NEW ORLEANS (LOUISIANA, USA): Recently Dr. Gurpartap Singh Birks attorney, Thomas P. Adams, filed a brief in the Deportation Case, This brief is apex. 13 pages and is submitted to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The following two paragraphs would convey the central idea of the brief. Adams stated:

“The propriety of the Us (Immigration Judge) finding in the bond matter that Respondent was a national security risk, based on uncorroborated and untested “evidence”, is the subject of a separate appeal to the BIA, and is theoretically to the instant appeal. Because of the same UJ proceeded to handle the deportation proceeding, however, a very real risk was posed that, having already found Respondent a threat to his (the Is) country, the J would not be able to properly rule that Respondent be allowed to remain a U.S. legal permanent resident, if logic and relevant law so dictated, Respondent accordingly moved for recusal, which was denied. The subsequently decided every issue of the deportation matter against Respondent, often in a highly illogical and unfair (if not openly hostile) manner, as discussed further below. Under the circumstances, it appears that the IJ was in fact impermissibly biased by the bond proceedings. His denial of Respondents recusal motion was therefore erroneous”.

While discussing whether the crime in question involves “moral turpitude”, Adams further stated, “Political crimes have traditionally been accorded special treatment in criminal psychology and philosophy. Since the nineteenth century in particular, such crimes have often been perceived as morally defensible, given appropriate circumstances. See, e.g., F. Allen, “The Crimes of Politics: Political Dimensions of Criminal Justice at 24, 28-29 (1984) (delivered as the Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture at Harvard University in 1973)”, and $.Schafer, The Political Criminal. The Problem of Morality and Crime at 145-50. In fact, a 1968 survey conducted in the U.S. by Louis Harris demonstrated that:, the population is unlikely to endorse any but legal responses to remove different provocations, but given as efficiently antagonistic political situation (such as the shooting of innocent people by the government in order to maintain control of the country) substantial numbers agree that even armed action may be an appropriate response”. ~ During July 1991 Adams filed an appeal for the Bond, with a hope to get an answer within a reasonable time of two months. After waiting for more than five months for the reply from BIA on the Bond appeal, Adams finally protested through a letter, to the BIA

Reproduced below:

RE: Gurpartap Singh Birk

Gentlemen:

I am writing on behalf of my above-named client to protest the inordinate delay in adjudication of his bond appeal, and to ask that said appeal be expedited.

This client first had a bond hearing in June of 1991. The matter stretched over several hearings, ending on June 28, 1991, when the Immigration Judge (“I J”) ordered Respondent held without bond. The Us Memorandum Decision was not prepared until July 16, 1991.

My client has now been detained over six months beyond his release date in the underlying criminal matter. As argued in my bond appeal, the U.S decision constituted an egregious violation of due process rights. Further delay in adjudication of the bond appeal will only compound an already unfair situation. Please give this appeal the utmost priority accordingly. Thomas P. Adams. Attorney

Article extracted from this publication >> December 20, 1991