Matter of Laipenieks (Board decision, September 8, 1983)

Plain-English summary

The respondent was a Latvian-born citizen of Chile who became a lawful permanent resident of the United States after working as a full-time investigator and interrogator for the Latvian Political Police during the Nazi occupation of Latvia. The Board found clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence that the Latvian Political Police operated under Nazi German direction and persecuted people because of political opinion, including people who were targeted as communists without criminal conduct. It held that the respondent's motives did not excuse assistance or participation, and that his work investigating and interrogating suspects and prisoners made him a necessary link in the persecution. The Board vacated the Immigration Judge's order terminating the proceedings, sustained the Government's appeal, denied suspension and voluntary departure, and ordered the respondent deported to Chile.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a)(19), 1251(a)(1), 1182(a)(19), 1182(a)(20), 1254(a), and 1254(a)(1)
• Outcome: The Immigration Judge's termination order was vacated, the Government's appeal was sustained, and the respondent was ordered deported to Chile.
• Key point: Under the Holtzman Amendment, an alien's subjective motive was not required for a finding that the alien assisted or participated in specified persecution.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Interim Decision #2949

MATTER OF LAIPENIEAS

In Deportation Proceedings

A-1193'7435

Decided by Board September 8, 1983

(1) The respondent is charged with deportability under section 241(a)(19) of the Immigra- tion and Nationality Act, S U.S.C. 1251(a)(19) (the 1978 "Holtzman Amendment"), due to his employment and activities with the Latvian Political Police (LPP) from 1941-43 in Riga, Latvia; he is subject to deportation under that provision if there-is clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence that (a) "under the direction of, or in association with—the Nazi government of Germany, [or] any government in any area occupied by the military ;ones of the Nazi government of Germany," the respondent; (b) "assisted or otherwise participated' in"; (c) `The persecution of any person"; (d) "because of .. . political opinion." (2) The Holtzman Ainendment was intended to close an "undesirable loophole" in the Immigration and Nationality Act which, unlike special post-war immigration Iowa such as the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 and the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, previously had not mandated the exclusion or deportation of aliens who were involved in Nazi persecu- tion. (3) Congress expressly declined to incorporate a specific statutory definition of "persecu- tion" in the Holtzman Amendment, but intended that term to be construed in accordance with the administrative and judicial case law developed in interpreting other persecution provisions contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act. (4) Section 241(a)(19) of the Act encompasses persecution because of any and all types of political opinion, including communism. (5) As both an arm of the government of Nazi-occupied Latvia and an organization which was directed by orders issued from a chain of command originating with Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Hirnmler in Nazi Germany, the role of the LPP was to "combat" Nazi political enemies, particularly conununists of all kinds, including those who simply held communist beliefs, were communist sympathizers and supporters, or were engaged in noncriminal activities based upon their communist beliefs; such persons were commonly arrested and incarcerated at Riga Central Prison, often subjected to brutal mistreatment while imprisoned, and sometimes taken to Nazi concentration camps or killed, which constitutes persecution under the Act. (6) Under the Holtzman Amendment, an alien's motivations and intent behind his assis- tance or participation in persecution are irrelevant; therefore, we look not to the alien's subjective intent but, rather, to the objective effect of his actions in determining whether he assisted or participated in the specified persecution. (7) The respondent admittedly was employed in the LPP as an armed, paid, full-time, rela, tively high-ranldng officer whose duties included investigation of all types of communists and interrogation of communist prisoners at toga Central Prison, the Information froze which was used by his superiors to decide the fate of those suspects and prisoners; thus,

433"
Interim Decision #2949
the respondent was a necessary link between the LPP/Nazi Security Police and the objects of their persecution, and thereby assisted and participated in the specified persecution. (8) The record establishes by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence that from 1941 to 1943, under the direction of, and in association with, both the LPP and the Nazi German government, the respondent assisted and otherwise participated in the persecution of persons because of political opinion; therefore, he is deportable under section 241(a) (19) of the Act. (9) An alien deportable under the Holtzman Amendment is statutorily ineligible for suspension of deportation under section 244(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254(a), or for the privilege of voluntary departure under section 244(e) of the Act. CHARGE: Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(1.9), [8 U.S.O. 1251(a)(19)1—Assisted or participated
in Nazi persecution
-

Sec. 241(a)(1), [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)1—Excludable at entry under section 212(a)(19) of the Act [8 U.S.O. 1182(a) (19)}— Procured visa by fraud or willful misrepresentation of a material fact
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: °
ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Jan I. Goldsmith, Esquire
Allan A_ Ryan,
Dorazio, Barnhorst, Goldsmith &
Director
Boner
Neal M. Sher, Deputy
Suite B-223
Director
438 Camino Del Rio South
Clarice R. Feldman
San Diego, California 92108
Bruce J. Einhorn
Michael Wolf
Ivan Berzins, Esquire
Trial Attorneys
484 West Montauk Highway
Office of Special
Babylon, New York 11702
Investigations
United States Department of Justice
BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members

In his decision of June 9, 1982, the immigration judge determined that the Government had failed to establish that the respondent is deport able under sections 241(a)(1) and (19) of the Immigration and National- ity Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1) and (19). Therefore, he terminated these deportation proceedings against the respondent. The Government appeals. We reverse with respect to the section 241(a)(19) charge, and, accordingly, the appeal will be sustained on that basis. The respondent is a 69-year-old native of Latvia and citizen of Chile who was admitted to the United States for permanent residence on March 9, 1960. On June 2,"1981, the respondent was served with an Order to Show Cause alleging that he is deportable under section 241(a)(19) of the Act due to his employment and activities with the Latvian Political Police (LPP) in Riga, Latvia, during the Nazi German
. occupation there in World..War II. It is alleged that the respondent

434
 Interim Decision #2949

assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of persons both because of political opinion and race or religion. The respondent is also charged with having been excludable at entry in that he procured his immigrant visa by misrepresenting material facts concerning his work with the LPP, and other matters as well. The respondent's deportation hearing was conducted in 11 sessions from January 23 to February 18, 1982. The healing transcript consists of 1,177 pages and the record contains some 150-200 Government exhibits and 14 respondent exhibits. As the proceedings progressed, the factual evidence presented focused principally on allegations regarding the respondent's assistance and par- ticipation in persecution because of political opinion. The testimony of 11 of the 12 eyewitnesses presented by the Government related almost entirely to this aspect of the case. The immigration judge ultimately concluded that the Government had failed to prove the respondent's deportability under either of the charges by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence, as required by Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966). Accordingly, the immigration judge ordered the proceedings terminated. After our review of the record, we find clear, convincing, and unequivo- cal evidence that the respondent 'assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of . . . personis] because of . . . political opinion" and is therefore deportable under section 241(a)(19) of the Act. Inasmuch as this finding is dispositive of the case before us and as the evidence in this regard is the clearest aspect of the case presented, the appeal will be resolved on this basis alone.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The alleged events which led to the issuance of the Order to Show Cause took place primarily in 1941 and 1942 during World War II in Riga, Latvia. Latvia is of one of three small Baltic nations located on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea, situated between Estonia to the north and Lithuania to the south. To the west, across the Baltic Sea, is Sweden, and to the east is the Soviet Union. Latvia has an area of 25,090 square miles. Its capital is Riga, a Baltic merchant city which originated from the Germanic Hanseatic League in the 16th century. Latvia was a part
-

of the Russian empire from the time of Peter the Great's defeat of the Swedish empire in the early 18th century until the collapse of the Rus- sian empire towards the end of World War I. After the Russian revolution and Russia's withdrawal from - the War, Latvia and its two Baltic state neighbors were temporarily occupied by German forces. Thereafter, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia declared their independence in 1918. They remained independent nations until
-

194 ► when they were annexed by the Soviet Union following the German- Soviet treaty of 1939. On June 22, 194], Nazi German armed forces

436
Interim Decision #2949
invaded the Baltic states, forced out the Soviet troops, and quickly drove to Leningrad where the war front stabilized. Nazi Germany then established occupation governments in Latvia and the other Baltic States They remained under Fad German rule from 1941 until the German Army was driven out of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union in 1945. Following the defeat of Germany, the Soviet Union once again annexed the three Baltic nations. The United States has never recognized the legitimacy of the Soviet annexation.' EVALUATION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPERT WITNESS Particularized historical background information was provided by tes- timony of the Government's expert witness, Dr. Raul Hilberg, Ph.D. 2 Dr.Hilbergisanotedauthorandhistorianinareaswhichcomprehend the nature of Nazi German military movement and Nazi policies and their implementation in the Eastern occupied territories, including the organization of German police units and their relationship to the local indigenous Latvian police groups. Dr. Hilberg's expertise is based upon his extensive study of captured Nazi documents and other sources on wartime activities, and incorporates his research and analysis of the Nazi German persecution of Jews, communists, and its other political enemies. In support of Dr. Hilberg's testimony, the record also contains copies of several captured Nazi documents. Chief among these is Exhibit G-28, an extensive repeat dated October 15, 1941, from the commander of Einsatzgruppe "A" (to be discussed shortly), General Dr. Stahlecker, to Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Nazi SS and second in command to Adolph Hitler in Nazi Germany. The more specific histori- cal account which follows is a distillation of Dr. Hilberg's testimony, with frequent reference to support found in Ex. G-27 and G-22 and other documents of record. A principal German policy in the Eastern occupied territories, includ- ing Latvia, was the combatting of "political enemies": Jews, communists, and anyone else suspected of being an opponent of the Nazi regime (see

' See generally A. Clark, Rczrbarossa—The Russian-German Conflict, 194171945 (1965); Times Atlas of World History, 144 (2d ed. 1979); Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1979, 699, U.S. Department of State (1980). 2 Dr. Hilberg is the author of The Destruction of the European Jews, Exhibit G-27, a scholarly, highly-regarded corspendium of his decades of research into the holocaust. He is a doctor of Public Law and Government, McCullough Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont, a noted author, and a presidentially-appointed member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. He has been accepted as an expert historical witness in the following cases: United States v. Osidach, 513 F. Supp. 51 (E.D. Pa. 1981); United States v. Lianas, 527 F. Supp. 426 (E.D.N.Y. 1981), Ord. 685 F.2d 427 (2 Ch.-. 1982), reh'g denied, April 5, 1982, cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 179 (1982); United States v. Keay, 540 F. Supp. 28,(6.D. Fla. 1882); United States v. Paletauskas, 559 F. Supp. 1294 (M.D. Fla. 1983).

436
 Interim. Decision #2949 Tr. pp. 300-01, 304, 346, 350-51, 353, 487, 524; Ex. G-27; Ex. G-28 at 3, 9, 12, 13, 18-21, and App. 1-1). This policy was promulgated by the German S.S. and Reichs Security Main Office (Reichssicherheitshaup- tampt, or RSHA) and communicated to the field by the RSHA. Primary execution of this policy in the first instance was entrusted to four special mobile units of the RSHA called Einsatzgruppen, which were to follow closely on the heels of the advancing German armies into any newly- conquered territories (Tr. p. 301). Dr. Hilberg described the operation of the Einsatzgruppen as follows: When the German Wehrmaeht—the armed forces—attacked the USSR on June 22, 1941, the invading armies were accompanied by small mechanized Idling units of the SS and Police which were tactically subordinated to the field commanders but. otherwise free to go about their special business. The mobile killing units were operating in the front-line areas under a special arrangement and in a unique partnership with the German Army. Ex. G-27 at 177; see also id. at 183. When German Army North invaded the northern Soviet occupied territories, Einsatzgruppe "A" immedi- ately followed. The subdivision of Einsatzgruppe "A" deployed in Lat- via. was Einsatzkommando 2, or E.K. 2. German Army North captured
-

Riga on July 1, 1941, and E.K.-2 entered Riga within a few hours thereafter (Tr. pp. 302-04). When the German Army was unable to advance into Leningrad or beyond, the Eastern Front stabilized and E. K.-2 settled itself in Latvia for the duration of the German occupation (Tr. pp. 336-38). The organizational structure of these special units was as follows: Reichsftiehrer Hin unler had authority over 12 separate bureaucratic departments, including the RSHA (Tr. p. 333). The RSHA was an amalgamation of two units, the Sicherheitspolizei, Security Police (or SP), and the Sicherheitsdienst, Security Service (or SD). The SP was in turn made up of two branches, the' Criminal Police or Kripo (Landeskri- minalpolizeiamt), and the State Police—Gestapo or Stapo (Geheime