|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
[Previous entry: "Register for Free Newsletter"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Dallas District to Launch Adjustment of Status Filing Pilot Program"] 03/23/2004 Entry: "INS SAYS PALESTINIANS BEING REMOVED TO "PALESTINE"" According to Interpreter Releases, the INS has confirmed that it began returning Palestinians with valid travel documents "to Palestine" in mid-November 2002 following final orders of deportation. January 6, 2003 *5 INS SAYS PALESTINIANS BEING REMOVED TO 'PALESTINE'; LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MEMOS DETAIL HISTORY, HURDLES Following reports from the immigration community that Palestinians subject to removal by the U.S. are being flown back to the West Bank, despite their status as stateless persons and the dangers presented by the ongoing Israeli- Palestinian conflict, the INS has confirmed that it began returning Palestinians with valid travel documents "to Palestine" in mid-November 2002. INS press officer Dan Cane told Interpreter Releases that the removals do not reflect a change in policy, but are merely the product of newly resolved "logistical issues" flowing from the level of conflict in the region, which had previously prevented the removals, he said. Speaking on background, a second INS press officer said those Palestinians being removed are not "turned loose" upon their arrival, but are *6 instead being handed over to immigration or law enforcement personnel. She declined to reveal the specific destination for Palestinians who are being removed, citing INS policy. Nawar Shora, legal advisor for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), described the INS decision as a clear break with past practice. Palestinians subject to removal are typically held in indefinite detention precisely because there is no Palestine for them to return to, he said. [FN11] Mr. Shora said he has heard from ADC's constituency that the Palestinians will be turned over to Israeli authorities upon their return. In the worst case scenario, he said, Palestinians subject to removal will go from prison in the U.S. to prison in Israel, and "who knows what happens [then]." The complex issues surrounding the removal of Palestinians are highlighted by a recent case handled by attorney Miriam Morse, of Springfield, Virginia. According to Ms. Morse, her Palestinian client (the respondent) was born in 1953 while Jordan was occupying Palestine. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1977 on an Israeli "laissez-passer" [FN12] and became a lawful permanent resident. The laissez-passer, which has since expired, identified his nationality as Jordanian, but the respondent has never sought Jordanian residency or traveled to Jordan; his family members reside in East Jerusalem. He was placed in removal proceedings by the INS after serving a 13-year term of imprisonment on federal drug charges. In proceedings before Immigration Judge (IJ) Agnelis L. Reese of the Oakdale, Louisiana, Immigration Court, Ms. Morse unsuccessfully sought relief from removal under the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Convention Against Torture or CAT), [FN13] arguing that if the respondent were returned to Israel (his country of last habitual residence), he would more likely than not be tortured. In support of this claim, she presented evidence that the respondent was arbitrarily rounded up with several other Palestinians and beaten at gunpoint by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) before his arrival in the U.S., that his brother had disappeared after Israeli intelligence officials inquired about his whereabouts, that his nine-year-old nephew was arrested by Israeli officials for no reason, and that his cousin was shot dead by a sniper. She also cited reports of human rights violations and collective punishment of Palestinians by Israel. Judge Reese determined that this evidence was insufficient to show past persecution or the likelihood of future persecution, however, Ms. Morse said. During the course of proceedings, Judge Reese requested opinions from the Library of Congress (LOC) as to the ability of the respondent to obtain travel papers, temporary or permanent residency, or nationality in either Israel or Jordan, in an effort to determine if there was an appropriate country to which he could be removed, Ms. Morse said. The LOC responded with two memoranda, both reproduced in Appendix V of this Release. The first LOC memo, written by Senior Foreign Law Specialist George N. Sfeir, focuses on Jordanian law and provides a historic overview of the region. At the end of World War I and after the British Mandate was established in the former Ottoman territory of Palestine, all Ottoman subjects, both Arab and Jewish, who were "habitually resident" in Palestine on August 1, 1925, became Palestinian citizens, the memo notes. Great Britain abandoned its Mandate in 1948, however, and the state of Israel was declared in those parts of the country, including West Jerusalem, which came under Jewish control during the fighting that followed the departure of British rule. Many Palestinians (Arabs) lost their homes in Jewish controlled areas during this period and took refuge in neighboring countries or in remaining areas of Palestine under Jordanian rule, including the West Bank and East Jerusalem. *7 In 1950, the memo continues, the Palestinians in the territory under Jordanian rule were united with Jordan by resolution of the Jordanian Parliament and were subsequently given Jordanian nationality. Jordanian rule in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was thereafter replaced by Israel following the 1967 war, and the Jordanian High Court of Justice has issued a series of legal judgments since that time, which characterize Palestinians residing in the West Bank as aliens. "Thus," the memo concludes, "[the respondent] would not seem to have a claim to Jordanian citizenship and, therefore, would unlikely be granted travel documents." The second LOC memo, prepared by Senior Legal Specialist Ruth Levush, focuses more specifically on Israeli law. The memo first discusses the question of whether Israel will issue travel documents to Palestinians in the circumstances presented by Ms. Morse's case. The memo notes that the respondent's laissez- passer travel document has expired and cannot be extended, because the two-year extension period provided by Israeli law has passed, and predicts that it is unlikely that a new laissez-passer would be issued to the respondent, given his long absence from Israel and the fact that he is not an Israeli national or resident. The memo then considers whether Israel will otherwise allow the respondent to return and to reside in East Jerusalem. As background, the memo explains that Israel gained control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank after the 1967 war. The Knesset (Israel's Parliament) thereafter passed a law authorizing the government to apply, by order, the laws of Israel to any area formerly under the British Mandated Palestine, and also extended the jurisdiction of the municipality of Jerusalem to include East Jerusalem, subsequently making Israeli law applicable to East Jerusalem. Israeli nationality is not imposed on the residents of East Jerusalem but nationality can be acquired by application, the memo continues, acknowledging also that the respondent is assumed never to have acquired Israeli citizenship and thus traveled to the U.S. on a laissez-passer rather than an Israeli passport. Israeli law provides that the Minister of Interior may issue permits for temporary or permanent stay for those persons who are neither Israeli citizens nor qualified to immigrate, the memo explains. A permit for permanent residence expires, however, if the permit holder left Israel and settled in a foreign country. Under Israeli law, a person is regarded as settled outside of Israel if he or she stays outside Israel for more than seven years, receives a permit for permanent residence in the foreign country, or acquires citizenship in a foreign country by naturalization, the memo states. The memo then discusses a series of Israeli court decisions illustrating the loss of permanent resident status under these criteria. Turning to the facts of the present case, which illustrate that the respondent left East Jerusalem in 1977 and has not returned, the memo concludes that it is "extremely doubtful that Israel would allow him to return and to reestablish his permanent residence in East Jerusalem." The respondent was apparently recognized as a permanent resident of Israel and received a laissez- passer, the memo adds, but "[i]t is near certain that after 25 years of residing in the United States, his status as a permanent resident of Israel has expired and in the absence of special reasons he would not be allowed back in Israel." "It is also likely," the memo continues, "that a person who the United States chooses or intends to deport after so many years of lawful permanent residence, would not qualify for a special reentry visa [to Israel]." According to Ms. Morse, IJ Reese relied on the LOC memos to determine that the respondent was neither a Jordanian nor an Israeli national, but nonetheless ordered the respondent removed to Israel. His actual removal will likely be precluded, however, by the lack of valid travel documents, Ms. Morse said. [FN11]. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government may not detain aliens subject to removal indefinitely, simply because no country will accept them. Subsequent reports indicate, however, that some aliens, including Palestinians, remain in indefinite detention despite the impossibility of their removal. See Joyce, "INS Detention Practices Post-Zadvydas v. Davis," 79 Interpreter Releases 809, 817 (May 24, 2002). For a discussion of the Supreme Court's ruling in Zadvydas, see 78 Interpreter Releases 1125 (July 9, 2001). See also 77 Interpreter Releases 514 (Apr. 17, 2000) (discussing Ninth Circuit's ruling in Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000), which was consolidated with Zadvydas before the Supreme Court). [FN12]. A laissez-passer is an identity and travel document other than a passport. [FN13]. Convention Against Torture, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the U.S. Apr. 18, 1988). For more on the CAT, see Sklar, "Implications of the New Implementing Statute and Regulations on Convention Against Torture Protections," 76 Interpreter Releases 265 (Feb. 22, 1999); see generally 2 Immigration Law Service § 14:365.5 (West Group 2002).
|
