NEW ORLEANS (LOUISIANA) :In a decision dated Dec.20,1991 The Board of Immigration Appeals (hereinafter referred to.as “BIA”) denied Dr. Gurpanap Singh Birks appeal for a bond. The denial was based on the charges of conspiracy to kill Bhajan Lal (iron Haryana India) during his visit to New Orleans for his eye operation in May 1985. While deciding this the BIA dismissed all he allegations made by the prosecutor on Dr. Birk in the counts language “the respondent” after his arrest in May 1985. The BIA said “The respondent has charged that the Service (Immigration and Naturalization Service) made serious damaging allegations concerning his present activities based on top secret” information that was neither revealed to him not to the immigration judge. We have not considered these allegations in arriving at our decision and consequently we find that the respondent has out been ultimately prejudiced thereby”.
In the same spirit however the BIA ignore dall the favorable evidence produced by the defence side during the time Dr. Birk was in prison. These include: Various testimonies the defence produced the letters of the prison authority showing Dr.Birks good character and various leters of recommendation from the members of the Sikh Community from all over the USA. Dr.Birks also submitted a leters dated Aug.81989 from the National Security Council of the United States indicating that in response to his leters of May 12,1989 they were unable to uncover any records relating to him. In reply to this the BIA said “We find that the leter from the National Security Council merits but cursory consideration as the respondent has not shown that the National Security Council as opposed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for example) is the proper governmental organization that keeps track of individuals who are suspected of being threats to the security of the United States”.
Although the deportation decision is still pending with BIA while denying the bond the BIA said “We note that on appeal the respondent and the service have raised a number of arguments as to the respondents deportability and in the alternative the possibility of relief from deportation They range from a discussion of the political nature of the respondents crimes undermining moral turpitude character of the deportation charge to a deliberation on the respondents continuing eligibility for section 212 (c) relief from deportation under the provisions of the immigration Act of 1990. While these issues are relevant to the question of whether the respondent is likely to abscond deportation proceedings are entirely separate from bond proceedings and we will not be put in a position where in effect we have to adjudicate deportation issues on the merits. Suffice to say that we cannot find that the arguments of either party are completely without merit. Consequently under the circumstances of this case we will not consider the possibility of termination and relief from deportation to be the factors which materially affect the chances that the respondent may abscond one way or the other”
While giving the reason for the denial of bond the BIA said “we have considered the observations of the State Departments Coordinator for Counterterrorism and find that the realization of the purpose of the respondents Criminal activities would have had a serious deleterious impact on (our foreign relation with the state of India. The Supreme Court has held that the protection of the foreign policy of the United States is a governmental interest of great importance since foreign policy and national security considerations cannot neatly be compartmentalized See Haig v. Agee 1981.”
It is important to note and realize that judge K. R. McHugh (Oakdale Louisiana) was willing to give the bond on June 241991 if the prosecutor would not convince him about their allegation on Dr.Birks after his arrest. The BIA however did not decide on the same ground. On the other hand BIA did want to consider the bond and deportation as two separate issues while the same Judge McHugh was presiding over both the issues. The request made by the defence for there refusal of Judge McHugh from the deportation hearing was refused.
Dr.Birks was not discouraged at all by this decision. Thomas P.A dams (Dr.Birks attorney) is now filing an appeal for a bond in the federal court which may take two or three months. The Sikh Community from all over the World said “We are with Dr Birk in this struggle for Truth and Justice”!
Article extracted from this publication >> January 17, 1992
