OAKDALE LOUISIANA: On August 291991 Hon Judge R.Kevin McHugh has found Dr.Gurpartap Singh Birk deportable. This hearing was the continuation of the hearing for Dr.Birk on August 21, 1991.

At the very start of the hearing on August 21 Thomas P.Adams (Dr.Birk’s attorney) requested the judge to remove himself from this case. Adams said “In order that there be no unfair ‘carryover’ from the bond hearing to the deportation hearing it would seem fair and a better practice to have different judges preside over these separate matters”

The Judge asked the state attorney (Nora Duncan) if she had any objection. The state attorney objected and said that the judge is capable of keeping these two issues separate

Judge McHugh then said “I am getting old day by day and the U.S. Government has given me so

many cases it is not possible for ) me to remember each case and therefore I refuse to remove myself from this case”.

Dr.Birk is charged with deportability under two separate statutes. The first statue applies only if there is a prior conviction for a crime involving “moral turpitude”. “Moral turpitude” is defined as innate baseness or vileness that shocks the public conscience. Adams told the court that Dr. Birk’s anger was mainly due to what happened in 1984 and said “Thousands of Sikhs including women and children died in the Indian Army’s attack on Golden Temple and thousands more were killed raped and tortured in the subsequent attacks in New Delhi after Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination. Nothing was done by the Indian Government to stop this wholesale slaughter.”

Adams argued that political actions such as those Dr.Birk was convicted for do not prove “moral turpitude” since they are motivated by sincere desire for political change in order to protect the human rights of the innocent public. The immigration Judge refused to consider the political nature of the conviction reasoning that if Dr.Birk’s actions were excusable he would not have been convicted. Adams pointed out that there are many acts prohibited by law which are not necessarily “base” or “vile”. He stated that the court that convicted Dr.Birk was not ruling on whether his actions were morally turpitudinous but rather merely on whether they were illegal The immigration Judge stated that he did not understand this distinction and ruled against Dr.Birk.

The second statute charging Dr Birk’s deportability was actually abolished by the Immigration Act of 1990 IMMACT. A “saving provision” was included in IMMACT however which states thatanyone who“ was deportable” under the statute formerly will remain deportable even though the statute was abolished. Adams argued that it could not be said that Dr.Birk “was deportable” formerly under the statute since he had never been charged under the statute. In order for Dr.Birk to have been deportable under the statute previously there would have to have been a full hearing previously on the matter taking into account all the circumstances as they then existed. Again the Immigration Judge refused to consider Adams” arguments and simply found Dr.Birk deportable as charged.

Finally Adams requested the Judge to consider 212 (c) relief for Dr.Birk (212 (c) is a relief for immigrants who have the green cards for a long time although later on they are found deportable). Adams also requested the Judge to accept a testimony from the defence side The state attorney objected to this The Judge finally refused and found Dr.Birk deportable. An appeal will be filed in the higher court.

Article extracted from this publication >> September 6, 1991