Friday, September 23, 2016

IJ rules against man from Nepal

the Immigration Judge ruled against Mr. Bhattarai, from Nepal, because:

1] at whose home was he attacked in June 2002?
    First he said, he was attacked at "his home." Later, he said, "at the house of his friends"
Still later, he said his parents lived at the place, at times, and that it was a place "we had rented."
      He should have said, "in 2002, I lived in a house with this address: #32 Main street. That is where things happened: at the #32 house."    If the house had no number, then describe it: perhaps as "the one-floor, wooden  house that is about 45 minutes from the main international airport."
    if you describe the same place with different words, you will confuse the judge.

2] why is the letter from the doctor different from the testimony in court about the injuries?
      In front of the Judge, he said he was hit on the head.  The doctor's letter said there was injury to his right elbow, and it said nothing about his head.
         In fact, he was hit on his head and also on his elbow. The injury to his elbow was much worse than the injury to his head. He could have said, "I told the doctor I had been hit on the head; he did not write it down, I am not sure why; perhaps because he did not treat my head; he only treated my elbow.

3] why doesn't the letter from his political party mention the date and extent of his injuries?
            He could have testified: "I asked them to write a letter, they did not want to, out of fear, finally they wrote what they wrote. I was too tired and embarrassed to ask them to write a new letter.
I am annoyed by their brief letter; but what can I do? They wrote what they wrote."

4] why didn't your brother, who lived 60 minutes away from the court, come to the court and testify?
       This annoyed the Judge, who believed that the brother did not testify because he would not have corroborated the story.  The real reason for the absence of the brother was that he did not want to miss a day of work; the applicant was unable to reimburse him for his lost wages.

No comments: