[dehai-news] (Sacramento Bee) Law firm's scam reopens hundreds of asylum cases


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Biniam Tekle (biniamt@dehai.org)
Date: Mon Nov 16 2009 - 21:38:24 EST


*http://www.sacbee.com/crime/story/2327682.html*>
Law
firm's scam reopens hundreds of asylum cases
By Stephen Magagnini
Sacramento Bee
Posted: 11/16/2009 04:35:00 PM PST
Updated: 11/16/2009 04:35:01 PM PST

SACRAMENTO — For years, the Sekhon & Sekhon law firm was renowned as a
beacon of hope.

The firm, boasting a 95 percent success rate, helped more than 1,000
immigrants from a half-dozen nations get political asylum in the United
States based on a fear of persecution.

Many of those new asylees now stand to be deported, because as many as 700 —
coached by the firm's lawyers and interpreters — told phony stories of
torture and rape to immigration judges and asylum officers.

In June, following a three-month trial in Sacramento's federal court, three
of the firm's lawyers and two interpreters were convicted of conspiracy to
defraud the government. Prosecutors call it one of the most brazen
immigration scams in U.S. history.

In the months since, those who work in the asylum system have had to
confront serious questions about a time-honored process that is based
largely on trust: How did the firm get away with the fraud for so long? And
how vulnerable is the process to liars and con artists?

The firm's founders, brothers Jagprit Singh Sekhon and Jagdip Singh Sekhon,
along with attorney Manjit Kaur Rai and Romanian interpreters Iosif Caza and
Luciana Harmath, return to court Dec. 17 for sentencing. Each faces up to 10
years in prison.

Between 2000 and 2004, the defendants filed hundreds of claims for
Romanians, Indians, Nepalis and Fijians. They made more than $1 million
charging clients for bogus addresses, medical reports, notarized
declarations and tales of rapes and beatings that never took place, court
records show.

The case exposed a vulnerability that experts say is inherent in the system:
With tens of thousands of refugees asking for asylum every year, overworked
judges often rely on gut instinct about the evidence presented. That
evidence frequently consists of little more than the applicant's testimony,
so the detailed documentation presented by Sekhon & Sekhon swung the scales
in their favor.

Dana Leigh Marks, president of the National Association of Immigration
Judges and a veteran judge in San Francisco's immigration court, called the
Sekhon case "the worst-case nightmare come true for people who are cynical
about the asylum process to begin with."

"My colleagues have said it's very difficult to tell an asylum seeker with a
good claim from a good liar," Marks said. "We're death penalty cases in
traffic court settings. If somebody tells me he's going to be persecuted
when he goes back home and I'm wrong, I'm sentencing him to death."

One-sided stories

Marks said immigration judges typically have about 1,200 cases pending and
need more time on each "to allow the story to be fleshed out so you can
catch inconsistencies and implausibilities."

Often, she said, the applicant offers no supporting evidence.

"What makes asylum cases tricky for immigration judges is people don't get
notes from their dictators," Marks said. "You're trying to decide cases
without traditional documents that court cases often rely on. We usually get
one story from one vantage point."

That can work against some applicants who tell the truth but have no
documentation, Marks said. "People can be suffering from post-traumatic
stress disorder that makes them terrible witnesses."

The Sekhon firm became an asylum factory, court records show. Lawyers and
interpreters crafted fictional stories of persecution they thought would fly
— in some cases even when their clients had true tales of persecution.

The firm's statement on behalf of a 51-year-old Romanian Pentecostal claimed
that when he tried to bury a member of his congregation he was arrested,
cursed as a "devil," and beaten by police "until I lost consciousness."

A 36-year-old Sikh from Punjab said she watched police beat her father, who
had helped hide a member of the Punjabi independence movement. She claimed
"police kicked me in my sides, stomach, back, buttocks and legs."

Those stories were fabricated, prosecutors said, but the firm backed up its
cases with phony medical records and government documents, which made the
stories harder to reject.

The case "reveals a systemic problem," said McGeorge School of Law professor
Raquel Aldana. "The judges have heard so many sad stories, it's hard to say
who's telling the truth and who's not. They may have liked these cases
because they seemed well-substantiated."

Marks would like to see more resources for investigations to ensure "the
courts can rely on the documents that are presented."

In the Sekhon case, an alert asylum officer who had worked in Romania
thought something didn't seem right about all the claims of religious
persecution in the post-communist era. Investigators called doctors and
officials in Romania and determined the documents were fabricated.

Some advocates would like to see the government do more investigations in
applicants' home countries. But, in some countries, sending an investigator
to substantiate claims of brutality could put the applicant's family at
risk, said Benjamin Wagner, the Sacramento-based U.S. attorney who
prosecuted the Sekhon case.

Camil Skipper, an assistant U.S. attorney who helped Wagner with the
prosecution, said the Sekhon convictions in themselves should help
strengthen the asylum system: "We believe this case will serve as a
deterrent."

One harrowing tale verified

Unlike refugees who generally are granted legal status in the United States
after they've fled their homeland to a third country, those applying for
asylum ask for refuge after entering the United States.

Applicants must convince asylum officers and judges they've been persecuted
or have a well-founded fear they will be based on race, religion,
nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group.

In a typical year, U.S. immigration courts receive upward of 50,000 requests
for asylum. The percentage of requests granted has risen from about a third
early in the decade to almost half from 2006-2008.

Nationwide, more than 420,000 people were granted asylum between 1990 and
2008. Many believe asylum saved their lives.

Among them is Senait Berekete Ghebremariam, a former Eritrean journalist. In
one of several windowless immigration courtrooms in downtown San Francisco,
Ghebremariam, 38, told her story recently to Judge Loreto S. Geisse.

The judge warned her that if she lied, she would be barred for life from
getting asylum.

Ghebremariam nodded, then said she and her five sisters were circumcised as
babies, as is the custom of the Tegrinya ethnic group. She described a
country hostile for women. While in the army, she said, she was raped by a
brigadier general.

She told the judge she was jailed for treason stemming from her dialect.
Once released, she fled. Her odyssey took her through Africa and South
America. She asked for asylum at the Arizona border and ended up in San
Jose, where she has relatives.

She testified the circumcision scarred her emotionally. She has no desire
for physical intimacy, she said, and wishes she could have children, but
"I'm so worried about my physical condition and the pain it creates."

She said she would be killed if forced to return.

Judge Geisse quizzed Ghebremariam about other Eritrean journalists, and she
knew them. Prosecutor Scott Gambill had her recall dates and details, and
interviewed a midwife about the extent of Ghebremariam's genital mutilation.

Ultimately, the judge granted her asylum.

Gambill said the government's role isn't to block people like Ghebremariam,
who are deserving of protection.

"Asylum is a sacred trust, and my role is to weed out the ones who are not
deserving and don't have a well-founded fear of persecution," he said.

In the wake of the Sekhon case, the San Francisco asylum office is
interviewing each of the 700 people caught up in the scam to decide whether
to revoke their asylum.

If the government ends up sending hundreds of cases back to immigration
court, they're going to pose a tremendous challenge, Judge Marks said.

"These are going to be hotly contested cases as to whether or not the person
who says he was prejudiced by an unethical lawyer deserves a second chance,"
Marks said. "We're going to have to work through them case by case, judge by
judge, and it's the judge's job not to be cynical and burned out."

         ----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2009
All rights reserved