DOJ: Jury Convicts Foreign Service Officer and Former Spouse for Obtaining U.S. Citizenship by Fraud

 

Via USDOJ/September 13, 2021
Jury Convicts Foreign Service Officer and Former Spouse for Obtaining U.S. Citizenship by Fraud
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A federal jury convicted a California woman and Russian-born man on Friday on charges of conspiracy and obtaining U.S. citizenship by fraud.
According to court records and evidence presented at trial, Laura Gallagher, 32, a Foreign Service Officer with the U.S. Department of State, and Andrey Kalugin, 36, originally of Russia, conspired together to obtain lawful permanent residence and U.S. citizenship for Kalugin through his marriage to Gallagher. 
“The jury’s verdict holds these two defendants accountable for orchestrating a scheme to defraud the United States and obtain unlawful citizenship and passports,” said Raj Parekh, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. “Gallagher disregarded her responsibilities to the public as a federal government employee and licensed attorney when she engaged in this fraudulent scheme with Kalugin. Thanks to the dedication of the trial team and our partners at the State Department, these defendants have been brought to justice.”
Evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the defendants met in law school in 2013. Kalugin was in the United States on a student visa that was due to expire in July 2015. The defendants married in June 2015 and submitted applications for Kalugin to obtain his “green card.” The defendants moved from California to Virginia in March 2016, but split up soon thereafter. However, they continued with the immigration process.
“The Diplomatic Security Service is firmly committed to working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate allegations of crime related to naturalization fraud and to bring those who commit these crimes to justice,” said Jessica Moore, Chief of the Criminal Investigations Division of the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service. “When a Department employee in a position of trust is alleged to have committed a federal felony involving naturalization fraud by exploiting their status, we vigorously investigate claims of corruption.” 
Gallagher, who is also a California-licensed attorney, then prepared for Kalugin an application for 319(b) expeditious naturalization, which is a benefit available to spouses of citizens who are regularly stationed abroad for their employment. The defendants provided materially false responses in the application, including that Kalugin was still in a good-faith marriage and intended to reside with Gallagher abroad and return with her to the United States. Kalugin appeared for an interview on Feb. 5, 2018 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in Fairfax, where he repeated the false statements to the adjudicating officer. After USCIS approved the application and he received his citizenship, Kalugin fraudulently obtained U.S. Diplomatic and tourist passports. Shortly thereafter, Gallagher filed for divorce.
Gallagher and Kalugin each face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison when sentenced on Feb. 4, 2022. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. Kalugin additionally faces mandatory revocation of his U.S. citizenship. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
Raj Parekh, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Jessica Moore, Chief of the Criminal Investigations Division of the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service, made the announcement after Senior U.S. District Judge T. S. Ellis, III accepted the verdict.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Raizza K. Ty and Morris R. Parker, Jr. are prosecuting the case.
A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:21-cr-43.

###

@StateDept Announces Tiered Approach in Immigrant Visa Prioritization

 

Via travel.state.gov:
As noted in our recent visa services operating status update, the Department of State is committed to sharing the current status of our worldwide visa operations.  As part of that effort, we would like to clarify how our embassies and consulates are prioritizing immigrant visa applications, as the Department works to reduce the backlog of such applications resulting from travel restrictions and operational constraints caused by the global COVID pandemic.
The health and safety of our personnel, U.S. citizens seeking assistance abroad, individuals seeking immigration benefits, and local populations is paramount.  Posts that process both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas are prioritizing immigrant visa applications while still providing some nonimmigrant visa services.  However, the volume and type of visa cases each post will process continues to depend on local conditions, including restrictions on movement and gathering imposed by host country governments.  In addition, consistent with U.S. government guidance on safety in the federal workplace, U.S. embassies and consulates have implemented social distancing and other safety measures, which have reduced the number of applicants consular sections are able to process in a single day.  Consular sections will resume providing all routine visa services as it is safe to do so in that particular location.
[…]
Consistent with those objectives, U.S. embassies and consulates are using a tiered approach to triage immigrant visa applications based on the category of immigrant visa as they resume and expand processing.  While our consular sections, where possible, are scheduling some appointments within all four priority tiers every month, the following lists the main categories of immigrant visas in priority order:
      • Tier One: Immediate relative intercountry adoption visas, age-out cases (cases where the applicant will soon no longer qualify due to their age), certain Special Immigrant Visas (SQ and SI for Afghan and Iraqi nationals working with the U.S. government), and emergency cases as determined on a case-by-case basis.
      • Tier Two:  Immediate relative visas; fiancé(e) visas; and returning resident visas
      • Tier Three: Family preference immigrant visas and SE Special Immigrant Visas for certain employees of the U.S. government abroad
      • Tier Four: All other immigrant visas, including employment preference and diversity visas
Many embassies and consulates continue to have a significant backlog of all categories of immigrant visas.  This prioritization plan instructs posts to maximize their limited resources to accommodate as many immediate relative and fiancé(e) cases as possible with a goal of, at a minimum, preventing the backlog from growing in these categories and hopefully reducing it.
Read the full announcement here.
###

VPOTUS Kamala Harris Makes First Overseas Trip to Guatemala and Mexico

13 Going on 14 — GFM: https://gofund.me/32671a27

 

GUATEMALA

See Fact Sheet: U.S. – Guatemala Cooperation, June 7, 2021

MEXICO

@StateDept Announces “National Interest Exceptions” for Certain Travelers from the Schengen Area, United Kingdom, and Ireland

Via State/CA:
National Interest Exceptions for Certain Travelers from the Schengen Area, United Kingdom, and Ireland
Last Updated: July 16, 2020

Certain business travelers, investors, treaty traders, academics, and students may qualify for National Interest Exceptions under Presidential Proclamations (PPs) 9993 (Schengen Area) and 9996 (United Kingdom and Ireland). Qualified business and student travelers who are applying for or have valid visas or ESTA authorization may travel to the United States even as PPs 9993 and 9996 remain in effect.

Students traveling from the Schengen Area, the UK, and Ireland with valid F-1 and M-1 visas, do not need to seek a national interest exception to travel. Students from those areas who are traveling on a J-1 may contact the nearest embassy or consulate to initiate an exception request.The Department of State also continues to grant National Interest Exceptions for qualified travelers seeking to enter the United States for purposes related to humanitarian travel, public health response, and national security.

Granting national interest exceptions for this travel to the United States from the Schengen area, UK, and Ireland, will assist with the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and bolster key components of our transatlantic relationship.

We appreciate the transparency and concerted efforts of our European partners and allies to combat this pandemic and welcome the EU’s reciprocal action to allow key categories of essential travel to continue.

Also see: Exceptions to Presidential Proclamations (10014 & 10052) Suspending the Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Presenting a Risk to the United States Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak
Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak

USCIS to Shrink Overseas Presence to Seven Locations

 

We almost missed a recent announcement from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) dated August 9 concerning its “international footprint.” It will maintain its presence at seven locations but will close 13 field offices and 13 district offices within the next year.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today plans to maintain operations at its international field offices in Beijing and Guangzhou, China; Nairobi, Kenya; and New Delhi, India. Previously, Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli directed the agency to continue operating in Guatemala City, Guatemala; Mexico City, Mexico; and San Salvador, El Salvador, as part of a whole-of-government approach to address the crisis at the southern border.

While retaining these seven international offices, USCIS plans to close the remaining thirteen international field offices and three district offices between now and August 2020. The first planned closures are the field offices in Monterrey, Mexico, and Seoul, South Korea, at the end of September. These organizational changes will allow more effective allocation of USCIS resources to support, in part, backlog reduction efforts.

“This cost-effective and high value international footprint allows USCIS to efficiently adjudicate complex immigration petitions that require in-person interviews, to enhance integrity through fraud detection and national security activities, and to liaise with U.S. and foreign government entities to improve migration management capacity,” said Cuccinelli. “In the months ahead, USCIS will close its other international offices on a staggered schedule, ensuring a smooth transition of workloads to USCIS domestic offices and State Department consular sections, while mitigating impacts on USCIS staff who will rotate back to domestic positions.”

Many functions currently performed at international offices will be handled domestically or by USCIS domestic staff on temporary assignments abroad. As part of this shift, the Department of State (DOS) will assume responsibility for certain in-person services that USCIS currently provides at international field offices. In addition to issuing visas to foreign nationals who are abroad, DOS already performs many of these service functions where USCIS does not have an office. USCIS is working closely with DOS to minimize interruptions in immigration services to affected applicants and petitioners.

As of this writing, travel.state.gov’s newsroom remains pretty sparse with news.

#

#USCIS Badly Written ‘Policy Alert’ on Citizenship Blows Up, Causes Wildfire

 

 

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services published a Policy Alert on August 28, 2019 on “Defining Residence in Statutory Provisions Related to Citizenship.”  The same day, the agency had to issue a USCIS Policy Manual Update and the Acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli subsequently had to issue a statement clarifying the policy update, “This policy update does not affect who is born a U.S. citizen, period.  This only affects children who were born outside the United States and were not U.S. citizens.  This does NOT impact birthright citizenship.  This policy update does not deny citizenship to the children of US government employees or members of the military born abroad.  This policy aligns USCIS’ process with the Department of State’s procedure, that’s it.”
That’s it! The end. But that doesn’t make it so. There was a hashtag trending already.
So, first, we need to point out that the Foreign Affairs Manual (see 8 FAM 301.1) already dispels the myth that birth on a U.S. military base outside of the United States or birth on U.S. embassy or consulate premises abroad constitutes as “birth in the United States:”

(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.  A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth;

(2)  The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America.

Children born at U.S. military installations overseas or at U.S. diplomatic and consular premises are not born in the United States and do not/do not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth in the United States or outlying possessions; they could acquire citizenship through one or both their U.S. citizen parents.  We’re throwing this out there because various reporting appears to perpetuate the misconception that birth in these premises accord children their U.S. citizenship; it doesn’t.
Now, we’ve read USCIS’s multiple justifications for this update (pages 9-10), and we still don’t understand the reasoning for rescinding the previous interpretation. What precipitated this update? If true that this affects only approximately a hundred annually, why is this update even necessary?  Supposedly, the original  policy determination was made in 2004, and there were changes in 2008, but the previous Administration did not clean it up or reconcile the conflicts in the various  parts of the Immigration Act so the current Administration is now updating the policy? That’s basically what USCIS is saying on the Alert.
Also, the previous policy apparently “produced confusion” which obviously, this policy update does not.
One blog pal who did consular work called it “messy and contradictory prior guidance.” But we think part of the problem is that this Administration has such a poor record on immigration that it even when it is providing a policy guidance to clean up or sort out the conflicts in the law, it causes a wildfire in our heads.
We have some thoughts about this updated USCIS policy; just that  – some thoughts based on the published regs because we’re nerdy that way and the wildfire caused by this interests us. That USCIS Policy Alert is frankly, a convoluted piece of work but it makes two points:  one, it makes a distinction between a “residence” and “physical presence” in the United States, and two, it talks about change specific to INA 320.

Residence vs. Physical Presence

The USCIS Policy Alert basically says that an individual may be physically present in the United States for summer camps or while visiting relatives for weeks or even months but those would not constitute a residence  for the purposes of transmission of citizenship. Page 4 of the Alert notes:

Residence is more than a temporary presence or a visit to the United States. Therefore, temporary presences and visits are insufficient to establish residence for the purposes of transmitting citizenship. For example, someone who resides along the border in Mexico or Canada, but works each day in the United States, cannot use his or her workplace to establish a residence.”

We found a similar language in the State Department’s 8 FAM 301.7-4(B)  Birth in Wedlock or of Wedlock to Two U.S. Citizen Parents, updated in June 2018, which notes the following:

Residence is not determined solely by the length of time one spends in a place, but also takes into account the nature and quality of the person’s connection to the place.  This is a very fact-specific test.  However, at all times and in all cases, residence involves the connection to a specific physical place.  Residence is not a state of mind that travels with a person.  Department guidance clearly states that residence is more than a temporary presence and that visits to the United States are insufficient to establish residency for the purposes of citizenship transmission under INA 301(c).

8 FAM 301.7-4(B) also notes that “a child born abroad to two U.S. citizens acquires U.S. citizenship at birth if, before the child’s birth, one of the parents had a residence in the United States or its outlying possessions.  No specific period of residence is required.”
Is that why USCIS want to clarify this? The USCIS Policy Alert description of documents required to demonstrate residence is almost identical to the State Department’s list enumerated in the 8 FAM 301.7-4(B) section, by the way.
This FAM citation also helpfully points out:

The concept of “residence” should not be confused with the term “physical presence” which is used elsewhere in the INA as the test for transmitting citizenship, and which is a more literal concept that may be easier to apply.  INA 301(g), for example, requires that when only one parent is a U.S. citizen, that citizen parent must have a specific duration of physical presence — not residence–in the United States prior to the birth of the child in order to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.  Unlike in INA 301(g), in INA 301(c), Congress chose to use the term “residence,” and not set a time requirement.  The rationale being that the nature of a residence presupposes the sort of relationship to a place that mere physical presence does not.

INA 320/INA 322

The USCIS Policy Manual Update explains the Policy Alert better:
      • Clarify that temporary visits to the U.S. do not establish U.S. residence;
      • Explain the distinction between residence and physical presence in the United States; and
      • Explain that USCIS no longer considers children who are living abroad with a parent who is a U.S. government employee or U.S. service member as “residing in the United States” for purposes of acquiring citizenship under INA 320.
That’s simple enough when put that way. It also links to Automatic Acquisition of Citizenship after Birth (INA 320) and the  General Requirements for  Genetic, Legitimated, or Adopted Child Automatically Acquiring Citizenship after Birth.
So we looked up INA 320 in the FAM. Per 8 FAM 301.10-1(A), the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA), Public Law 106-395, which took effect February 27, 2001, amended INA 320 to extend U.S. citizenship automatically to certain foreign-born children of U.S. citizens.  It extended citizenship to three categories of children:

(a)  Children of naturalized citizens;
(b)  Children adopted abroad by U.S. citizens; and
(c)  Children born abroad to a U.S. citizen and who do not otherwise acquire U.S. citizenship at birth under INA 301 as made applicable by INA 309.

The law also amended INA 322 to apply only to children who reside outside the United States and who do not have Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) status; amended INA 322 to provide for expeditious naturalization to children born outside the United States and who do not have LPR status.;  and stepchildren cannot avail themselves of the CCA unless they have been adopted by the U.S. citizen step parent.
The FAM notes that children acquiring U.S. citizenship under the Child Citizenship Act are not eligible for form FS-240, Consular Report of Birth Abroad of Citizen of the United States of America or form DS-1350, Certification of Birth, which are processed by consular sections at US embassies and consular posts overseas.
The acquisition of U.S. citizenship under the revised INA 320 or revised INA 322 is a form of expedited administrative naturalization.  The FAM cite further notes that Section 322 INA is administered exclusively by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
So it looks like what this policy update does in attempt to clarify what “residence” means, and it removes the exception  under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA) for children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States. One of the requirements under INA 320 is that “The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent. [5]  
One source who did consular work told us that it may be that U.S. military serving overseas are considered resident on, for instance, a U.S. base in Germany. Well, in fact, the USCIS still has this in their footnotes as of this writing: 

“5. [^] See INA 320. See 8 CFR 320.2. Children of U.S. government employees temporarily stationed abroad are considered to be “residing in the United States” for purposes of acquisition of citizenship under INA 320. 

We borrowed another head which happens to be a consular one, and he/she thought that with this policy change of what is a “residence,” U.S. citizens could not just be on TDY to the United States or on a visit to obtain citizenship for their children, they have to be residing in the United States. Whereas in the past, military members or FS members may be able to arrive in the US. and get naturalization for their children then return overseas to continue their assignment, it appears that this new update would make it so that U.S. citizen parents have to do the naturalization on behalf of their minor children at the end of their overseas tours and when they are permanently relocating to the United States. At least, that’s how we’re reading this policy update at this time. We’re happy to entertain other interpretations.
We’ve checked the USCIS website to see what this means in terms of processing fees and time.  The USCIS website which has not been updated yet as of last night notes that per INA 320, the child must be under 18 years of age and must be a legal permanent resident in order to qualify. In order to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship, a child who has automatically acquired citizenship must follow the instructions on the Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600). This cost $1,170 and the fee applies even if the applicant is filing as an adopted child or as a child of a veteran or member of the U.S. armed forces. Processing time for an N-600 case according to USCIS is between 5 Months to 24.5 Months (same for Newark, NJ, and WashDC but may vary for other areas).
Effective October 29, 2019, USCIS no longer considers children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members residing outside the United States as “residing in the United States” for purposes of acquiring citizenship under INA 320, but they may still apply under INA 322.

In general, INA 322 provides that a parent who is a U.S. citizen (or, if the citizen parent has died during the preceding five years, a citizen grandparent or citizen legal guardian) may apply for naturalization on behalf of a child born and residing outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship automatically under INA 320. The child must naturalize before he or she reaches 18 years of age.

See Children of Service Members Residing Abroad (INA 322). (Form N-600K) This also cost $1,170. Processing time for an N-600K case in El Paso, TX is between 6.5 Months to 28.5; same processing time for Los Angeles, CA, although the time may vary in other locations; we haven;’t checked all the locations).
Based on USCIS info, the processing fees are the same either way, but applications under INA 322 may take slightly longer than applications INA 320.  Are there any other ways where the INA 322 process is different or more challenging to applicants? We’ll update this post if we learn anything more.

 

Related items:

301.7 IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT OF 1952

301.1 (U) ACQUISITION BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES

8 FAM 301.10 ACQUISITION OF U.S. CITIZENSHIP BY THE CHILD CITIZENSHIP ACT

 

@StateDept to start requiring Diversity Visa applicants valid, unexpired passports on electronic entry forms

 

On June 5, 2019, the State Department published on the Federal Register an interim final rule requiring alien petitioners for the Diversity Visa Program “to provide certain information from a valid, unexpired passport on the electronic entry form.”

Diversity Visa Program, DV 2016-2018: Number of Entries Received During Each Online Registration Period by Country of Chargeability. (Click on image to see the full pdf document)

Excerpt:

An estimated 14 million aliens register annually for the DV Program through an electronic entry form. The entry form collects information on the petitioner’s full name; date and place of birth; gender; native country, if different from place of birth; current mailing address; and location of the consular post where the diversity visa should be adjudicated, if the petitioner is selected through the DV lottery. The electronic entry form also collects information about the names, dates and places of birth for the petitioner’s spouse and children. The entry process is open to all aliens who are natives of “low-admission” countries without numerical limitation, defined as countries with fewer than 50,000 natives admitted to the United States during the most recent five-year period. After the close of the DV Program entry period, petitioners are selected through a randomized computer drawing (“selectees”) for consideration for one of the 50,000 available diversity visa numbers.

Section 204(a)(1)(I)(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(I)(iii), vests the Secretary of State with authority to set by regulation the information and documentary evidence to support a petition for entry into the DV Program. The requirements are set out in 22 CFR 42.33.

With this rule, the Department is amending 22 CFR 42.33(b)(1) to require the petitioner to include on the electronic diversity visa entry form the unique serial or issuance number associated with the petitioner’s valid, unexpired passport; country or authority of passport issuance; and passport expiration date. These requirements will apply only to the principal petitioner and not derivatives listed on the entry form. These requirements apply unless the petitioner is either stateless, a national of a Communist-controlled country and unable to obtain a passport from the government of the Communist-controlled country, or the beneficiary of an individual waiver approved by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, consistent with the passport waivers for immigrant visa applicants provided for in 22 CFR 42.2(d), (e), and (g)(2). A petitioner who does not have a passport and is either stateless, is a national of a Communist-controlled country and unable to obtain a passport from the government of the Communist-controlled country, or has an individual waiver of the passport requirement from the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, must indicate that he or she falls into one of these three circumstances on the electronic entry form, instead of providing passport information. The requirements for information from a valid passport will not be waived under any other circumstances.

Mandatory Disqualification

The Department is also clarifying that failure to accurately include any information required by 22 CFR 42.33(b)(1) and (2) will result in mandatory disqualification of the petitioner for that fiscal year. The existing regulations require the petitioner to submit specific information, including, but not limited to: Name, date of birth, and place of birth for the principal petitioner and any relatives that may accompany the petitioner, if selected to apply for a diversity visa, as well as a digital photo. While these are currently requirements for the diversity visa entry form, existing regulations do not make clear the consequence for failure to provide the information. The revised regulation clarifies that failure to provide the required information, including a compliant photograph, will result in the disqualification of the entry, the petitioner, and derivatives from the DV Program for that fiscal year.

Why is the Department promulgating this rule?

The Department has historically encountered significant numbers of fraudulent entries for the DV Program each year, including entries submitted by criminal enterprises on behalf of individuals without their knowledge. Individuals or entities that submit unauthorized entries will often contact unwitting individuals whose identities were used on selected DV Program entries, inform them of the opportunity to apply for a diversity visa, and hold the entry information from the named petitioner in exchange for payment. Requiring that each entry form include a valid passport number at the time of the DV Program entry will make it more difficult for third parties to submit unauthorized entries, because third parties are less likely to have individuals’ passport numbers. Entries submitted by unauthorized third parties using a duplicative passport number will also be easily identified and automatically disqualified.

Click here to read the entire notice, or for information on where to send comments (accepted up to July 5, 2019).

#

State/CA Asst Secretary Carl Risch to Give Up Control of 50 Attorneys to the Legal Adviser?

Posted: 1:56 am EST

 

We understand that Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs (CA) Carl Risch is reportedly “electing to give up control of 50 attorneys under his leadership” in the Consular Affairs bureau.

Give them up? CA has 50 attorneys? He is reportedly moving them to the Office of the Legal Adviser (L). 

“Guy has no idea how many of his requests will now go unanswered because legal adviser will be arbiter of what policies deserve attention. Major implications for immigration law at State.”

We’re not sure if this move covers just the Office of Legislation, Regulations and Advisory Assistance (CA/VO/L) or also includes the Office of Legal Affairs (CA/OCS/L).  If he gives them up, does CA stops funding them, so then he gets to write this move on his “savings” column? Or if he gives them up, does CA still pays for them but won’t be responsible for them? What does that give Consular Affairs? How does that impact Consular Affairs, and consular posts overseas who may need legal guidance/advisories? 

We’ve asked CA about this a week ago — about Mr. Risch’s justification for this move, and how this will this impact immigration law at State.  It looks like we have a hot/cold relationship with the CA dahrlings, sometimes they respond quickly, and sometimes they give us this glaring silent treatment for just asking questions.

#

USG Sends 5,200 Armed Troops to Border Against Purported Migrant “Invasion” a Week Before Elections

DHS/CIS clearly states that people may only apply for asylum if they are arriving in or already physically present in the United States. To apply for asylum in the United States, foreign nationals may ask for asylum at a port-of-entry (airport, seaport, or border crossing), or, if they are already in the United States, they may file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, at the appropriate Service Center. They may apply for asylum regardless of their immigration status, whether they are in the U.S. legally or illegally.

Per 2 FAM 220 on asylum cases, U.S. embassies and consulates may not/may not grant or in any way promise “asylum” to any foreign national:

Although foreign nationals may request “asylum,” posts should be aware that the term has specific meaning in U.S. immigration law. Persons may apply for asylum under U.S. law only if they are physically present in the United States or at a land border or port of entry and may be granted asylum only if they meet the definition of a refugee under U.S. law and are otherwise admissible. The United States does not recognize the granting of asylum at posts abroad. Requests for asylum by persons in the United States are handled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the immigration courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice. Refer questions relating to such procedures to the Department, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Office of Multilateral and Global Affairs (DRL/MLGA).

On Refugees:

Posts may not in any way promise that an individual will be admitted to the United States as a refugee. A U.S. embassy may refer any individual who appears to meet the definition of a refugee to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for consideration. Embassies may refer someone to ensure protection or provide a durable solution in compelling circumstances. Due to resource constraints and other foreign policy concerns, posts usually refer individuals only because of a significant humanitarian concern; a particular U.S. Government interest; or an especially close link to the United States. Acceptance of a referral by the program does not guarantee that an individual will be admitted to the United States as a refugee.

So when POTUS says “If they want to come into the country, you have to apply, like other people,” that’s what people are actually trying to do: presenting themselves at a U.S. border crossing because U.S. law requires that for people applying for asylum.

AND NOW THIS: “NO ONE IS COMING TO GET YOU”

MEANWHILE, ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD OF LIGHT WHERE FEAR IS NOT A STRIKE ANYWHERE MATCH HEAD:

#

USG, Inc. Attempts to Derail World Health Assembly’s Nonbinding Resolution on #Breastfeeding

 

On June 7, the community editor of Malnutrition Deeply’s Amruta Byatnal reported about the attempt of the United Staes Government to derail a nonbinding resolution on breastfeeding at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva.

What should have been a non-controversial discussion on breastfeeding turned rancorous at the recent World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva.Advocates at the event have accused the U.S. delegation of trying to stop a resolution on infant and young child feeding from being introduced. The U.S. representatives later pushed for diluted text that removes references to regulating aggressive marketing of breast milk substitutes.

[snip]

The first draft was originally supported by Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Nepal, and contained several references to the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, which outlines what levels of marketing are acceptable while seeking to protect the health of infants and young children.

[snip]

This opposition made its way to the WHA, where the U.S. delegation allegedly threatened countries with trade retaliation if they introduced the resolution, according to civil society advocates. Ecuador, which had led the drafting of the resolution, actually pulled out from introducing it.

[snip]

The United States also attempted to stall this passage, advocates say, by suggesting an alternative text that omitted any reference to the WHO code or any of the text relating to specific guidance around inappropriate marketing of infants foods.

Reports say that the U.S. delegation was led by Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar who reportedly declined requests to provide on-the-record comments to news deeply.  Remember this is the same guy who told Congress  that he could find separated kids with basic keystrokes.

“There is no reason why any parent would not know where their child is located,” said Azar during a Senate hearing Tuesday. “I sat on the ORR portal, with just basic key strokes and within seconds could find any child in our care for any parent available.”

On July 8, NYT also reported the threats against Ecuador:

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

Oh-uh!

An anonymous HHS spox (not a blogger) provided a statement to the NYT:

“The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children,” an H.H.S. spokesman said in an email. “We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” The spokesman asked to remain anonymous in order to speak more freely.

So, it looks like there’s a growing list of cabinet secretaries and others who go on national TV, or speak from the podium to eternal, historical embarrassment … pray tell, who taped them to those lying microphones?

#