Posts Tagged ‘Illegal’

H.R.2029 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016

January 30, 2017

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text

 

8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

January 30, 2017

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admissionExcept as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(1) Health-related grounds

(A) In generalAny alien—

(i)

who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance; [1]
(ii)

except as provided in subparagraph (C), who seeks admission as an immigrant, or who seeks adjustment of status to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and who has failed to present documentation of having received vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, which shall include at least the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza type B and hepatitis B, and any other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices,
(iii) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Attorney General)—

(I)

to have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others, or
(II)

to have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other harmful behavior, or
(iv)

who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to be a drug abuser or addict,
is inadmissible.
(B) Waiver authorized

For provision authorizing waiver of certain clauses of subparagraph (A), see subsection (g).

(C) Exception from immunization requirement for adopted children 10 years of age or youngerClause (ii) of subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a child who—

(i)

is 10 years of age or younger,
(ii)

is described in subparagraph (F) or (G) of section 1101(b)(1) of this title; 1 and
(iii)

is seeking an immigrant visa as an immediate relative under section 1151(b) of this title,
if, prior to the admission of the child, an adoptive parent or prospective adoptive parent of the child, who has sponsored the child for admission as an immediate relative, has executed an affidavit stating that the parent is aware of the provisions of subparagraph (A)(ii) and will ensure that, within 30 days of the child’s admission, or at the earliest time that is medically appropriate, the child will receive the vaccinations identified in such subparagraph.
(2) Criminal and related grounds

(A) Conviction of certain crimes

(i) In generalExcept as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of—

(I)

a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or
(II)

a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21),
 is inadmissible.
(ii) ExceptionClause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed only one crime if—

(I)

the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age, and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or other documentation and the date of application for admission to the United States, or
(II)

the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which the sentence was ultimately executed).
(B) Multiple criminal convictions

Any alien convicted of 2 or more offenses (other than purely political offenses), regardless of whether the conviction was in a single trial or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of misconduct and regardless of whether the offenses involved moral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences to confinement were 5 years or more is inadmissible.

(C) Controlled substance traffickersAny alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe—

(i)

is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical (as defined in section 802 of title 21), or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or chemical, or endeavored to do so; or
(ii)

is the spouse, son, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under clause (i), has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any financial or other benefit from the illicit activity of that alien, and knew or reasonably should have known that the financial or other benefit was the product of such illicit activity,
is inadmissible.
(D) Prostitution and commercialized viceAny alien who—

(i)

is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,
(ii)

directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10-year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or
(iii)

is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution,
is inadmissible.
(E) Certain aliens involved in serious criminal activity who have asserted immunity from prosecutionAny alien—

(i)

who has committed in the United States at any time a serious criminal offense (as defined in section 1101(h) of this title),
(ii)

for whom immunity from criminal jurisdiction was exercised with respect to that offense,
(iii)

who as a consequence of the offense and exercise of immunity has departed from the United States, and
(iv)

who has not subsequently submitted fully to the jurisdiction of the court in the United States having jurisdiction with respect to that offense,
is inadmissible.
(F) Waiver authorized

For provision authorizing waiver of certain subparagraphs of this paragraph, see subsection (h).

(G) Foreign government officials who have committed particularly severe violations of religious freedom

Any alien who, while serving as a foreign government official, was responsible for or directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom, as defined in section 6402 of title 22, is inadmissible.

(H) Significant traffickers in persons

(i) In general

Any alien who commits or conspires to commit human trafficking offenses in the United States or outside the United States, or who the consular officer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with such a trafficker in severe forms of trafficking in persons, as defined in the section 7102 of title 22, is inadmissible.

(ii) Beneficiaries of trafficking

Except as provided in clause (iii), any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe is the spouse, son, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under clause (i), has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any financial or other benefit from the illicit activity of that alien, and knew or reasonably should have known that the financial or other benefit was the product of such illicit activity, is inadmissible.

(iii) Exception for certain sons and daughters

Clause (ii) shall not apply to a son or daughter who was a child at the time he or she received the benefit described in such clause.

(I) Money launderingAny alien—

(i)

who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reason to believe, has engaged, is engaging, or seeks to enter the United States to engage, in an offense which is described in section 1956 or 1957 of title 18(relating to laundering of monetary instruments); or
(ii)

who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows is, or has been, a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in an offense which is described in such section;
is inadmissible.
(3) Security and related grounds

(A) In generalAny alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in—

(i)

any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information,
(ii)

any other unlawful activity, or
(iii)

any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means,
is inadmissible.
(B) Terrorist activities

(i) In generalAny alien who—

(I)

has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II)

a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III)

has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—

(aa)

a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb)

a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V)

is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI)

is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII)

endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII)

has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX)

is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.
(ii) ExceptionSubclause (IX) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child—

(I)

who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or
(II)

whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.
(iii) “Terrorist activity” definedAs used in this chapter, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

(I)

The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
(II)

The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
(III)

A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV)

An assassination.
(V) The use of any—

(a)

biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b)

explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain),
  with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
(VI)

A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(iv) “Engage in terrorist activity” definedAs used in this chapter, the term “engage in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization—

(I)

to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
(II)

to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
(III)

to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for—

(aa)

a terrorist activity;
(bb)

a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc)

a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(V) to solicit any individual—

(aa)

to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection;
(bb)

for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc)

for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; or
(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training—

(aa)

for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb)

to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
(cc)

to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such an organization; or
(dd)

to a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.
(v) “Representative” defined

As used in this paragraph, the term “representative” includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.

(vi) “Terrorist organization” definedAs used in this section, the term “terrorist organization” means an organization—

(I)

designated under section 1189 of this title;
(II)

otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or
(III)

that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).
(C) Foreign policy

(i) In general

An alien whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for officials

An alien who is an official of a foreign government or a purported government, or who is a candidate for election to a foreign government office during the period immediately preceding the election for that office, shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) solely because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.

(iii) Exception for other aliens

An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.

(iv) Notification of determinations

If a determination is made under clause (iii) with respect to an alien, the Secretary of State must notify on a timely basis the chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives and of the Committees on the Judiciary and Foreign Relations of the Senate of the identity of the alien and the reasons for the determination.

(D) Immigrant membership in totalitarian party

(i) In general

Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for involuntary membership

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.

(iii) Exception for past membershipClause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that—

(I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least—

(a)

2 years before the date of such application, or
(b)

5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and
(II)

the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.
(iv) Exception for close family members

The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General’s discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.

(E) Participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing

(i) Participation in Nazi persecutionsAny alien who, during the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945, under the direction of, or in association with—

(I)

the Nazi government of Germany,
(II)

any government in any area occupied by the military forces of the Nazi government of Germany,
(III)

any government established with the assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government of Germany, or
(IV)

any government which was an ally of the Nazi government of Germany,
 ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion is inadmissible.
(ii) Participation in genocide

Any alien who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in genocide, as defined in section 1091(a) of title 18, is inadmissible.

(iii) Commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killingsAny alien who, outside the United States, has committed, ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the commission of—

(I)

any act of torture, as defined in section 2340 of title 18; or
(II)

under color of law of any foreign nation, any extrajudicial killing, as defined in section 3(a) of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note),
 is inadmissible.
(F) Association with terrorist organizations

Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

(G) Recruitment or use of child soldiers

Any alien who has engaged in the recruitment or use of child soldiers in violation of section 2442 of title 18 is inadmissible.

(4) Public charge

(A) In general

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B) Factors to be taken into account

(i) In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s—

(I)

age;
(II)

health;
(III)

family status;
(IV)

assets, resources, and financial status; and
(V)

education and skills.
(ii)

In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.
(C) Family-sponsored immigrantsAny alien who seeks admission or adjustment of status under a visa number issued under section 1151(b)(2) or 1153(a) of this title is inadmissible under this paragraph unless—

(i) the alien has obtained—

(I)

status as a spouse or a child of a United States citizen pursuant to clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of section 1154(a)(1)(A) of this title;
(II)

classification pursuant to clause (ii) or (iii) of section 1154(a)(1)(B) of this title; or
(III)

classification or status as a VAWA self-petitioner; or
(ii)

the person petitioning for the alien’s admission (and any additional sponsor required under section 1183a(f) of this title or any alternative sponsor permitted under paragraph (5)(B) of such section) has executed an affidavit of support described in section 1183a of this title with respect to such alien.
(D) Certain employment-based immigrants

Any alien who seeks admission or adjustment of status under a visa number issued under section 1153(b) of this title by virtue of a classification petition filed by a relative of the alien (or by an entity in which such relative has a significant ownership interest) is inadmissible under this paragraph unless such relative has executed an affidavit of support described in section 1183a of this title with respect to such alien.

(E) Special rule for qualified alien victimsSubparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall not apply to an alien who—

(i)

is a VAWA self-petitioner;
(ii)

is an applicant for, or is granted, nonimmigrant status under section 1101(a)(15)(U) of this title; or
(iii)

is a qualified alien described in section 1641(c) of this title.
(5) Labor certification and qualifications for certain immigrants

(A) Labor certification

(i) In generalAny alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing skilled or unskilled labor is inadmissible, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified to the Secretary of State and the Attorney General that—

(I)

there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, qualified (or equally qualified in the case of an alien described in clause (ii)) and available at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at the place where the alien is to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, and
(II)

the employment of such alien will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of workers in the United States similarly employed.
(ii) Certain aliens subject to special ruleFor purposes of clause (i)(I), an alien described in this clause is an alien who—

(I)

is a member of the teaching profession, or
(II)

has exceptional ability in the sciences or the arts.
(iii) Professional athletes

(I) In general

A certification made under clause (i) with respect to a professional athlete shall remain valid with respect to the athlete after the athlete changes employer, if the new employer is a team in the same sport as the team which employed the athlete when the athlete first applied for the certification.

(II) “Professional athlete” definedFor purposes of subclause (I), the term “professional athlete” means an individual who is employed as an athlete by—

(aa)

a team that is a member of an association of 6 or more professional sports teams whose total combined revenues exceed $10,000,000 per year, if the association governs the conduct of its members and regulates the contests and exhibitions in which its member teams regularly engage; or
(bb)

any minor league team that is affiliated with such an association.
(iv) Long delayed adjustment applicants

A certification made under clause (i) with respect to an individual whose petition is covered by section 1154(j) of this title shall remain valid with respect to a new job accepted by the individual after the individual changes jobs or employers if the new job is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the certification was issued.

(B) Unqualified physicians

An alien who is a graduate of a medical school not accredited by a body or bodies approved for the purpose by the Secretary of Education (regardless of whether such school of medicine is in the United States) and who is coming to the United States principally to perform services as a member of the medical profession is inadmissible, unless the alien (i) has passed parts I and II of the National Board of Medical Examiners Examination (or an equivalent examination as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) and (ii) is competent in oral and written English. For purposes of the previous sentence, an alien who is a graduate of a medical school shall be considered to have passed parts I and II of the National Board of Medical Examiners if the alien was fully and permanently licensed to practice medicine in a State on January 9, 1978, and was practicing medicine in a State on that date.

(C) Uncertified foreign health-care workersSubject to subsection (r), any alien who seeks to enter the United States for the purpose of performing labor as a health-care worker, other than a physician, is inadmissible unless the alien presents to the consular officer, or, in the case of an adjustment of status, the Attorney General, a certificate from the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools, or a certificate from an equivalent independent credentialing organization approved by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, verifying that—

(i) the alien’s education, training, license, and experience—

(I)

meet all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for entry into the United States under the classification specified in the application;
(II)

are comparable with that required for an American health-care worker of the same type; and
(III)

are authentic and, in the case of a license, unencumbered;
(ii)

the alien has the level of competence in oral and written English considered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to be appropriate for health care work of the kind in which the alien will be engaged, as shown by an appropriate score on one or more nationally recognized, commercially available, standardized assessments of the applicant’s ability to speak and write; and
(iii)

if a majority of States licensing the profession in which the alien intends to work recognize a test predicting the success on the profession’s licensing or certification examination, the alien has passed such a test or has passed such an examination.
For purposes of clause (ii), determination of the standardized tests required and of the minimum scores that are appropriate are within the sole discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and are not subject to further administrative or judicial review.
(D) Application of grounds

The grounds for inadmissibility of aliens under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall apply to immigrants seeking admission or adjustment of status under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 1153(b) of this title.

(6) Illegal entrants and immigration violators

(A) Aliens present without admission or parole

(i) In general

An alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General, is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception for certain battered women and childrenClause (i) shall not apply to an alien who demonstrates that—

(I)

the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner;
(II)

(a)

the alien has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent, or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien and the spouse or parent consented or acquiesced to such battery or cruelty, or (b) the alien’s child has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse or parent of the alien (without the active participation of the alien in the battery or cruelty) or by a member of the spouse’s or parent’s family residing in the same household as the alien when the spouse or parent consented to or acquiesced in such battery or cruelty and the alien did not actively participate in such battery or cruelty, and
(III)

there was a substantial connection between the battery or cruelty described in subclause (I) or (II) and the alien’s unlawful entry into the United States.
(B) Failure to attend removal proceeding

Any alien who without reasonable cause fails or refuses to attend or remain in attendance at a proceeding to determine the alien’s inadmissibility or deportability and who seeks admission to the United States within 5 years of such alien’s subsequent departure or removal is inadmissible.

(C) Misrepresentation

(i) In general

Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.

(ii) Falsely claiming citizenship

(I) In general

Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible.

(II) Exception

In the case of an alien making a representation described in subclause (I), if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be inadmissible under any provision of this subsection based on such representation.

(iii) Waiver authorized

For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see subsection (i).

(D) Stowaways

Any alien who is a stowaway is inadmissible.

(E) Smugglers

(i) In general

Any alien who at any time knowingly has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United States in violation of law is inadmissible.

(ii) Special rule in the case of family reunification

Clause (i) shall not apply in the case of alien who is an eligible immigrant (as defined in section 301(b)(1) of the Immigration Act of 1990), was physically present in the United States on May 5, 1988, and is seeking admission as an immediate relative or under section 1153(a)(2) of this title (including under section 112 of the Immigration Act of 1990) or benefits under section 301(a) of the Immigration Act of 1990 if the alien, before May 5, 1988, has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only the alien’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of law.

(iii) Waiver authorized

For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see subsection (d)(11).

(F) Subject of civil penalty

(i) In general

An alien who is the subject of a final order for violation of section 1324c of this title is inadmissible.

(ii) Waiver authorized

For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see subsection (d)(12).

(G) Student visa abusers

An alien who obtains the status of a nonimmigrant under section 1101(a)(15)(F)(i) of this title and who violates a term or condition of such status under section 1184(l) [2] of this title is inadmissible until the alien has been outside the United States for a continuous period of 5 years after the date of the violation.

(7) Documentation requirements

(A) Immigrants

(i) In generalExcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any immigrant at the time of application for admission—

(I)

who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by this chapter, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 1181(a) of this title, or
(II)

whose visa has been issued without compliance with the provisions of section 1153 of this title,
 is inadmissible.
(ii) Waiver authorized

For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see subsection (k).

(B) Nonimmigrants

(i) In generalAny nonimmigrant who—

(I)

is not in possession of a passport valid for a minimum of six months from the date of the expiration of the initial period of the alien’s admission or contemplated initial period of stay authorizing the alien to return to the country from which the alien came or to proceed to and enter some other country during such period, or
(II)

is not in possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card at the time of application for admission,
 is inadmissible.
(ii) General waiver authorized

For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i), see subsection (d)(4).

(iii) Guam and Northern Mariana Islands visa waiver

For provision authorizing waiver of clause (i) in the case of visitors to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, see subsection (l).

(iv) Visa waiver program

For authority to waive the requirement of clause (i) under a program, see section 1187 of this title.

(8) Ineligible for citizenship

(A) In general

Any immigrant who is permanently ineligible to citizenship is inadmissible.

(B) Draft evaders

Any person who has departed from or who has remained outside the United States to avoid or evade training or service in the armed forces in time of war or a period declared by the President to be a national emergency is inadmissible, except that this subparagraph shall not apply to an alien who at the time of such departure was a nonimmigrant and who is seeking to reenter the United States as a nonimmigrant.

(9) Aliens previously removed

(A) Certain aliens previously removed

(i) Arriving aliens

Any alien who has been ordered removed under section 1225(b)(1) of this title or at the end of proceedings under section 1229a of this title initiated upon the alien’s arrival in the United States and who again seeks admission within 5 years of the date of such removal (or within 20 years in the case of a second or subsequent removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an aggravated felony) is inadmissible.

(ii) Other aliensAny alien not described in clause (i) who—

(I)

has been ordered removed under section 1229a of this title or any other provision of law, or
(II)

departed the United States while an order of removal was outstanding,
 and who seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal (or within 20 years of such date in the case of a second or subsequent removal or at any time in the case of an alien convicted of an aggravated felony) is inadmissible.
(iii) Exception

Clauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission within a period if, prior to the date of the alien’s reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be admitted from foreign contiguous territory, the Attorney General has consented to the alien’s reapplying for admission.

(B) Aliens unlawfully present

(i) In generalAny alien (other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence) who—

(I)

was unlawfully present in the United States for a period of more than 180 days but less than 1 year, voluntarily departed the United States (whether or not pursuant to section 1254a(e) [3] of this title) prior to the commencement of proceedings under section 1225(b)(1) of this title or section 1229a of this title, and again seeks admission within 3 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal, or
(II)

has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more, and who again seeks admission within 10 years of the date of such alien’s departure or removal from the United States,
 is inadmissible.
(ii) Construction of unlawful presence

For purposes of this paragraph, an alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United States if the alien is present in the United States after the expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General or is present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.

(iii) Exceptions

(I) Minors

No period of time in which an alien is under 18 years of age shall be taken into account in determining the period of unlawful presence in the United States under clause (i).

(II) Asylees

No period of time in which an alien has a bona fide application for asylum pending under section 1158 of this title shall be taken into account in determining the period of unlawful presence in the United States under clause (i) unless the alien during such period was employed without authorization in the United States.

(III) Family unity

No period of time in which the alien is a beneficiary of family unity protection pursuant to section 301 of the Immigration Act of 1990 shall be taken into account in determining the period of unlawful presence in the United States under clause (i).

(IV) Battered women and children

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien who would be described in paragraph (6)(A)(ii) if “violation of the terms of the alien’s nonimmigrant visa” were substituted for “unlawful entry into the United States” in subclause (III) of that paragraph.

(V) Victims of a severe form of trafficking in persons

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien who demonstrates that the severe form of trafficking (as that term is defined in section 7102 of title 22) was at least one central reason for the alien’s unlawful presence in the United States.

(iv) Tolling for good causeIn the case of an alien who—

(I)

has been lawfully admitted or paroled into the United States,
(II)

has filed a nonfrivolous application for a change or extension of status before the date of expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General, and
(III)

has not been employed without authorization in the United States before or during the pendency of such application,
 the calculation of the period of time specified in clause (i)(I) shall be tolled during the pendency of such application, but not to exceed 120 days.
(v) Waiver

The Attorney General has sole discretion to waive clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse or son or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission to such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such alien. No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action by the Attorney General regarding a waiver under this clause.

(C) Aliens unlawfully present after previous immigration violations

(i) In generalAny alien who—

(I)

has been unlawfully present in the United States for an aggregate period of more than 1 year, or
(II)

has been ordered removed under section 1225(b)(1) of this title, section 1229a of this title, or any other provision of law,
 and who enters or attempts to reenter the United States without being admitted is inadmissible.
(ii) Exception

Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien seeking admission more than 10 years after the date of the alien’s last departure from the United States if, prior to the alien’s reembarkation at a place outside the United States or attempt to be readmitted from a foreign contiguous territory, the Secretary of Homeland Security has consented to the alien’s reapplying for admission.

(iii) WaiverThe Secretary of Homeland Security may waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an alien who is a VAWA self-petitioner if there is a connection between—

(I)

the alien’s battering or subjection to extreme cruelty; and
(II)

the alien’s removal, departure from the United States, reentry or reentries into the United States; or attempted reentry into the United States.
(10) Miscellaneous

(A) Practicing polygamists

Any immigrant who is coming to the United States to practice polygamy is inadmissible.

(B) Guardian required to accompany helpless alienAny alien—

(i)

who is accompanying another alien who is inadmissible and who is certified to be helpless from sickness, mental or physical disability, or infancy pursuant to section 1222(c) of this title, and
(ii)

whose protection or guardianship is determined to be required by the alien described in clause (i),
is inadmissible.
(C) International child abduction

(i) In general

Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien who, after entry of an order by a court in the United States granting custody to a person of a United States citizen child who detains or retains the child, or withholds custody of the child, outside the United States from the person granted custody by that order, is inadmissible until the child is surrendered to the person granted custody by that order.

(ii) Aliens supporting abductors and relatives of abductorsAny alien who—

(I)

is known by the Secretary of State to have intentionally assisted an alien in the conduct described in clause (i),
(II)

is known by the Secretary of State to be intentionally providing material support or safe haven to an alien described in clause (i), or
(III)

is a spouse (other than the spouse who is the parent of the abducted child), child (other than the abducted child), parent, sibling, or agent of an alien described in clause (i), if such person has been designated by the Secretary of State at the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion, is inadmissible until the child described in clause (i) is surrendered to the person granted custody by the order described in that clause, and such person and child are permitted to return to the United States or such person’s place of residence.
(iii) ExceptionsClauses (i) and (ii) shall not apply—

(I)

to a government official of the United States who is acting within the scope of his or her official duties;
(II)

to a government official of any foreign government if the official has been designated by the Secretary of State at the Secretary’s sole and unreviewable discretion; or
(III)

so long as the child is located in a foreign state that is a party to the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done at The Hague on October 25, 1980.
(D) Unlawful voters

(i) In general

Any alien who has voted in violation of any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation is inadmissible.

(ii) Exception

In the case of an alien who voted in a Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction of voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of such violation that he or she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be inadmissible under any provision of this subsection based on such violation.

(E) Former citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation

Any alien who is a former citizen of the United States who officially renounces United States citizenship and who is determined by the Attorney General to have renounced United States citizenship for the purpose of avoiding taxation by the United States is inadmissible.

(b) Notices of denials

(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), if an alien’s application for a visa, for admission to the United States, or for adjustment of status is denied by an immigration or consular officer because the officer determines the alien to be inadmissible under subsection (a), the officer shall provide the alien with a timely written notice that—

(A)

states the determination, and
(B)

lists the specific provision or provisions of law under which the alien is inadmissible or adjustment [4] of status.
(2)

The Secretary of State may waive the requirements of paragraph (1) with respect to a particular alien or any class or classes of inadmissible aliens.
(3)

Paragraph (1) does not apply to any alien inadmissible under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a).
(c) Repealed. Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, § 304(b), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–597
(d) Temporary admission of nonimmigrants

(1)

The Attorney General shall determine whether a ground for inadmissibility exists with respect to a nonimmigrant described in section 1101(a)(15)(S) of this title. The Attorney General, in the Attorney General’s discretion, may waive the application of subsection (a) (other than paragraph (3)(E)) in the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 1101(a)(15)(S) of this title, if the Attorney General considers it to be in the national interest to do so. Nothing in this section shall be regarded as prohibiting the Immigration and Naturalization Service from instituting removal proceedings against an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant under section 1101(a)(15)(S) of this title for conduct committed after the alien’s admission into the United States, or for conduct or a condition that was not disclosed to the Attorney General prior to the alien’s admission as a nonimmigrant under section 1101(a)(15)(S) of this title.
(2)

Repealed. Pub. L. 101–649, title VI, § 601(d)(2)(A), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5076.
(3)

(A)

Except as provided in this subsection, an alien (i) who is applying for a nonimmigrant visa and is known or believed by the consular officer to be ineligible for such visa under subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such subsection), may, after approval by the Attorney General of a recommendation by the Secretary of State or by the consular officer that the alien be admitted temporarily despite his inadmissibility, be granted such a visa and may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General, or (ii) who is inadmissible under subsection (a) (other than paragraphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), and clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such subsection), but who is in possession of appropriate documents or is granted a waiver thereof and is seeking admission, may be admitted into the United States temporarily as a nonimmigrant in the discretion of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall prescribe conditions, including exaction of such bonds as may be necessary, to control and regulate the admission and return of inadmissible aliens applying for temporary admission under this paragraph.
(B)

(i)

The Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, may determine in such Secretary’s sole unreviewable discretion that subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to an alien within the scope of that subsection or that subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) shall not apply to a group within the scope of that subsection, except that no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is within the scope of subsection (a)(3)(B)(i)(II), no such waiver may be extended to an alien who is a member or representative of, has voluntarily and knowingly engaged in or endorsed or espoused or persuaded others to endorse or espouse or support terrorist activity on behalf of, or has voluntarily and knowingly received military-type training from a terrorist organization that is described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (a)(3)(B)(vi), and no such waiver may be extended to a group that has engaged terrorist activity against the United States or another democratic country or that has purposefully engaged in a pattern or practice of terrorist activity that is directed at civilians. Such a determination shall neither prejudice the ability of the United States Government to commence criminal or civil proceedings involving a beneficiary of such a determination or any other person, nor create any substantive or procedural right or benefit for a beneficiary of such a determination or any other person. Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court shall have jurisdiction to review such a determination or revocation except in a proceeding for review of a final order of removal pursuant to section 1252 of this title, and review shall be limited to the extent provided in section 1252(a)(2)(D). The Secretary of State may not exercise the discretion provided in this clause with respect to an alien at any time during which the alien is the subject of pending removal proceedings under section 1229a of this title.
(ii)

Not later than 90 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall each provide to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report on the aliens to whom such Secretary has applied clause (i). Within one week of applying clause (i) to a group, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a report to such Committees.
(4)

Either or both of the requirements of paragraph (7)(B)(i) of subsection (a) may be waived by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State acting jointly (A) on the basis of unforeseen emergency in individual cases, or (B) on the basis of reciprocity with respect to nationals of foreign contiguous territory or of adjacent islands and residents thereof having a common nationality with such nationals, or (C) in the case of aliens proceeding in immediate and continuous transit through the United States under contracts authorized in section 1223(c) of this title.
(5)

(A)

The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section 1184(f) of this title, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United States.
(B)

The Attorney General may not parole into the United States an alien who is a refugee unless the Attorney General determines that compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled into the United States rather than be admitted as a refugee under section 1157 of this title.
(6)

Repealed. Pub. L. 101–649, title VI, § 601(d)(2)(A), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5076.
(7)

The provisions of subsection (a) (other than paragraph (7)) shall be applicable to any alien who shall leave Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands of the United States, and who seeks to enter the continental United States or any other place under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Attorney General shall by regulations provide a method and procedure for the temporary admission to the United States of the aliens described in this proviso.[5] Any alien described in this paragraph, who is denied admission to the United States, shall be immediately removed in the manner provided by section 1231(c) of this title.
(8)

Upon a basis of reciprocity accredited officials of foreign governments, their immediate families, attendants, servants, and personal employees may be admitted in immediate and continuous transit through the United States without regard to the provisions of this section except paragraphs (3)(A), (3)(B), (3)(C), and (7)(B) of subsection (a) of this section.
(9)

, (10) Repealed. Pub. L. 101–649, title VI, § 601(d)(2)(A), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 5076.
(11)

The Attorney General may, in his discretion for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest, waive application of clause (i) of subsection (a)(6)(E) in the case of any alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of removal, and who is otherwise admissible to the United States as a returning resident under section 1181(b) of this title and in the case of an alien seeking admission or adjustment of status as an immediate relative or immigrant under section 1153(a) of this title (other than paragraph (4) thereof), if the alien has encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only an individual who at the time of such action was the alien’s spouse, parent, son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the United States in violation of law.
(12) The Attorney General may, in the discretion of the Attorney General for humanitarian purposes or to assure family unity, waive application of clause (i) of subsection (a)(6)(F)—

(A)

in the case of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who temporarily proceeded abroad voluntarily and not under an order of deportation or removal and who is otherwise admissible to the United States as a returning resident under section 1181(b) of this title, and
(B)

in the case of an alien seeking admission or adjustment of status under section 1151(b)(2)(A) of this title or under section 1153(a) of this title,
if no previous civil money penalty was imposed against the alien under section 1324c of this title and the offense was committed solely to assist, aid, or support the alien’s spouse or child (and not another individual). No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver under this paragraph.
(13)

(A)

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine whether a ground for inadmissibility exists with respect to a nonimmigrant described in section 1101(a)(15)(T) of this title, except that the ground for inadmissibility described in subsection (a)(4) shall not apply with respect to such a nonimmigrant.
(B) In addition to any other waiver that may be available under this section, in the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 1101(a)(15)(T) of this title, if the Secretary of Homeland Security considers it to be in the national interest to do so, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Attorney General’s [6] discretion, may waive the application of—

(i)

subsection (a)(1); and
(ii)

any other provision of subsection (a) (excluding paragraphs (3), (4), (10)(C), and (10(E)) [7] if the activities rendering the alien inadmissible under the provision were caused by, or were incident to, the victimization described in section 1101(a)(15)(T)(i)(I) of this title.
(14)

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall determine whether a ground of inadmissibility exists with respect to a nonimmigrant described in section 1101(a)(15)(U) of this title. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in the Attorney General’s 6 discretion, may waive the application of subsection (a) (other than paragraph (3)(E)) in the case of a nonimmigrant described in section 1101(a)(15)(U) of this title, if the Secretary of Homeland Security considers it to be in the public or national interest to do so.
(e) Educational visitor status; foreign residence requirement; waiver

No person admitted under section 1101(a)(15)(J) of this title or acquiring such status after admission (i) whose participation in the program for which he came to the United States was financed in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by an agency of the Government of the United States or by the government of the country of his nationality or his last residence, (ii) who at the time of admission or acquisition of status under section 1101(a)(15)(J) of this title was a national or resident of a country which the Director of the United States Information Agency, pursuant to regulations prescribed by him, had designated as clearly requiring the services of persons engaged in the field of specialized knowledge or skill in which the alien was engaged, or (iii) who came to the United States or acquired such status in order to receive graduate medical education or training, shall be eligible to apply for an immigrant visa, or for permanent residence, or for a nonimmigrant visa under section 1101(a)(15)(H) or section 1101(a)(15)(L) of this title until it is established that such person has resided and been physically present in the country of his nationality or his last residence for an aggregate of at least two years following departure from the United States: Provided, That upon the favorable recommendation of the Director, pursuant to the request of an interested United States Government agency (or, in the case of an alien described in clause (iii), pursuant to the request of a State Department of Public Health, or its equivalent), or of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization after he has determined that departure from the United States would impose exceptional hardship upon the alien’s spouse or child (if such spouse or child is a citizen of the United States or a lawfully resident alien), or that the alien cannot return to the country of his nationality or last residence because he would be subject to persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion, the Attorney General may waive the requirement of such two-year foreign residence abroad in the case of any alien whose admission to the United States is found by the Attorney General to be in the public interest except that in the case of a waiver requested by a State Department of Public Health, or its equivalent, or in the case of a waiver requested by an interested United States Government agency on behalf of an alien described in clause (iii), the waiver shall be subject to the requirements of section 1184(l) of this title: And provided further, That, except in the case of an alien described in clause (iii), the Attorney General may, upon the favorable recommendation of the Director, waive such two-year foreign residence requirement in any case in which the foreign country of the alien’s nationality or last residence has furnished the Director a statement in writing that it has no objection to such waiver in the case of such alien.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

(g) Bond and conditions for admission of alien inadmissible on health-related groundsThe Attorney General may waive the application of—

(1) subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) in the case of any alien who—

(A)

is the spouse or the unmarried son or daughter, or the minor unmarried lawfully adopted child, of a United States citizen, or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or of an alien who has been issued an immigrant visa,
(B)

has a son or daughter who is a United States citizen, or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or an alien who has been issued an immigrant visa; or
(C)

is a VAWA self-petitioner,
in accordance with such terms, conditions, and controls, if any, including the giving of bond, as the Attorney General, in the discretion of the Attorney General after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may by regulation prescribe;
(2) subsection (a)(1)(A)(ii) in the case of any alien—

(A)

who receives vaccination against the vaccine-preventable disease or diseases for which the alien has failed to present documentation of previous vaccination,
(B)

for whom a civil surgeon, medical officer, or panel physician (as those terms are defined by section 34.2 of title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations) certifies, according to such regulations as the Secretary of Health and Human Services may prescribe, that such vaccination would not be medically appropriate, or
(C)

under such circumstances as the Attorney General provides by regulation, with respect to whom the requirement of such a vaccination would be contrary to the alien’s religious beliefs or moral convictions; or
(3)

subsection (a)(1)(A)(iii) in the case of any alien, in accordance with such terms, conditions, and controls, if any, including the giving of bond, as the Attorney General, in the discretion of the Attorney General after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, may by regulation prescribe.
(h) Waiver of subsection (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), (II), (B), (D), and (E)The Attorney General may, in his discretion, waive the application of subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2) and subparagraph (A)(i)(II) of such subsection insofar as it relates to a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana if—

(1)

(A) in the case of any immigrant it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that—

(i)

the alien is inadmissible only under subparagraph (D)(i) or (D)(ii) of such subsection or the activities for which the alien is inadmissible occurred more than 15 years before the date of the alien’s application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status,
(ii)

the admission to the United States of such alien would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety, or security of the United States, and
(iii)

the alien has been rehabilitated; or
(B)

in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, parent, son, or daughter of a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the alien’s denial of admission would result in extreme hardship to the United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, son, or daughter of such alien; or
(C)

the alien is a VAWA self-petitioner; and
(2)

the Attorney General, in his discretion, and pursuant to such terms, conditions and procedures as he may by regulations prescribe, has consented to the alien’s applying or reapplying for a visa, for admission to the United States, or adjustment of status.
No waiver shall be provided under this subsection in the case of an alien who has been convicted of (or who has admitted committing acts that constitute) murder or criminal acts involving torture, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit murder or a criminal act involving torture. No waiver shall be granted under this subsection in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if either since the date of such admission the alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony or the alien has not lawfully resided continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 7 years immediately preceding the date of initiation of proceedings to remove the alien from the United States. No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver under this subsection.
(i) Admission of immigrant inadmissible for fraud or willful misrepresentation of material fact

(1)

The Attorney General may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, waive the application of clause (i) of subsection (a)(6)(C) in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, son, or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission to the United States of such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen or lawfully resident spouse or parent of such an alien or, in the case of a VAWA self-petitioner, the alien demonstrates extreme hardship to the alien or the alien’s United States citizen, lawful permanent resident, or qualified alien parent or child.
(2)

No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision or action of the Attorney General regarding a waiver under paragraph (1).
(j) Limitation on immigration of foreign medical graduates

(1) The additional requirements referred to i

A broken system forgives sexually abusive doctors in every state, investigation finds

July 16, 2016

http://doctors.ajc.com/doctors_sex_abuse/?ecmp=doctorssexabuse_microsite_nav

In Kentucky, Dr. Ashok Alur was examining an infection on a patient’s abdomen when he entered forbidden territory. He told the patient she had sexy underwear. Then, he rubbed her and placed his mouth on her genitals. The patient pushed him away and went to police.

“It was so beautiful,” the doctor told her later, when she confronted him. “I couldn’t resist.”

In Missouri, Dr. Milton Eichmann asked a woman badly injured in a sexual assault if she liked being tied up during sex, whether she was easily stimulated and whether she liked to be urinated on. He then told the patient, who was seeing the doctor for treatment of urinary problems, that he was being aroused.

In California, a patient was leaving an appointment with Dr. Mandeep Behniwal, a psychiatrist, when the doctor put his hand down her blouse, grabbed her breast out of her bra and placed his mouth on it. He then exposed himself and ejaculated on her hand.

In New Mexico, Dr. Twana Sparks for years performed genital exams she said were for screening on ear, nose and throat patients who were under anesthesia and hadn’t given consent, the state medical board said. In Texas, Dr. Philip Leonard fondled patients’ breasts or pressed his erections against them during exams, 17 women reported. In Georgia, a patient who saw Dr. Jacob Ward for a back rash and facial redness said the doctor exposed and fondled her breasts and put his hands down her pants.

In each of these cases, described in public records, the doctors either acknowledged what they’d done or authorities, after investigating, believed the accusations. While the scale and scope of the physicians’ misdeeds varied tremendously, all were allowed to keep their white coats and continue seeing patients, as were hundreds of others like them across the nation.

In a national investigation, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution examined documents that described disturbing acts of physician sexual abuse in every state. Rapes by OB/GYNs, seductions by psychiatrists, fondling by anesthesiologists and ophthalmologists, and molestation’s by pediatricians and radiologists.

Victims were babies. Adolescents. Women in their 80s. Drug addicts and jail inmates. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse.

But it could be anyone. Some patients were sedated when they were sexually assaulted. Others didn’t realize at first what had happened because the doctor improperly touched them or photographed them while pretending to do a legitimate medical exam.

Some doctors were disciplined over a single episode of sexual misconduct. A few physicians — with hundreds of victims — are among the nation’s worst sex offenders. But the toll can’t be measured by numbers alone. For patients, the violations can be life-altering. The betrayal even pushed some to suicide.

How do doctors get away with exploiting patients for years?

Some victims say nothing. Intimidated, confused or embarrassed, they fear that no one will take their word over a doctor’s. Colleagues and nurses stay silent.

Hospitals and health care organizations brush off accusations or quietly push doctors out, the investigation found, without reporting them to police or licensing agencies.

Society condemns sexual misconduct by most citizens and demands punishment. A teenage boyfriend and girlfriend in North Carolina were arrested for “sexting” nude pictures of themselves to each other. A Georgia woman was placed on a sex offender registry for having sex when she was 19 with a 15-year-old who lied about his age. A Pennsylvania teacher who had sex with an 18-year-old student was dubbed a predator and sent to prison.

But when a physician is the perpetrator, the AJC found, the nation often looks the other way.

Physician-dominated medical boards gave offenders second chances. Prosecutors dismissed or reduced charges, so doctors could keep practicing and stay off sex offender registries. Communities rallied around them.

Erin Vance, who was sexually assaulted by an Oregon physician while she was under anesthesia, said the doctor should have been stopped long before she was wheeled into an operating room. He’d been reported by another patient years earlier.

“I keep going back to the ‘Do no harm’ aspect of the Hippocratic oath,” Vance said. “I mean, I couldn’t move. I was completely at the mercy of whoever was there, and it turned out that the person who was there was a serial predator.”

RYON HORNE / AJC

Erin Vance was one of at least 12 women sexually assaulted by anesthesiologist Dr. Frederick Field as they lay incapacitated at a hospital in The Dalles, Ore.
Video: Hear in Erin’s own words the impact on being a victim of sexual abuse from a doctor

BRUSHED OFF AS RARE

The Roman Catholic Church, the military, the Boy Scouts, colleges and universities. They have all withered under the spotlight of sexual misconduct scandals and promised that abuse will no longer be swept under the rug.

The medical profession, however, has never taken on sexual misconduct as a significant priority. And layer upon layer of secrecy makes it nearly impossible for the public, or even the medical community itself, to know the extent of physician sexual abuse.

“There just isn’t accurate data,” said Dr. Gene Abel, an Atlanta physician who is a nationally recognized expert in evaluating sexual misconduct by professionals.

The AJC launched its national investigation a year ago after reaching a surprising finding in Georgia: two-thirds of the doctors disciplined in the state for sexual misconduct were permitted to practice again.

Today, after months of unearthing rarely viewed documents and tracking some cases from beginning to end, the AJC is exposing a phenomenon of physician sexual misconduct that is tolerated — to one degree or another — in every state in the nation.

The AJC obtained and analyzed more than 100,000 disciplinary documents and other records from across the country to find cases that may have involved sexual misconduct. Then reporters identified more than 3,100 doctors who were publicly disciplined since Jan. 1, 1999 after being accused of sexual infractions. More than 2,400 were sanctioned for violations that clearly involved patients. The rest were disciplined for sexual harassment of employees or for crimes such as child pornography, public indecency or sexual assault.

Yet many, if not most, cases of physician sexual misconduct remain hidden. The AJC investigation discovered that state boards and hospitals handle some cases secretly. In other cases, medical boards remove once-public orders from their websites or issue documents that cloak sexual misconduct in vague language.

When cases do come to the public’s attention, they are often brushed off by the medical establishment as freakishly rare. While the vast majority of the nation’s 900,000 doctors do not sexually abuse patients, the AJC found the phenomenon is akin to the priest scandal: It doesn’t necessarily happen every day, but it happens far more often than anyone has acknowledged.

‘A DELICATE BALANCE’

Over and over again, records show, predatory physicians took advantage of a doctor’s special privilege — the daily practice of asking trusting people to disrobe in a private room and permit themselves to be touched.

Offenses ranged from lewd comments during intimate exams to molestation, masturbation by the doctor in front of the patient, swapping drugs for sex and even rape. Because many orders are vague or undetailed, it isn’t always clear if a doctor claimed the patient consented. However, the profession says consent is never a defense because of the power imbalance between doctors and patients.

David Clohessy, the executive director of SNAP, a support and advocacy organization for people sexually abused by priests, doctors and others, said many Americans view physicians with too much deference and automatic respect.

“We are so reliant on them, we are so helpless and vulnerable and literally in pain often times when we go in there. We just have to trust them,” Clohessy said.

“So when they cross the boundary and their hands go into the wrong places, we are in shock, we are paralyzed, we’re confused, we’re scared. We just do not want to believe, first of all, that a doctor is capable of this , and secondly that their colleagues and supervisors will not address this immediately and effectively when we report it.”

Authorities say they take allegations of sexual misconduct seriously but sometimes compromise to settle cases without going through protracted battles.

Leanne Diakov, general counsel for the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure, said medical boards have to consider everything from the state’s need for physicians to the limits imposed by state law. In Kentucky, for example, doctors whose licenses are revoked by the medical board have a legal right to petition for reinstatement two years later.

“It’s always a balance,” Diakov said. “Obviously, the public looks at it and says, ‘Oh my gosh, how are they letting this physician practice.’ It’s a delicate balance between protecting public health resources, protecting patients and acting within the statutory authority that the legislature has given you.”

‘LOST MY JUDGMENT’

Sexual contact between a doctor and a patient, even if ostensibly consensual, is strictly forbidden. In ethical terms, it’s a never event. In a legal sense, it can be a crime. Physicians know it’s a line that can’t be crossed — it’s a prohibition as old as the Hippocratic oath.

Yet, the AJC found, even doctors who molest patients or subject them to bizarre exams for deviant purposes are frequently seen as sympathetic figures in need of therapy instead of predators who must answer to police. They get a diagnosis. They get a treatment. They come back.

Many are cleared to practice again after going to recovery centers where they take lie-detector tests and admit transgressions. They are expected to learn empathy and work through their issues, in some programs through art and yoga and in at least one through equestrian therapy. Others, seen in need only of further education, return to practice after attending weekend “boundary” classes at hotels or college campuses.

Only 11 states have a law requiring medical authorities to report to police or prosecutors when they suspect a sexual crime has been committed against an adult.

Doctors spend years in costly medical schools and training programs. They’re smart. They’re admired. They’re needed. Like the giant banks that were once viewed as “too big to fail,” the nation’s doctors are often considered too precious to discard.

Some of the disciplined doctors interviewed by the AJC expressed remorse. Some felt unfairly targeted by patients hoping to profit from a lawsuit. Others said they were frustrated that professionally damaging reports kept popping up years later, when they viewed their actions as brief lapses in judgment, not a life of misconduct. Most said they had paid dearly for the mistakes.

Behniwal, the California psychiatrist, said the patient who accused him initiated the sexual contact and he didn’t stop himself quickly enough. “For half a minute, I lost my judgment,” he said. Sparks, the New Mexico physician, said she was conducting cancer screening exams when she touched patients, with no sexual intent. But she said she paid a huge professional price because she didn’t have the patients’ consent. Eichmann, now retired and focused on charity work, said he was dedicated to helping his patients and regretted making inappropriate comments.

‘SALVAGE THAT PHYSICIAN’

Some states are apparently more forgiving than others when disciplining doctors in sexual misconduct cases. Georgia and Kansas, for example, allowed two of every three doctors publicly disciplined for sexual misconduct to return to practice, orders on board websites show. In Alabama, it was nearly three out of every four. In Minnesota, it was four of every five.

Nationwide, the AJC found that of the 2,400 doctors publicly disciplined for sexual misconduct, half still have active medical licenses today.

Larry Dixon, the executive director of the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners, has heard the argument that doctors who engage in sexual misconduct should be barred from practice. He doesn’t buy it.

“If you graduate a class of more than 100 people out of the University of Alabama medical school, the resources that have been poured into that education almost demand that you try to salvage that physician — if it’s possible,” said Dixon, who has led the Alabama board for 35 years.

Stop and think, he said, about how badly many communities need their doctors.

“You do not think so? Then leave Atlanta and go down to a little Georgia town and get sick,” Dixon said. “See how far they have to go to find a doctor.”

‘THE UGLY REALITY’

Office of Dr. Philip Leonard in Austin, Texas. He continues to practice despite accusations of sexual misconduct from 17 women.

When examining cases, the AJC found all sorts of surprising twists allowing doctors to keep working.

Dr. Philip Leonard was a well-respected neurologist in Austin, Texas, when the first report of sexual misconduct came in. After one patient told police in 2001 that the doctor had rubbed his erection against her during an exam, 16 other patients came forward making similar complaints.

“It depended on where he was, but the way I like to put it (is) he led with his penis,” one told the Texas medical board, describing how Leonard pressed against her while seeing her for a head injury.

Yet today the 65-year-old doctor practices without restriction.

The medical board initially decided the complaints were credible and suspended Leonard’s license. But it later changed its mind after one patient’s criminal case went to trial and resulted in the doctor’s acquittal. Because there was no forensic evidence, the case hung on the patient’s credibility, which was attacked by the defense when she testified. The jury never heard about the other 16 women.

“It’s sickening,” said Cathryn Blue, the woman whose case went to trial.

RYON HORNE / AJC

Cathryn Blue of Lockhart, Texas, near Austin, accused neurologist Philip Leonard of sexual misconduct after leaving his office in August 2001. Sixteen other women eventually came forward, making similar complaints to police and the Texas licensing board. Leonard was acquitted in Blue’s case. Prosecutors did not take the other cases to trial.

The medical board reached a deal allowing Leonard to return to practice as long as he saw only male patients for 10 years, a restriction that ended in 2014. He declined to be interviewed for this story.

The physician who served as the board’s president at the time acknowledged that the agreement reflected how the board compromised to reach settlements doctors would accept without costly appeals.

What (Leonard) did was clearly an abuse of his power over these women,” said Dr. Lee Anderson, a Fort Worth ophthalmologist. “But the ugly reality is, what can we actually achieve?”

‘THE RIGHT THINGS’

Dr. Jacob Ward

When the AJC examined Dr. Jacob Ward’s history, it found the physician is still practicing in suburban Atlanta even though he pleaded guilty after being accused of molesting a female patient.

The patient in 2011 told Woodstock police that Ward squeezed her buttocks, pulled up her shirt and felt her breasts and touched her genitals during an exam.

After Ward’s arrest, the Georgia medical board placed him on probation with restrictions that included a sexual misconduct treatment program and supervision and monitoring of his practice. He also was directed to have a chaperone with female patients.

Ward later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual battery and received two years’ probation.

But documents obtained by the AJC reveal a startling back story: Two other patients had made similar charges against Ward four years earlier and the board did nothing other than write a “personal and confidential” letter to the doctor expressing its “concern regarding exams and patients of the opposite sex.”

Speaking at Ward’s sentencing, the victim in the 2011 case said she had recently learned, on her own, of the previous complaints and that it made her pain even greater.

“How he could still be able to have a practice and see patients right now is beyond me,” the woman said at the hearing.

Cherokee County Judge Dee Morris found the victim’s statement so compelling that he refused to go along with the initial plea agreement, which called for Ward to be sentenced as a first offender.

Ward, who now practices in Canton, declined to discuss his case in detail when contacted by the AJC.

“I’ve done everything I’m supposed to do, per the Georgia board,” he said. “I’m doing the right things.”

‘IT’S FRUSTRATING’

Doctors forced to stop practicing because of sexual misconduct in one state may get a second chance in another.

Alabama revoked Dr. Oscar Almeida Jr.’s license in 2002 after four female patients complained of various improprieties, including fondling and kissing and inappropriate vaginal exams. The Mobile physician steadfastly denied any wrongdoing and fought the decision in the courts, but the board’s ruling was upheld by the Alabama Supreme Court in 2004.

A year later, Almeida applied for a Mississippi license. His request was approved, with the State Board of Medical Licensure saying the doctor “would be an asset to the State of Mississippi.” In 2007, Alabama reinstated Almeida’s license. Its order cites his boundary training and says “it would be a great loss to the medical community, and to the public in general, if a physician of Dr. Almeida’s obvious skill and ability would never again be able to practice medicine.”

Some regulators have a dim view of state hopping. Aaron Haslam, a former executive director of the State Medical Board of Ohio, said he grew weary of seeing doctors that Ohio deemed unfit to practice wind up with licenses in other states.

“It’s frustrating now and it was frustrating then,” he said. “We would try to be tough on an individual that we thought had no business practicing medicine and that individual would lose his license and go set up shop in the state right next to us or in Georgia or in Florida.”

‘THE OBVIOUS QUESTION’

Even when sexual misconduct ends a doctor’s ability to practice, investigators sometimes uncover a trail of misdeeds that goes back for years or even an entire career, highlighting a system that shielded them.

Dr. Paul Emerson, a Michigan osteopath, was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison in 2010 after pleading guilty to a scheme in which he gave out bogus prescriptions in exchange for cash or sex. Three people who received his prescriptions overdosed and died.

When investigators dug into his past to prepare a sentencing memo, they found a long history of sexual misconduct: As an intern at a Detroit area hospital, he drew suspicion for conducting a pelvic exam on a 14-year-old complaining of asthma. In Mississippi, he was discharged from the Air Force after being accused of inappropriately touching female patients, lost his privileges at a hospital for “unprofessional conduct” and was terminated as a prison physician after being sued for sexual harassment by a nurse.

“It is this court’s belief that you simply were finally being caught and being charged with crimes that were perhaps ongoing for a long period of time,” U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said at sentencing.

In Maryland, the medical board found that Dr. Ramon L. Gonzalez sexually abused female patients, including adolescents, all the way back to medical school in the 1970s. One patient gave birth to his child. But the doctor’s entire history of sexual malfeasance only came to light years later, baffling even those in charge of disciplining doctors.

“The obvious question,” an administrative law judge wrote in 2002, “is how (Gonzalez) was able to practice medicine for so many years and escape any substantial consequences for his actions.”

‘HALF A LOAF IS BETTER THAN NO LOAF’’

In many states, physicians who engage in sexual misconduct are treated or disciplined in private, keeping patients in the dark.

Georgia sometimes uses private consent orders and private agreements, Robert Jeffery, executive director of the state medical board, told the AJC. “Sometimes half a loaf is better than no loaf,” he said, explaining that such orders are used when the board is concerned a public order may not stick if the doctor fights it.

Public orders, he added, may inhibit doctors from reporting themselves or their peers. “If the response every single time is going to be public suspension, public this, public that, then I think what you would end up with is the unintended consequence of fewer reports,” he said.

In North Carolina, a public order involving Dr. Darlington Hart revealed how he had been subject to years of private actions and warnings.

In 2013, the medical board denied his application to have his license reinstated after he had surrendered it in 2011. To justify the denial, the board revealed a history that had been handled almost entirely in private in both North Carolina and South Carolina.

Allegations against Hart between 2001 and 2010 ranged from inappropriate hugging to sexual assault. All were dealt with through “private letters of concern” and a “private agreement” that required the doctor to use chaperones, take a boundaries course and submit to regular polygraph tests.

The North Carolina board reversed itself a year later and allowed him to start practicing again.

“Dr. Hart has always categorically and emphatically denied that he has ever sexually assaulted a co-worker or a patient,” said Alan Schneider, the doctor’s attorney.

Schneider said private letters do not constitute disciplinary action and that professional evaluations supported Hart’s denials. He said the evidence supported North Carolina’s decision to reinstate the license.

Jean Brinkley, a board spokeswoman, said the mission of the state’s physician-led board is patient protection, not doctor punishment.

“They tend to look at misconduct and look at what went wrong and what can we do to fix it,” she said. Private letters, she said, are used as a tool to help physicians improve.

As far as the public’s right to know, she pointed out that Hart’s history of private letters and confidential board actions was eventually noted in public documents on the board’s website. “At the very least,” she said, “there is a public record that any current, or prospective, patient has the opportunity to see.”

Dixon, the Alabama board’s executive director, said his board holds out confidentiality as a carrot for those physicians willing to admit their wrongdoing.

Alabama requires those doctors to be evaluated and treated by top experts. As long as they stick with the program, the information stays confidential.

“If you are trying to salvage them,” Dixon said, “you do not ruin their reputation.”

‘SAY SOMETHING’

During his years battling the Catholic Church to get it to stop protecting predatory priests, Clohessy said he learned one lesson well: “Secrecy is the enemy.”

He said he sees that enemy at work today when it comes to abusive doctors.

“This tendency on the part of medical boards and medical officials to err on the side of a quiet suspension or a secret, out-of-court deal, that’s a recipe for disaster,” he said. “Crimes are crimes, no matter who commits them. They need to be reported to and investigated by and prosecuted by the independent professionals in law enforcement. Period. Not a panel of your peers, not by some committee of supervisors and not by other people who have earned the same titles you have earned.”

Vance, who was one of 12 women sexually assaulted by anesthesiologist Dr. Frederick Field as they lay incapacitated at a hospital in The Dalles, Ore., said she found the sweeping nature of the AJC’s findings startling.

“It would be one thing if it was only one incident, but to find out how prevalent it is, is frightening and angering,” she said.

Dr. Frederick Field

Field received a 23-year prison sentence after pleading guilty. Beyond the assaults themselves, another story developed: The hospital, Mid-Columbia Medical Center, knew, or should have known, that Field was dangerous.

Three years before his arrest in 2011, a patient told a hospital administrator that Field fondled her nipples and placed her hands on his penis. Nurses also had notified hospital leaders in a series of memos in 2010 that, because of Field’s misconduct with a nurse, the staff had agreed “to make it a point to not leave anyone alone in Dr. Field’s presence.”

The hospital denied that it failed to act on complaints. Even so, a jury in 2013 ordered the hospital to pay Vance and two other victims $2.4 million in damages.

In a recent interview, Vance said she sensed that Field had kissed her on the lips and pressed her hand against his penis as she was regaining consciousness after surgery in December 2010. However, she didn’t report him to police until she learned of his arrest. At the time of her surgery, she said, she thought she had been dreaming.

“I remember telling myself, ‘It’s a hospital, how could that be true?’” she said.

“I hope people learn from that experience, to know that if they suspect something like that, it’s probably true. Don’t be afraid to say something. It can happen. It does happen.

— AJC staff writers Johnny Edwards and Alan Judd contributed to this article.

Save

Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report

June 29, 2016

READ the actual report!

http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo

81 New Witnesses, 75,000 New Pages of Documents Reveal Significant New Information,

Fundamentally Changes the Public’s Understanding of the 2012 Terrorist Attacks that Killed Four Americans

Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee’s Majority released a mark of its investigative report:

“Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were heroes who gave their lives in service to our country. Their bravery and the courageous actions of so many others on the ground that night should be honored.

“When the Select Committee was formed, I promised to conduct this investigation in a manner worthy of the American people’s respect, and worthy of the memory of those who died. That is exactly what my colleagues and I have done.

“Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”

The committee’s proposed report is just over 800 pages long and is comprised of five primary sections and 12 appendices. It details relevant events in 2011 and 2012.

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”

Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.”

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:

  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-05) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.”

Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.

Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence Community and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if it does, that we are better prepared to respond, the majority make a series of recommendations.

The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House.

Letter from Chairman Trey Gowdy to Speaker Paul Ryan

The Benghazi Committee’s Investigation – By the Numbers

Below is the full report with links to PDF files of each section.

Report of the Select Committee on
the Events Surrounding the 2012
Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

 

Illustrations

 

  1. Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi

 

  1. Internal and Public Government Communications about the Terrorist

Attacks in Benghazi

 

III. Events Leading to the Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi

 

  1. Compliance with Congressional Investigations

 

  1. Recommendations

 

Appendix A: Resolution Establishing the Select Committee on the

Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

 

Appendix B: Significant Persons and Organizations

 

Appendix C: Questions for the President

 

Appendix D: Significant Events in Libya Prior to the Attacks

 

Appendix E: Security Incidents in Libya

 

Appendix F: Deterioration of Benghazi Mission Compound Security

 

Appendix G: Timelines of the Attacks

 

Appendix H: The September 12 Situation Report and the President’s

Daily Brief

 

Appendix I: Witness Interview Summaries

 

Appendix J: Requests and Subpoenas for Documents

 

Appendix K: Analysis of Accountability Review Board, House Armed

Services Committee and House Permanent Select Intelligence Committee

Reports

 

Appendix L: Glen A. Doherty, Sean P. Smith, J. Christopher Stevens,

and Tyrone S. Woods

 

Additional Views by Rep. Jordan and Rep. Pompeo

Your Action is Needed NOW!

June 19, 2016

https://act.nraila.org/composeletters.aspx?AlertID=261

The NRA has just learned that Senators Schumer, Feinstein and other anti-gun elected officials are going to offer several anti-gun bills and amendments this week in the U.S. Congress, possibly as soon as today!

These measures are wide-ranging and include an attempt to reinstate the failed federal ban on semi-automatic firearms, commonly referred to as the “assault weapons ban.”

It doesn’t matter that the Clinton gun ban did nothing to reduce crime.  This is about YOUR freedoms and YOUR Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

But it doesn’t stop there.  In fact, one amendment will attempt to strip the Second Amendment Rights from those on secret government lists while another could lead to federal registration of all gun owners.

They’re also planning to push for increased federal funding of anti-gun research.

We must defeat every one of these anti-gun proposals.

What’s obvious is that many who want to destroy our firearm freedoms are using the terrorist attack in Orlando to push their anti-gun agenda.

They’d rather blame you as a law-abiding gun owner than make Obama answer for his failures in the global war on terror.

We can’t let them succeed in this depraved attempt to politicize a tragedy so they can destroy our freedoms.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators immediately and let them know you oppose any new gun control measures. You can call your lawmakers at 202-225-3121 or click the “Take Action” button below.

https://act.nraila.org/composeletters.aspx?AlertID=261

Be sure to share this message with your fellow NRA members and gun owners and let them know this threat is real.  Your action is needed now.

 

 

Has your steak been mechanically tenderized? If so, eating it rare or medium-rare can pose health risks

May 29, 2016

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2013/06/has-your-steak-been-mechanically-tenderized/index.htm

You probably don’t realize it, but steaks and other cuts of beef that you buy in grocery stores or restaurants may have been run through a machine that punctures them with blades or needles to tenderize them. (Watch our video of beef being mechanically tenderized, above.)

Unfortunately, the process also can drive bacteria like the deadly pathogen E. coli O157:H7 from the surface deep into the center of the meat, where they are harder to kill. That can increase the risk of illness for people who eat that beef rare or medium rare.

Mechanically tenderized beef caused at least five E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks between 2003 and 2009, causing 174 illnesses, one of them fatal, according to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.* The first documented outbreak in 2003 was traced to blade-tenderized, marinade-injected frozen filet mignon steaks consumers cooked at home, resulting in 13 illnesses that landed seven people in the hospital. (The process is also called “blading” or “needling.” Costco, for instance, labels the mechanically tenderized beef it sells as “blade tenderized.”)

A 2009 outbreak sickened 25 people, killing one and hospitalizing nine who had eaten mechanically tenderized sirloin served in restaurants. (Profiles of people who described the long-term health consequences of  being sickened by E. coli in 2009 after having eaten at restaurants where they ordered medium-rare steaks that had been mechanically tenderized are included in an award-winning series published late last year by ­The Kansas City Star.)

These may not seem like large numbers, but cases reported as part of outbreaks represent only 10 to 25 percent of all lab-confirmed cases of E. coli O157:H7 that are reported annually by state and local health authorities, as is often the case with outbreaks. (Related: Read “Consumer Reports Investigation: Talking Turkey” for details on our tests of ground turkey, which show reasons for concern.)

“And for every lab-confirmed case reported, the national estimate is that there are 26 more out there that aren’t identified,” says Kirk Smith, an epidemiologist at the Minnesota Department of Health.

A report sponsored by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association describing needling/blading and other techniques to tenderize beef noted that consumers are willing to pay a premium for cuts they perceive as more tender and that a 10 percent increase in the tenderness of U.S. beef would increase U.S. beef industry income by up to $170 million annually.

The Department of Agriculture estimates, based on 2008 data, that 37 percent of companies that slaughter or process beef use mechanical tenderization, producing more than 50 million pounds a month. Yet federal meat inspectors are not even testing this tenderized beef for E. coli. That’s despite the fact that “these products present some additional risk for E. coli contamination,” according to a recently released audit by the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General, which recommended that the agency reevaluate its testing policy.

Costco is one of a few retailers that disclose if beef has been mechanically tenderized.

No telltale signs

Because obvious marks aren’t left by the small needles or blades used, you can’t tell by looking at a piece of meat whether it has been mechanically tenderized. And no labeling is required to let you know that it has and therefore must be cooked more thoroughly.

The USDA has acknowledged since at least 1999 that customary cooking practices may not kill pathogens in beef that has been bladed or needled, and more than a year ago, the agency drafted a rule that would require such beef to be identified with labeling that includes safe cooking instructions. Appearing before Congress in March 2012, Under Secretary for Food Safety Elisabeth Hagen said the agency hoped to have the labeling rule in place by that summer because it is information that is “important for consumers to have.”

Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, has long supported such labeling. The American Meat Institute, a trade group, had opposed labeling but now says it may reconsider its position if new federal data suggest that labeling would be helpful. The Office of Management and Budget has been reviewing the proposed rule for more than six months, while evidence of illnesses linked to mechanically tenderized beef continues to mount.

National organic standards do not prohibit mechanical tenderizing, so a “U.S. certified organic” label on beef does not guarantee it has not been bladed or needled. Retailers make differing claims about their processes. For instance, Whole Foods and Meijer claim that they don’t sell any mechanically tenderized beef. And a spokesperson for Omaha Steaks told us the company does not mechanically tenderize its steaks but does inject marinades into roasts and brisket for corned beef. That would count as tenderizing under the USDA’s current labeling proposal.

What you can do

Even though it’s not mandatory yet to label meat that has been mechanically tenderized, some retailers in the U.S. and Canada are starting to provide labels voluntarily, so keep an eye out for such disclosure on packaging. After bladed steaks sold by Costco were linked to an E. coli outbreak in Canada in September 2012, Costco began labeling its mechanically tenderized beef. A Costco spokesman told us all of its beef is tenderized by machines except for filets and flank steaks.

To reduce the risk of illness, cook mechanically tenderized beef to a minimum internal temperature of 160° F just like a hamburger, rather than to the 145° F (typical for medium-rare) that the USDA recommends for non-tenderized steak. Use a meat thermometer inserted into the center of the beef rather than simply judging by the color of the meat. Letting the beef rest for several minutes after you pull it off the grill or out of the oven also allows further cooking time to kill any pathogens that may remain in “cold spots” on the interior.

When ordering in a restaurant, asking whether the beef is mechanically tenderized can help raise awareness of customers’ concerns about this safety issue and perhaps increase public pressure for package labeling and disclosure on restaurant menus. But for now, the best way to cut your risk is to order your beef well-done. People most at risk of illness are pregnant women, children, the elderly and people with compromised immune systems.

* Update: An earlier version of this story indicated that the CDC had reports of four deaths associated with E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks linked to mechanically tenderized beef. That figure has been changed to one fatality, based on a revision made on June 6, 2013, by the CDC in its statistics. (A version of this article appeared in the June 2013 issue of Consumer Reports magazine with the headline “Buying Beef? Read This First.”)

Reward for capture of bald eagle shooter or shooters increased to $2,000

October 22, 2013

http://bangordailynews.com/2013/10/21/news/bangor/reward-for-capture-of-bald-eagle-shooter-or-shooters-increased-to-2000/

Thanks to Penobscot Nation, the reward for information leading to the arrest of the suspect or suspects who shot and killed a bald eagle in Hermon last week has increased.

The reward, initially set at $1,000, has gone up to $2,000, Cpl. John MacDonald of the Maine Warden Service announced Monday.

The eagle was found in the area of Hermon Pond near the Souadabscook Stream.

Over the weekend, John Banks of Penobscot Nation contacted the Warden Service that tribal members are concerned about the welfare of bald eagles in the state.

“They wanted to do what they could do to assist with the apprehension of the person who killed the eagle last week in Hermon,” MacDonald said.

Bald eagle shootings are rare in Maine, but the crime is a federal offense punishable by up to a year in jail and $100,000 in fines.

The last suspect to go to jail for shooting an eagle occurred in 2012, when Stephen Voisine was sent to prison for killing a bird in 2009.

Anyone with information regarding the case should call Operation Game Thief hotline at 1-800-ALERT-US.

Philippines Ivory Burn: 5 Tons Of Elephant Tusks Destroyed By Government

June 22, 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/philippines-ivory-burn-tusks-destroyed_n_3478539.html?utm_hp_ref=green

Philippines Ivory Burn

Philippine government workers used a backhoe and an incinerator Friday to crush and burn more than 5 tons of smuggled elephant tusks worth an estimated $10 million in the biggest known destruction of trafficked ivory outside Africa.

The government said that the destruction of the stockpile, gathered from seizures since 2009, demonstrates its commitment to fighting the illegal ivory trade. It also eliminates any opportunity for corrupt officials to resell the ivory, as was the case in 2006 when the largest single shipment of 3.7 tones vanished from the inventory, according to an international network that tracks the illegal trade.

Ivory is known to have disappeared from a number of government-held stockpiles worldwide, so it is vital that proper protocols are established,” said Colman O Criodain from the World Wide Fund for Nature.

The U.S. Agency for International Development and the anti-wildlife-trafficking Freeland Foundation said they were helping the Philippines analyze DNA of tusks at the Center for Conservation Biology of the University of Washington so that law enforcement agencies will know the origin and transit points of the smuggled ivory. It will also help to dismantle criminal syndicates responsible for poaching in Africa.

“This not only sends a message to wildlife traffickers that the Philippine government is taking firm action against the illegal ivory trade, but also takes a stand against corruption by burning their ivory stockpile so it cannot be stolen then sold into the black market,” said Steven Galster, director of Bangkok-based Freeland Foundation.

Ivory can fetch up to $2,000 per kilogram ($910 per pound) on the black market and more than $50,000 for an entire tusk.

The Elephant Trade Information System, which tracks the illegal trade on behalf of the 1989 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, says that the Philippines is among nine countries and territories identified as being most heavily implicated in the illegal trade. The others are Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, Malaysia, Vietnam, Hong Kong, China and Thailand.

The Philippines is a transit point but also is known for its carving industry producing religious sculptures and artifacts.

Last year, National Geographic magazine featured an ivory collection allegedly belonging to a Roman Catholic priest, Monsignor Cristobal Garcia, who was suspended in 2012 by the Vatican because of a sex abuse case. The Philippines’ National Bureau of Investigation has said it would question Garcia over the origin of the ivory icons.

Officer Sixto Comia said Friday he had not received any reports on the result of the investigation.

Probe into gifts to McDonnells finds new undisclosed items valued at tens of thousands

June 22, 2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/probe-of-gifts-to-mcdonnell-widens/2013/06/21/6fa41132-d6c0-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html?tid=d_pulse

Federal authorities are asking Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s associates about previously undisclosed gifts given by a campaign donor to McDonnell’s wife that total tens of thousands of dollars and include money and expensive designer clothing, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

The questions are part of broad federal and state investigations into gifts to the governor and his family and whether McDonnell (R) took official action on behalf of anyone who gave gifts, people with knowledge of the investigation have said.

The probe already involves a $15,000 gift from wealthy businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr., chief executive of a major McDonnell campaign donor, for catering at the 2011 wedding of one of McDonnell’s daughters.

But the people with knowledge of the inquiry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation, say the scope is wider than just the wedding gift. The value and nature of additional gifts from Williams, including money provided in several checks, suggest that authorities are exploring a more extensive relationship between Williams and the McDonnells than previously revealed.

McDonnell has said that Williams’s company, Star Scientific Inc., the maker of a dietary supplement, received no special benefits. But the gifts came as the McDonnells showcased the company and its new product.

Additionally, famed Virginia socialite Patricia Kluge, who was one of the state’s wealthiest women before a dramatic and public crash during the recession, has been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury to answer questions related to the McDonnells, according to people who are familiar with her summons.

It is not clear what testimony authorities will seek from Kluge, who owned a winery and vast estate near Charlottesville before losing both in the economic downturn.

They were ultimately bought by Donald Trump. When the estate reopened as the Trump Winery in 2011, the McDonnells were in attendance, along with Trump and his son Eric.

Kluge’s attorney, Edward B. MacMahon Jr., said his client has done nothing wrong. “Patricia Kluge is a close friend of Mrs. McDonnell’s,” MacMahon said. “The government is apparently looking into lots of Mrs. McDonnell’s friends, but any insinuation that Kluge has any knowledge of anything illegal or improper done by either the governor or the First Lady is entirely wrong.’’

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment.

Tucker Martin, a spokesman for the governor, said “we will not address personal matters that are not relevant or germane to Virginia state government functions.”

But in a written statement, Martin also said that the governor has been “diligent in following Virginia’s existing laws regarding the reporting of gifts to state officeholders.”

He added that neither Williams nor Star Scientific have received any targeted tax incentives, economic-development grants, government contracts or board appointments during McDonnell’s time in office.

Jerry Kilgore, an attorney for Williams, declined to comment on the federal investigation.

Virginia law allows elected officials to accept gifts of any value, provided that they annually disclose those worth more than $50.

Since taking office in 2010, McDonnell has disclosed receiving $9,650 in personal gifts — including private plane rides and a summer lake-house vacation — from Williams and Star Scientific.

Star Scientific also contributed $108,452 to McDonnell’s campaign and his political-action committee.

State law does not require officials to disclose gifts that have been given to members of their immediate family. McDonnell has said that is why he did not disclose the $15,000 check for his daughter’s wedding, which he said was a gift to his daughter.

As public scrutiny of his relationship with Williams has mounted, McDonnell has declined to provide a full accounting of other gifts Williams provided to members of the McDonnell family.

A local prosecutor in Richmond is conducting a parallel investigation to the federal probe to determine whether McDonnell complied with state law in his annual financial filings.

That investigation could explore whether the governor received enough benefit from gifts given to his wife — particularly loans or gifts of money — that he should have considered them gifts to himself as well.

Federal authorities are exploring whether McDonnell performed official acts to boost the company in exchange for gifts from Williams, people familiar with the inquiry have said.

Three days before the 2011 wedding, Maureen McDonnell flew to Florida, where she touted the promise of a dietary supplement that Star Scientific was introducing to doctors and investors.

Three months later, the McDonnells allowed Star Scientific to use the 200-year-old Executive Mansion for an event to mark the launch of Anatabloc, which is an anti-inflammatory, non-FDA approved pill.

The first lady organized the event, but the governor also attended. His spokesman has said he stopped in to recognize the company for making grants to public universities.

The federal probe appears not to be limited to the McDonnells’ interactions with Williams.

State Del. David I. Ramadan (R-Loudoun), who confirmed this month that he has been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury next month, has said he has no connection to Williams or his company.

Ramadan, who is a jeweler, has declined to say whether he gave gifts to Maureen McDonnell.

Kluge, too, has no obvious connection to Star Scientific.

She has been active politically in Virginia but has given largely to Democrats, including more than $125,000 to Sen. Timothy M. Kaine’s gubernatorial campaign and inauguration. In 2010, however, she gave a $10,000 campaign contribution to McDonnell’s Inaugural Committee.

Friendly with the McDonnells, she served for 18 months in 2010 and 2011 as chairwoman of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee for Furnishing and Interpreting the Executive Mansion, a panel appointed by the governor and whose honorary head is the first lady.

For two decades, Kluge reigned as a particular kind of Virginia royalty, entertaining high society at her 45-room, 23,000-square-foot estate not far from Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello, outside of Charlottesville.

She had built the mansion with billionaire husband John Kluge, who was the nation’s wealthiest person during their marriage. Patricia Kluge kept the home after they divorced in 1990.

She later built a winery on 900 acres that was the crown jewel of the burgeoning Virginia wine industry. But her debts mounted amid the financial crash, and she declared bankruptcy in 2011.

Trump, a longtime friend, purchased Kluge’s holdings from trusts and banks, buying the winery in 2011 and her famed Albemarle House a year later.

Martin, the governor’s spokesman, said that before the sale at public auction, Secretary of Agriculture Todd Haymore had worked to identify potential buyers.

Martin said all efforts to save the enterprise were coordinated by Haymore, who had also worked with Kluge during the Kaine administration. He said it was in the best interest of the state to find a buyer.

“While Mrs. Kluge is a friend of the McDonnells, the Kluge Vineyard was Virginia’s largest and thus had a direct impact on the growing Virginia wine industry,” Martin said.

Eric Trump, who oversaw the purchase of the winery for the Trump Organization, said in an interview that while the McDonnells were supportive of the Trump takeover, they had no personal role in the deal.

“The governor, obviously, I think he’s probably a big proponent of ours — as would be any governor,” Trump said. But, he added, “the governor didn’t have a role in the sale.”

Trump said he has not been subpoenaed to appear at the grand jury or been interviewed by the FBI.

List of Gifts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/virginia-gifts/

Laura Vozzella and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Debate grows over deporting illegal immigrants with rap sheets after police officers killed

June 18, 2013

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/debate-grows-over-deporting-illegal-immigrants-with-rap-sheets-after-police/?test=latestnews

As the House and Senate continue to debate overhauling America’s immigration system, new differences are emerging between the two chambers over how to handle criminal illegal immigrants. 

The controversy is emerging after two police officers were killed, allegedly by illegal immigrant drunk drivers with prior DUI arrests. 

“There are thousands of Americans killed intentionally and accidentally by illegal immigrants who have already been arrested and could have been deported from the U.S.,” said Kris Kobach, an attorney representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who claim the Obama administration is preventing them from deporting law-breakers. 

In Houston, police say 23-year-old Andres Munos was driving drunk on May 20 when he struck and killed 47-year-old Sgt. Dwayne Polk, a Harris County sheriff’s deputy. Munos, who is in this country illegally, was previously arrested in 2010 for drunk driving and unlawful carrying of a weapon. 

In Phoenix, Jesus Cabrera-Molina admitted he was drunk and high on cocaine the night his SUV struck and killed Phoenix Police Officer Daryl Raetz — but he denies he was behind the wheel. Witnesses disagree, and Phoenix police have charged Molina with manslaughter. 

Under a House bill now being debated, drivers like Munos and Molina would likely get deported immediately by ICE or local police, who would have the authority to enforce federal immigration statutes. 

Under the Senate bill, however, illegal immigrants accused of non-violent crimes are entitled to a hearing and a taxpayer-funded lawyer. Those with three or fewer misdemeanors and some felonies would be allowed to remain if they had children or wives in the U.S. 

Advocates say all illegal immigrants must have the opportunity to fairly present their cases in court. The temptation to make immigration laws “tougher” is a mistake, they say — which is why the Senate bill provides for judicial “discretion” if deporting a criminal alien imposes a “hardship” on a family members living in the U.S. 

“These are real human situations that require human decisions,” said Crystal Williams of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “Drunk driving needs to be treated as the crime that it is — an alcohol-related, a substance abuse-related crime and not something related to immigration. The two are wholly unrelated.” 

Differences in the House and Senate bills will likely have to be worked out in committee should the respective immigration efforts pass each chamber.

China border officials seize 213 bear paws

June 18, 2013

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22949409

Customs officials count smuggled bear paws in Manzhouli, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, 15 June 2013

Chinese officials have confiscated 213 bear paws hidden inside the tyres of a vehicle crossing the border from Russia, state media has announced.

Two Russians were detained in Manzhuoli, Inner Mongolia, when the discovery was made on 22 May.

Bear parts are prized in China for their perceived medicinal value, but their sale is illegal.

Initial investigations showed the paws were from the brown bear, a protected species in China, Global Times said.

Officials grew suspicious after noticing that the van’s driver looked nervous, with customs worker Yang Xu telling CCTV the man “looked at his watch often”.

The vehicle was then X-rayed, the tyres removed and the concealed paws revealed.

Bear paws are worth 10 times more in China than in Russia, state media said, and the haul had an estimated value of 2.8m yuan ($460,000, £293,000).

Zhang Xiaohai, an official with Animals Asia Foundation, told Global Times that such smuggling had increased in the last two years.

“The demand is huge because more people can afford them and the country has the tradition to treat bear paw as a rare ingredient for cuisine or as an expensive present,” Mr Zhang said.

Bear farms in China exacerbate the situation as they also sell paws illegally, which stimulates the growing trade.”

Gary Harrington of Oregon Jailed for Illegal Rainwater Reservoirs on His Property

June 4, 2013

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/08/13/gary-harrington-of-oregon-jailed-for-illegal-rainwater-reservoir/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058

An Eagle Point, Ore., man has begun serving a 30-day jail sentence after he built three reservoirs on his property to collect rainwater — an apparent violation of a state law that says all water is publicly owned.

Gary Harrington has collected nearly 13 million gallons of water in his reservoirs. That’s enough to fill 20 Olympic-size swimming pools. But two weeks ago, he was found guilty of breaking the 1925 Oregon law against private water collection. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and issued a $1,500 fine.

Oregon’s Water Resources Department said that though it is legal to set up rainwater collection barrels on roofs or other artificial surfaces, Harrington’s reservoirs go way beyond that and required permits.

“Mr. Harrington has operated these three reservoirs in flagrant violation of Oregon law for more than a decade,” the department’s deputy director, Tom Paul, told the Medford Mail Tribune.

The state initially approved permits for Harrington’s reservoirs in 2003, but reversed its decision.

“They issued me my permits. I had my permits in hand and they retracted them just arbitrarily, basically,” Harrington told CNSNews.com. “They took them back and said, ‘No, you can’t have them.’ So I’ve been fighting it ever since.”

Harrington has been ordered to drain his three reservoirs, something that he vows to continue fighting. He said that he is only using the rainwater for personal use and fire suppression and that the state is infringing on his rights.

“The government is bullying,” he told CNSNews.com. “They’ve just gotten to be big bullies and if you just lay over and die and give up, that just makes them bigger bullies.”

Harrington has set up a website, www.empoweringthejury.org, to appeal to the public for support. The site includes videos defending his reservoirs and a petition that asks for signatures and donations.

But that doesn’t sway state officials.

“What we’re after is compliance with Oregon water law, regardless of what the public thinks of Mr. Harrington,” Paul told the Mail Tribune.