[ad_1]
A news item appeared over an Easter weekend a few years ago that may be of interest to anyone interested in immigration law as well as evidence law. The story originates from the state of New York and can be an object lesson for federal immigration officials and for immigrants seeking to obtain their green cards. The story involved an immigration officer who was recorded demanding sex from a young foreigner in exchange for a green card.
Those who know a little bit about immigration law understand that the fastest way for a foreigner to gain legal permanent resident status in the US, i.e. obtain a “green card”, is to marry a US citizen. . Under this process the alien becomes what is known as a “closest relative” and does not have to wait for an immigrant visa to become available – a process that can sometimes take years. Those who know a little about the law of evidence understand that a statement in a criminal or civil proceeding is not hearsay if it is a statement made against another party and is that party’s own statement. This is known as “entry”. Since it is not rumored that such an “acknowledgement” would be admissible in a lawsuit against the person who made it.
got it? of course you do. Now consider this.
On a Good Friday in March of that previous year, an adjudication officer at the US Immigration Service office in New York State was arrested on corruption charges. He had threatened to stop an unnamed woman’s green card application and even threatened to deport her relatives if she did not have sex with him.
The woman, who is married to a US citizen, admitted she acceded to the officer’s initial demand for sex because she was afraid of his threats. But she was smart! She used her cell phone, hidden in her purse, to record the sexual encounter and the conversation that preceded it. She was smarter then. A few days after the encounter she went to the New York Times with the cell phone recording to tell her story. He then informed the New York District Attorney regarding the matter. The officer was arrested and suspended from service. The case was more than likely turned over to the feds for prosecution. There will be no possibility of hearing in such a case. In light of the taped sexual encounter and his threats, the case would be ripe for a quick plea bargain and a quick guilty plea, which could be used against him at trial as an admission.
We don’t really know the outcome of this particular case, but experience with the criminal justice system provides insight into the general course for this type of case. The officer would likely have been allowed to plead guilty to attempted extortion and abuse of his position and, if sentenced, would have received a sentence of 14 months in a minimum security federal correctional institution. He would definitely lose his job as an immigration officer. A woman married to an American would be more likely to be granted a green card and become a legal permanent resident of the United States.
Such cases rarely happen in real life. In this case the immigration officer was not very smart. As they say on the street – he literally “stuck” on his manhood! The officer will not be locked in a single cell during a possible sentence of 14 months of travel in a minimum security federal correctional institution, instead he will be in a dormitory setting or “pod”, which has a large space for inmates. Known as the “Day Room”. Every day he will be imprisoned, perhaps, he can “travel” to the prison day room and atone for the “travel” that sent him there. Many people must have done this before him.
[ad_2]