, 2000; “‘Toronto Torch’ age-bias suit” (stripper in Brantford), May 23, 2000.
“Overlawyered schools roundup” (challenge to Ontario standards), Dec. 7-9, 2001.
“Columnist-fest” (asylum policies), Nov. 27, 2001; “Opponents of profiling, still in the driver’s seat” (Air Canada), Nov. 2-4; “Security holes: to the North…” (anti-terrorism security), Sept. 14-16, 2001.
“‘Hate speech’ law invoked against anti-American diatribe“, Oct. 17-18, 2001; “Most unsettling thing we’ve heard about Canada in a while” (hate speech laws), Dec. 17-19, 1999.
“‘Hama to sue bridge owners over her daughter’s fall’” (Capilano Suspension Bridge, Vancouver), Oct. 8, 2001.
“Fear of losing welfare benefits deemed coercive” (N.S.), Oct. 3-4, 2001.
Zero tolerance, etc.: “John Leo on Overlawyered.com” (Halifax: snowball-like gestures banned), Aug. 15, 2001; “Fateful fiction” (Cornwall, Ont.), Jan. 30, 2001; “Hug protest in Halifax” (school’s no-physical-contact policy), March 2, 2000; “Zero tolerance roundup” (Windsor: 11-year-old’s fictional school essay), Dec. 27-28, 1999.
“Why she’s quitting law practice” (Karen Selick), Aug. 13-14, 2001.
“Welcome Bourque.org readers“, June 26, 2001.
“‘Dead teen’s family sues Take Our Kids To Work’“, May 31, 2001.
“Holiday special” (misconduct by N.B. lawyer), May 28, 2001.
“‘Insect lawyer ad creates buzz’” (Torys, Toronto), May 23, 2001; “‘Not-a-Lawyer’” (Vancouverite’s business card), Feb. 10-11, 2000.
“Columnist-fest” (Mark Steyn on Indian residential schools), May 1, 2001; “Bankrupting Canadian churches?“, Aug. 23-24, 2000.
“Canada’s secret legal aid“, April 10, 2001.
“Putting the ’special’ in special sauce” (alleged rat in Big Mac”, March 29, 2001.
“Saves her friend’s life, then sues her“, Jan. 3, 2001.
“Canada reins in expert witnesses“, Nov. 22-23, 2000.
“Malpractice outlays on rise in Canada“, Oct. 2, 2000.
“‘Mother sues over lack of ice time for goalie son’” (Quebec), Sept. 11, 2000.
“‘Mugging victim “stupid”, judge says’” (Winnipeg case), Aug. 2, 2000.
“‘Skydivers don’t sue’“, May 26, 2000 (update July 6: Canadian diver prevails in suit against teammate).
“Cash for trash, and worse” (”Vancouver solution” for Microsoft?), June 26, 2000.
“Welcome Montreal Gazette readers” (columnist Doug Camilli cites this website), June 7, 2000; “Trop d’avocats.com” (we are recommended by the Gazette), Oct. 18, 1999.
“‘More lawyers than we really need?’” (aftermath of Walkerton, Ont. E. Coli outbreak: columnist cites this website), June 2-4, 2000.
“Less suing = less suffering” (Sasketchewan no-fault auto study), April 24, 2000 (& update June 26).
“Swissair crash aftermath” (Peggy’s Cove disaster in U.S. courts), March 14, 2000; “Montreal Gazette ‘Lawsuit of the Year’” (bagpipers sue Swissair for lost income), Jan. 17, 2000.
“‘Girl puts head under guillotine; sues when hurt’“, March 8, 2000.
“Ontario judge okays hockey-fan lawsuit“, Jan. 12, 2000; “Spreading to Canada?” (hockey fan sues Alexei Yashin), Oct. 20, 1999.
“Update: toilet of terror” (Canadian tourist visits Starbucks in NYC, sues), Dec. 8, 1999; “Starbucks toilet lawsuit“, Dec. 1, 1999.
“Mounties vs. your dish” (satellite regulations), Nov. 1, 1999.
“Sensitivity in cow-naming“, Oct. 21, 1999; “Weekend reading” (Bugs Bunny television complaint), Aug. 21-22, 1999. “You may already not be a winner” (prisoner suit over sweepstakes entry), Aug. 23, 1999.
For a discussion of the loser-pays principle, which Canada has retained to a considerable extent in its courts, see our loser-pays page
