Sun 2 Dec 2007
A letter has been sent out by Albert Marceau, of the Richard Sitcha Defense Committee, announcing the pending deportation of Richard Sitcha. There is a desperate need to develop a plan to save Sitcha.
Richard Sitcha, 45, fled Cameroon in April 2001 after he had been arrested and tortured for revealing the government’s role in the murders of nine youth now called the Bépanda Nine. In the neighborhood of Bépanda, in early 2001, nine young men were arrested, allegedly for stealing a canister of cooking fuel, and murdered. Their remains were never found. Opposition leaders and members of the victims’ families organized rallies to protest and demand that the Cameroon government conduct an official inquiry. The results of the enquiry have not been made public.
Sitcha was granted asylum in the U.S. January 16, 2003. He then settled in Hartford to begin his life again. Following telephone calls to Cameroon which failed to verify Sitcha’s involvement, the INS (now the ICE) summoned him to court September 18, 2003, revoked his asylum, and made him a part of Homeland Security’s “Pilot Program” of incarceration during adjudication. See one of the first letters from Sitcha that the Hartford Undercurrent received from him in 2003 here.
Below is the text of Marceau’s email:
Today, Dec. 1, 2007, I have received an e-mail from Rebecca King who received an e-mail from Attorney Kevin Hoffkins on Nov. 30, 2007, the current attorney representing Richard Sitcha. The e-mail from Attorney Hoffkins contains an attachment of a letter dated Nov. 29, 2007 from U.S. Justice Department from U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City, and it states that: “Richard Sitcha, an alien in the custody of ICE in Plymouth, Massachusetts is scheduled to be removed from the United States to his native Cameroon, Africa, as early as the week of December 10, 2007.” The reason for the deportation is that Sitcha missed the deadline of October 28, 2007 to file for a review of the decision from the Bureau of Immigration Appeals that was made on September 27, 2007. What is not stated in the document is that Attorney Hoffkins thought the deadline to file for the review was 60 days, and not 30 days, from the date of the decision from the BIA. Attorney Hoffkins wrote in his e-mail to Rebecca King: “If you are going to have another attorney file a motion to re-open, you should do it quickly.”
If any of you have any ideas how to get Sitcha out of this bad situation, you can either contact me by e-mail, or the following members of the Sitcha Defense Committee:
Rebecca King – beccaking@crocker.com; (413)-773-7004
Suzanne Carlson – suzannec@crocker.com; (413)-774-2112
Lorena Dutelle – lorenadutelle@yahoo.com; (860)-644-8652
Sincerely,
Albert J. Marceau
Sitcha Defense Committee
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Ah, America. The land of opportunity.
Is there any chance that if deported, Sitcha would be able to take refuge in another country? Obviously, given the circumstances of his asylum, it seems like his safety would be threatened if returned to his country.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Is there anyone (Senator, Congressperson)who could speak up on his behalf immediately? Or am I just being naive? Is this happening because bond is now a possibility?
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Jesus CHRIST!!! How could the lawyer not know that the BIA requires that an appeal be received within 30 days?!?!? That’s basic practice!!! Has he never done a BIA appeal in his life? This is malpractice, and it’s infuriating!!! At the very least, he should return his fee.
Way to go, Kevin Hoffkins: your carelessness may cost a man his life.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
At the risk of appearing to circle the wagons on behalf of the legal profession, I would want more information before I jumped to the conclusion that Richard Sitcha is being deported because of malpractice. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, just that I’d want more information. As someone who does *not* practice immigration law, I know that it’s an area in which there are not only the usual complexities but also problems that arise from inconsistent local rules and practices.
I know that in Richard’s case there have been quite a few lawyers who have been involved over quite a long period of time. I know that several have donated substantial amounts of time. I would hope that people will remember that it’s the U.S. government that is responsible for everything that Richard has been through, not his lawyer.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
If the above information is true, there’s no excuse. Missing a deadline is prima facie malpractice, and as far as I’m concerned, inexcusable. I checked Kevin Hoffkins’s website, and it appears he does mostly business and family-based immigration; doesn’t mention anything about removal defense. So I renew my question: has he EVER done a BIA appeal before in his life? Because it’s 30 days, no ifs ands or buts.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Not sure if it’s going to help but I sent an email to Rep. Larson. I basically forwared the recenly sent out press release from himc@riseup.net. I tried to send one to Rep. Courtney too, but it didn’t work. I didn’t send anything to Dodd because he’s too busy, and I assume Lieberman couldn’t care less.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Not to diminish the importance of being a “victim” in our culture, But Richard is not a victim of either legal malpractice or the US government. He chose to come here unlawfully and try his luck in the US legal system. This was a calculated risk. He was represented in court by one of the best “deportation” lawyers in CT. Show me how the missed deadline would have made a difference, otherwise there was no harm. And, after many years of due process and review by the BIA, the US District Court and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, his case has failed. Now, rather than live with an unfavorable outcome, he seeks extra-judicial intervention. Is there a reason the people who were determined to find his salvation in the courts are now unwilling to live with that decision, or do we only respect the rule of law when it supports our own narrow view of the world. The case is over and it is time for everyone to accept responsibility for their actions. Otherwise we live in anarchy, victims of our own passions and prejudice.
January 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 am
Rob, the rule of law is something that exists when an individual has meaningful and equal access to the courts, and when the law is in turn applied equally. Richard Sitcha came to the United States as a fugitive seeking asylum. He was, it is undisputed, a law-abiding citizen in his native country. He has good cause to believe that if he is deported he will be subject to jail and the possibility of torture or death. Yet the court failed to recognize Richard’s asylum claim.
In this respect Richard Sitcha is very differently situated than, say, Luis Posada Carriles. Mr. Carriles entered the U.S. after having been jailed on charges of terrorism in Venezuela and Panama, and promptly asked for political asylum. As a cuban-born anti-Castro terrorist, Mr. Carriles has been treated with the kind of deference we might expect to see extended to a former head of state.
The U.S. government admits that Mr. Carriles entered the country illegally, has been accused of terrorist acts, has a long history of criminal activities, is closely tied to known underworld and terrorist organizations in both the U.S. and Latin America. However, the U.S. has made it clear that not only will he not be returned to Cuba to stand trial for his crimes, but he will not even be returned to Venezuela.
When such a stark disparity exists between the treatment of a decent human being who fears torture and a vicious criminal who fears justice, reference to the rule of law cannot be made with a straight face.
January 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Peter G-,
I agree completely. Mr. Sitcha is not a terrorist. But, my point is simple. When you come to the US seeking protection under US law and you reap the benefit of several years of due process in the courts, you have a corresponding duty to respect the judgement of that system of law. You do not simply call your Congressman when you lose your case and expect to be “plucked” from the turbulent waters. Mr. Sitcha and his supporters play well with others as long as they are winning…but when they do not prevail, they do not respect the rules by which you and I are bound. I suggest that this is an immature understanding of our rights and responsibilities here in America.
Regards,
Rob
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Then I guess I’m confused, Rob. Because I notice that when a court case goes bad for, say, General Motors, it follows up by throwing as many tens of thousands of dollars at an appeal as it will take . . . and if that doesn’t work then it goes to its lobbyists to get the law changed or otherwise obtain relief from the state or federal government. So based on my observations of what those who have money, status and power do when they lose, I thought that “the rule of law” would entitle poor and powerless people to do the same.
I also figured that since the Constitution allows people to seek redress of grievances it would be reasonable for someone to say “Hey . . . I went through the system and I don’t think the system worked . . . and I think you have the responsibility to take a look at the way it failed and correct it.”
But again, I suppose respecting the outcome, dealing with it and moving on is what some but not all are obligated to do.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Peter,
Well, I guess you and I agree. Because I am equally disgusted when corporations or the wealthy elite “game” the system. Be it O.J. Simpson or General Motors. And, it sounds from the tone of your response that you really do not appreciate these tactics either, but think Mr. Sitcha has the right to be as obstructionist as big business. I would argue that in both cases, failing to respect the legal process and doing whatever it takes to “win” in the end, is not how it is supposed to work.
Lastly, with respect to redress of greivances, is his grievance with the process or just the actual decision? Because if a congressman wants to amend the immigration laws or the appeals process, well thats fine. But, using the legislative branch to meddle with the judiciary over the final outcome, in my opinion violates the separation of powers and shows contempt for our legal process.
Regards,
Rob
January 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Rob,
I simply recognize the reality that when someone’s self-interest (personal or corporate) is at stake they are going to use the avenues available to them, whatever they may be. When a prisoner is sentenced to death row, we don’t really expect him or her to say “Well, I think this is all terribly unsporting of you but go ahead and kill me anyway.”
I think where we differ is probably quite fundamental. I have no expectation that the legal and/or political institutions in this country will equally respect the rights of the rich and the poor. They do not, and wishing will not make it so. Legal cases between widget maker x and widget buyer y are essentially (though not always or exclusively) private disputes that can be settled in a courtroom. Legal cases over immigration, workers rights, corporate power, criminal prosecution, civil rights, etc. are matters of public concern and reflect a constant struggle for power between different classes in U.S. society. Neither side will ever declare that a particular tactic or strategy is permanently “hands off” because in the final analysis their interests are antagonistic.
China Mieville recently wrote that in the administration of international law - a body of law created largely by capitalist states with imperial interests - nations are treated “equally” so long as doing so does not obstruct the goals of capitalism. I think the same is true of national law in a capitalist society. It is *capable* of treating the rich and the poor, or the worker and the boss, or the individual and the corporation the same to the extent that doing so is not an obstacle to the goals of the capitalist class as a whole (as opposed to the goals of an individual capitalist).
So the U.S. government *could* decide not to deport Richard Sitcha. But at the moment, the capitalist class is fearful of economic recession, needs to be able to guarantee a large reserve army of the poor to help keep wages down and unions weak, and also has an interest in maintaining or exacerbating divisions within the working class. Polite requests or only coloring within the lines is not likely to be successful in this context, so the movement has to always look for the weakest link in the system, whether that is the court, the legislature or the executive branch.
February 4th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
So, any updates on the situation?