The whole objective of the Stemberger strategy of not addressing the threat to Rifqa's life and not entering into evidence apostasy and death fatwas/threats was to get dependency, so as to secure special immigrant juvenile status. That strategy is an abject failure. There has been no progress on that. Every "deal" for dependency made with Rifqa's parents' allegedly CAIR-appointed legal team was broken. The intent was never to honestly broker a deal with the infidels for an apostate's safe harbor. Stemberger never understood who and what he was dealing with.
Removing the religious aspects of the case (and that would be to remove the whole of the case) validates the claim made by Florida and Ohio law enforcement that there was no threat to Rifqa's life. Law enforcement admitted that the religious threat was not investigated. Rifqa's defense strategy (or lack of it) backs that up.
Instead, Rifqa's lawyers had her plead guilty to "unruliness" for a dependency deal. Where is it? Why does she still have only temporary dependency? Worse, the "unruly" plea is now being used to pursue criminal charges against her friends Brian Williams, the Lorenzes, and the International House of Prayer -- the good Samaritans who helped Rifqa after she ran away from home, when her devout Muslim father said he would kill her after spies at the Noor mosque told the Barys that Rifqa had converted to Christianity. Mohamed Bary waved her laptop over her head and said he would kill her if she had "this Jesus in her heart." According to the hijabed Heagney, on-staff shill for CAIR at the Columbus Dispatch, Omar Tarazi, the Barys' attorney, told the court yesterday that the Lorenzes are under criminal investigation in Florida. Heagney says, "a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed that Monday." Well, it's not surprising. The CAIR-directed strategy has been pushing for this for months. Punish the Christians who helped an apostate escape Islam.
Stemberger (who is still controlling and directing the case) wrote here on February 1:
IN ANY LEGAL CASE, A SETTLEMENT WITH THE SAME RESULT IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN BEARING THE RISK OF A TRIAL WHERE THE ULTIMATE RESULT IS NOT IN YOUR HANDS BUT THE HANDS OF A JUDGE. An agreement properly recognized by the Court and which gives you the same result you would seek at a trial, is always a better option than a full blown trial. In a trial, the judge (no jury trial in this type case) would make the final decision. In a settlement agreement the parties have control over the terms. If for whatever reason the judge ruled against Rifqa at trial, or the delay caused Rifqa to age out of the Ohio foster care system at age18 without being declared a Dependent, she could be immediately sent back to Sri Lanka. This is a risk that her legal counsel does not appear willing to take, but one which some other “friends” of Rifqa are foolishly advocating for because they do not understand the process.
Is that what is now happening as the clock tick tocks?
Instead, they made a deal for "reconciliation," so that permanent dependency seems out of the question. How can you get the state to grant permanent dependency (necessary for the special juvenile immigration status) when "reconciliation" is the goal? What is the strategy behind that? And if Rifqa is not a dependent of the state, she can't get special immigrant juvenile status. So what happens when she turns 18 in August and she has no immigration paperwork working for her? Judge Elizabeth Gill said yesterday:
"We're all going to take a deep breath; you're going to work with these counselors," she said.
"What I've seen from the three of you, particularly you," she said, pointing at Rifqa, "you're strong enough to achieve these goals."
Gill was clear that counseling, not the legal case, should be the tool used to reunite the family. Both sides agreed to that on Jan. 19 and that 17-year-old Rifqa would stay in foster care for the time being.
"The only individuals that are going to be able to repair it are the three of you, with professional help," she said.
Indeed, and previous reports exposed that only Rifqa was being required to attend individual counseling. The parents were apparently not mandated to take the normal parenting classes, drug tests, anger management and individual therapy required of most families who end up in the system.
Other lawyers have publicly questioned the legal strategy here:
"Proceeding in the Bary case in such reverse fashion of what generally occurs in a family court, and what is needed and required for the best interests of a child is chilling, at best."
And other lawyers have privately weighed in.
On more than one occasion, Professor Einhorn offered Stemberger assistance in making a case for apostasy asylum. Why not file the application concurrently, in the event that the dependency status wasn't granted? Why put all of Rifqa's eggs in one basket? Einhorn's legal group was turned down more than once, as were a number of litigation specialists in sharia law.
Worse, Stemberger has forbidden Rifqa from talking to Jamal Jivanjee. She was given an ultimatum. Stemberger and his team or Jivanjee -- either she stops talking to her friend Pastor Jamal Jivanjee, or he and his legal team stop talking to her.
Bullied, Rifqa acquiesced.
Is that the act of a concerned patron, lawyer, or friend? I wrote of Stemberger's other skulduggery here.
And while he claims to be "pro bono," he keeps billing Rifqa's trust fund. Shouldn't that trust be for college? Pro bono legal help is what Robert Spencer and I helped secure for Brian Williams when the Thomas More Law Center unhesitatingly agreed to take on the heresy case of Brian Williams.
It stinks. All of it.
Here Jamal Jivanjee gives us his thoughts:
RIFQA BARY UPDATE: VERY TROUBLING DEVELOPMENTS FROM COURT IN COLUMBUS (MARCH 2, 2010)
Dear supporters and friends of Rifqa Bary,
I have had several requests for an update regarding Rifqa’s hearing in court on Tuesday (March 2nd, 2010). I have taken the last several hours to process and pray about the news, and after some conversations about this latest hearing, I unfortunately must tell you that there are some very bad developments from today’s court hearing in Columbus that I am shocked are not being reported. There are several reasons why I am convinced that Rifqa’s defense continues to be on an entirely wrong trajectory in this landmark case.
Before I get into the very troubling developments that occurred, the one positive development that occurred in Tuesday’s hearing is the fact that the court upheld Rifqa’s temporary dependency. Rifqa’s parent’s C.A.I.R. (Council on American Islamic Relations) advised attorney filed motions requesting to withdraw from the temporary dependency that they themselves agreed to several weeks ago. The Judge denied this request thereby upholding the temporary agreement for dependency for Rifqa. The negative aspect about all of this is the fact that it is still TEMPORARY. She has NOT been declared a permanent dependent of the state for the next 5 months like we all would have liked. Remember, Franklin County Children services has put together a case plan that calls for the reunification of Rifqa and her parents. While this is standard procedure regarding juvenile cases, this is obviously a horrendous proposition considering the very real and dangerous threat that Rifqa faces if this were to happen due to her conversion from Islam to Christianity. While I am told that this call for reunification is simply standard procedure for juvenile cases and does not have much chance of being carried out, it does show that the true nature of this case is not understood, nor being taken seriously. Because the truth about the threats facing Rifqa are continuing to be hidden, this allows authorities in Columbus to continue to attack those that helped Rifqa flee her home on the night her life was endangered.Last week, Rifqa’s attorneys filed a motion declaring that reunification was no longer possible and thereby was attempting to withdraw from following the horrendous Franklin County Children Services case plan recommendation of reunification with her parents. I was very happy that Rifqa’s attorneys finally saw the light, so to speak, but unfortunately it was too late. Just like Rifqa’s parents, Rifqa’s own attorneys have already agreed to this horrendous case plan! In addition to denying Rifqa’s parents motion to withdraw from the agreement to dependency, the motion by Rifqa’s attorneys to reject the case plan and its call for reunification with her parents was rejected by the judge today as well. Basically speaking, the judge in this case is mandating that the Franklin County Children Services case plan be followed, and that is why Rifqa and her parents are being pressured to undergo counseling. I am told, however, that because Rifqa will be 18 in August, it is unlikely that the case plan that eventually calls for her reunification will have time to be carried out in 5 months. So, why is there cause for concern?
RIFQA’S IMMIGRATION STATUS IS IN JEOPARDY!
The AP and the Columbus Dispatch is falsely reporting that Rifqa’s parent’s legal status is unknown while at the same time they are reporting that Rifqa herself is not in this country legally! Wow, this is some of the worst reporting I have ever observed in my life. If Rifqa is here illegally, then wouldn’t that mean her parents are also here illegally? It was Rifqa that came to the U.S. from Sri-Lanka on her own parent’s visa. She was a young child when her family immigrated here. Rifqa’s parent’s visas have since expired. This has been known for some time now, and now the danger that Rifqa faces from being an illegal immigrant is coming out. The media’s assessment that Rifqa’s parent’s legal status is unknown is blatantly misleading and false. (This should be eye opening to all those who get their information about this case from the media.)
Rifqa’s attorney’s entire legal strategy has been to secure dependency of the state for her so that she can remain in foster care until she is 18 and pursue permanent residency status as a minor. According to a law passed during the Bush administration, minors who are declared to be a dependent of the state are eligible for a very special dependency proceeding. The official name of this dependency proceeding is called Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), which will allow Rifqa legal permanent residency in the U.S. If Rifqa turns 18 without this, she can be deported to Sri-Lanka where her life would be in grave danger. (It is now also documented that Rifqa’s mother has admitted to having had plans to take her back to Sri-Lanka due to her conversion. It is widely understood that her parents will attempt to do this should reunification ever occur before she is 18.)Obviously, C.A.I.R. does not want her here in this country talking about her conversion from Islam to faith in Jesus Christ, as well as shedding light on the threat that she faced due to numerous Islamic teachings in the Qur’an and the Hadith that past leaders at her family’s mosque in central Ohio openly held to. Because of this, the C.A.I.R. advised attorney representing Rifqa’s parents are opposed to Rifqa being allowed to pursue this special immigration proceeding keeping her here in the U.S.
This is where there is much cause for concern. Because the case plan has been agreed to by both parties, the judge is now saying (in agreement with the C.A.I.R. attorney) that the case plan (which calls for reunification) must be attempted before Rifqa’s attorney (Angela Lloyd) can even begin with this special immigration process! Make no mistake about it, this is not good news in any way, shape, or form, and this is what we found out from Tuesday’s hearing. I am outraged and shocked that this is not being reported! The fact that Rifqa’s attorney is not yet able to begin pursuing her immigration status fits right in with the ‘stalling’ tactic being used by C.A.I.R.
Rifqa’s attorneys have had 2 objectives thus far. Their first objective has been to attempt to secure permanent dependency for Rifqa thereby keeping her safe in foster care until she is 18, and the second has been to secure permanent residency status for Rifqa by employing SIJS. They have failed to achieve the first objective because they agreed to a case plan that calls for reunification and have made deals to avoid a trial. This makes the dependency only temporary while the case plan is put into action. The fact that there has been no trial for dependency has only made matters worse by keeping the threat that she faced a secret.
The second objective that her legal team was supposed to pursue regarding permanent residency status, (SIJS), is now on hold and is in jeopardy because of the agreement to follow this horrendous case plan. SIJS has been the entire crux of their legal strategy and we found out from Tuesday’s hearing that the Judge is simply not allowing Rifqa’s attorneys to move forward on this because they want to give the ‘case plan’ time to work. The closer to Rifqa’s birthday that we get without her immigration status being settled, the more danger she faces. Rifqa’s legal team has decided to not pursue Religious Asylum for Rifqa as well because they have put all their eggs, so to speak, in the (SIJS) basket. Many others have asked why (SIJS) and Asylum cannot be pursued concurrently, however, in case there is a problem with one of these approaches as there now appears to be. This situation has been going on since August and it is now March. Rifqa is no closer to having her immigration status resolved now than she was 7 months ago. The two objectives that Rifqa’s attorneys have said they could get easily have yet to be achieved at all! Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am at a loss to see how this is good news.
So why am I saying this, and what is my objective? Let me tell you clearly. Coming to this conclusion to stand opposed to Rifqa’s legal strategy has not been easy for me at all. It has come with a cost, let me assure you. Rifqa has been told to stay away from my advice because of the stand that I have taken. Obviously, this has caused much stress, heartache, and hardship as a result. I am not an ‘angry blogger’ as it has been suggested. I am one who loves Rifqa dearly and I feel an unction by God to continue to tell the truth as I see it unfolding. None of this has been easy for me or our family, but I must be obedient to God and not to man. It is not faith to deny reality and become ignorant of the enemy’s schemes. I am confident and I am not afraid for Rifqa. I believe that in the end, Rifqa will be ok. She will be victorious because the truth is proclaimed, however, and not because it is silenced with a premature and false declaration of peace and victory. It is simply not possible for me to sit by while I see these things unfolding. With that said, I would like urge you to pray for the following:
1. Pray that eyes would be opened to the enemy’s strategy. There is a pervading blindness, so to speak, that is preventing us from seeing and understanding what is actually happening in this case. Please pray that Rifqa herself would be given wisdom about all of these things, and that she would have access to a wider variety of counsel than she currently has. Proverbs 24:6 says: “For by wise guidance you will wage war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.”
2. Pray for Rifqa’s testimony of faith in Jesus and the threat that she faced from Islam to come out and be made public. There is no doubt in my mind that this is why the Lord has caused this case to be elevated to the national stage. As you can see, there is much opposition to this from many different angles.
Thank you for considering this plea,
I thought I ought to rerun the immigration documents of the Bary parents in a story I broke on October 14, 2009. Where is the media?
Unlike her parents, if reconciliation fails, at 18 then she is without legal status," Lloyd said.
The immigration status of the parents is unclear, although Lloyd said in court that the couple are "pursuing their own immigration relief."
Muhammad and Aysha Bary: ILLEGAL ALIENS
Check out Mohamed Bary's missing immigration documents. Mr. Bary lost his application for amnesty. He lost his appeal for reconsideration of the administrative law judge's denial of that amnesty application, (or, application for change of status to temporary resident legal alien, to be more precise.) Mohamed Bary made contradictory allegations as to his residency, and he obviously committed perjury.
He and his family are subject to immediate deportation and further exclusion. He claimed he came to America to tend to Rifqa's eye, when in fact he came illegally through Mexico (according to the document), and the "doting" father never got Rifqa medical treatment.
For several months the attorneys for Rifqa Bary's parents have been promising to produce their immigration documents. And yet they still have failed to produce them. First, Craig McCarthy (since discharged) and then the new, improved, CAIR-approved Shayan "Shaytan" Elahi repeatedly promised to produce them here and here and here and here. The Barys have ten days before they are in contempt of court. My money says they are going to say the documents are lost.
Perhaps the Barys have not provided the documents because they are here illegally, as these Department of Homeland Security documents show.
Judge Daniel Dawson laid down the law and said in no uncertain terms that Rifqa would not be returned to Ohio until the immigration docs were produced.
Shayan "Shaytan" Elahi claimed yesterday that there were no docs to submit. The judge said they got into this country, he wants that paperwork. Apparently only two pages of Aysha's passport were submitted.
Judge Dawson insisted, "the court would feel lot better if these documents were here, before it gives up jurisdiction." And Rifqa's GAL Krista Bartholomew said that Rifqa Bary runs the risk of deportation if she takes public transportation anywhere in this country.
Elahi got very nasty with the judge when he insisted on getting the immigration paperwork. "You and your client didn't supply it. I want it before this child leaves Florida," said Dawson.
Elahi accused Rifqa's attorney, John Stemberger, of "religious predatory practices" and accused Stemberger of wanting to kidnap her, "squirrel her away".
Bottom line, Dawson said it is the parents' fault for not getting the immigration documentation. He doesn't plan to release her until he sees it.
Bary has been in the United States illegally since the date of his entry, and until now. He is an illegal alien, subject to deportation and further exclusion. Simple as that.
Please note: [in several of the places on the appeal, the "Bary" name was not successfully redacted or blacked out, generally referring to the Bary business entity. It is quite clear, however, based on this order, that Mr. Bary entered the U.S. illegally through Mexico, and that his status is that of illegal alien, presumably this status applying to his wife and family. Rifqa is an illegal alien, as well. She needs, in my estimation, to apply for asylum, or she faces deportation.]
Also, if you look at the appeal closely, you will see that the administrative courts repeatedly asked Bary for supporting documentation, such as tax records. They were not provided.
This document is rejection of Bary's appeal for status as a temporary resident. . . Sept 2, 2008. . .7 pages. . . Order: the appeal is dismissed. This decision constitutes a final notice of ineligibility. APPLICATION: Application for Status as a Temporary Resident pursuant to Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. $ 1255a
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
This is a petition for non immigrant worker, original application. . .July 26, 2005. . . 6 pages. . .Order: the appeal is dismissed.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042
Washington, DC 20529
U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
FILE: EAC 02 247 54828
Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER
Date: c.$!&~ 2 6 & e ) ~
IN RE: PETITION: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker
Pursuant to Section 10 1 (a)(15)(L) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(L) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
* ' Robert P. Wiemann,
Director Administrative Appeals Office
EAC 02 247 54828 Page 2
DISCUSSION: The nonimmigrant visa petition was denied by the Director, Vermont Service Center. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be dismissed.
According to the evidence contained in the record, the petitioner was established in 2000 and claims to be a gem and jewel import and marketing firm. It claims to be a branch office of Bary & Company, located in Lanka.
The petitioner claims one employee and gross annual income in the amount of $237,561.00. It seeks to extend its authorization to employ the beneficiary temporarily in the United States as its managing partner at a weekly salary of $800.00.
The director determined that the petitioner failed to submit sufficient evidence to establish that the beneficiary has been or will be employed primarily in an executive or managerial capacity. On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's determination and asserts that the evidence establishes that the beneficiary's duties have been and will continue to be primarily executive or managerial in nature.
To establish L-1 eligibility under section lOl(a)(lS)(L) .of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1 10 1 (a)(15)(L), the petitioner must demonstrate that the beneficiary, within three years preceding the beneficiary's application for admission into the United States, has been employed abroad in a qualifying managerial or executive capacity, or in a capacity involving specialized knowledge, for one continuous year by a qualifying organization, and seeks to enter the United States temporarily in order to continue to render his or her services to the same employer, or a subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, in a capacity that is managerial, executive, or involves specialized knowledge (C), provides:
The petitioner initially described the beneficiary's duties in the petition as:
"Look[s] for wholesale and retail stone and gem merchants in the United States and boost [sic] the sales operation of gems and stones."
In response to the director's request for additional evidence on the issue, counsel described the beneficiary's duties as: The beneficiary gets shipment [sic] from Sri Lanka. He orders and supervises the manufacturing of some custom made gems and jewels material and markets the gems and jewels commodities in different shows and business exposition [sic] in the United States.
The director denied the petition after determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the beneficiary had been or would be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. The director noted that, although specifically requested, the petitioner failed to submit a complete position description for all employees in the United States; a breakdown of the number of hours devoted to each of the employees' job duties; and financial evidence relating to the number of persons employed by the U.S. entity.
The director further stated that it appeared from the record that the beneficiary alone was primarily engaged in providing sales services to the company's clients at various trade shows and out of his home, rather than directing the management of the organization. The director concluded that the beneficiary had been and would be performing the day-to-day duties of the organization and that any managerial or executive duties were only incidental to such tasks.
On appeal, counsel disagrees with the director's decision and asserts that sufficient evidence has been submitted to establish that the beneficiary has been and will continue to be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity.
Counsel asserts that the beneficiary manages and supervises the U.S. entity and exercises discretion over the day-to-day operations of the organization. Counsel also asserts that the beneficiary, from time to time, during various trade shows and exhibitions, hires and supervises independent contractors.
Counsel refers to an unpublished AAO decision in support of his claim on appeal. On reviewing the petition and the evidence, the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary has been or will be employed in a managerial or executive capacity.
Counsel has furnished no evidence to establish that the facts of the instant petition are analogous to those in the unpublished case. The petitioner has failed to submit evidence to substantiate its claim that the U.S. entity hires and supervises independent contractors for various trade shows and exhibitions. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. See Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972). Furthermore, while 8 C.F.R. 5 103.3
On review, the petitioner has provided a vague and nonspecific description of the beneficiary's duties that fails to demonstrate what the beneficiary does on a day-to-day basis. For example, the petitioner states that the beneficiary's duties include managing the import, marketing, sales, and manufacturing of gems and jewels. The petitioner did not, however, define how the beneficiary manages the functions of the organization or how he supervises employees. Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Treasure Craft of California, supra. Specifics are clearly an important indication of whether a beneficiary's duties are primarily executive or managerial in nature, otherwise meeting the definitions would simply be a matter of reiterating the regulations. Fedin Bros. Co., Ltd. v. Sava, 724 F. Supp. 1103 (E.D.N.Y. 1989), aff'd, 905 F.2d 41 (2d. Cir. 1990).
In addition, the petitioner describes the beneficiary as manufacturing, marketing, and selling the gems and jewels. Since the beneficiary actually manufactures, markets, and sells the gems and jewels he is performing a task necessary to provide a service.
An employee who primarily performs the tasks necessary to produce a product or to provide services is not considered to be employed in a managerial or executive capacity. Matter of Church Scientology International, 19 I&N Dec. 593,604 (Cornrn. 1988). In the request for evidence, the director requested that the petitioner submit a U.S. business organizational chart; a complete position description for all employees in the United States; a breakdown of the number of hours devoted to each of the employees' job duties; and financial evidence including IRS Form 941 and payroll summaries relating to the number of persons employed by the U.S. entity. The petitioner failed to submit these documents in response, stating that the beneficiary was the only employee who, from time to time, hired and supervised independent contractors. Contrary to the petitioner's belief, this evidence is critical as it would have established whether the beneficiary has been and would be performing primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. The purpose of the request for evidence is to elicit further information that clarifies whether eligibility for the benefit sought has been established. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2
(b)(8). The failure to submit requested evidence that precludes a material line of inquiry shall be grounds for denying the petition.
8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(14). The evidence and explanations submitted by the petitioner are insufficient to establish that the beneficiary has been or will be employed primarily in a managerial or executive capacity. It appears from the record that the beneficiary has been performing and will continue to perform the day-to-day EAC 02 247 54828 Page 6
services of the U.S. entity, rather than manage or supervise the business operation as a whole, a function within the organization, or personnel staff. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. In visa petition proceedings, the burden of proving eligibility for the benefit sought remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S..C. 9 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
Here's an excerpt from my interview with a woman, an apostate, who came to the hearing just to show moral support. She does not know Rifqa, but is an ex-Muslim from Sri Lanka. This is the audio.
I am sitting here with a family - their names will not be disclosed. Their background is Sri Lanka much the way Rifqa Bary's background is Sri Lanka - the Mum is an apostate. She is a convert from Islam.
Can you tell us a bit about the danger that Rifqa faces?
Sri Lankan Apostate: Yes, she will have real problems. Even if she has to go to the family, Mother and Father. Because it is in their faith, it is written this has to happen when you go away from the Islam, then Kill.
As Prophet Mohammad has told as in the Hadiths and also in the Koran. This is what I learnt also when I was a muslim. That you should kill all the Jews first and then the Christians then other nations if you are not believing in Allah.
So, this was taught when I was a small child. This is like being brainwashed. People they don't know what is in the Koran, they don't want to know even because it is simply holy. You are not allowed to see what is inside, and even if you see that, it is in Arabic language, and translation they are not interested. They believe that. They say Koran nobody can translate, so what can we believe? Somehow I got to know the reality. In the Koran it is written that there is light and guidance in the Torah and light and guidance in the Injil [Gospel].
Then, it is in the Old Testament and New Testament and even though we are not allowed to read these or see these people who have this book, Islam teaches us always don't breed with those Kuffars, with unbelievers who are not in Islam, and that they have changed their own books and the Christians and the Jews, they are not like those days that books which God gave and so today Allah gave for us, that is why we are going on like Allah wants, so this is not the real way. When Allah says in the Koran that Torah has lied, Indian has lied, then why don't I see this.
Pamela: So let me ask you a question. You come from Sri Lanka? If she goes back to Sri Lanka with her family becomes they have problems with their legal status - what will it be like for a muslim in Sri Lanka, someone like Rifqa who has converted? Are they a secular society are they understanding of such a conversion?
Sri Lankan Apostate: No. She will die, she will die in her society. Society won't leave her alone. Even if the family, Mother and Father has a little sympathy, but not society, society is worse because she has gone too far.
Pamela: You mean more pressure from society, more judgement comes down upon the family?
Sri Lankan Apostate: Yes. The society will never leave the family in peace. They have to take a stand for this, because it is the shame. Rifqa has brought a shame for their religion and for their society.
Pamela: So your whole family is here? You are not related to Rifqa?
Sri Lankan Apostate: No.
Pamela: Why did you come to this hearing with your family?
Sri Lankan Apostate: Because when I see the youtube everytime, it is like my situation
Pamela: When you heard Rifqa on youtube, that was on my site, you saw yourself in her?
Sri Lankan Apostate: Yeah, I had really sympathy on her, this is my same situation that is going on with her, eh, that danger in life.
The interview with the apostate woman was especially good, and points to a way in which the legal standards of the asylum application based on religious persecutions involving individuals might be met. it says that governmental action or policy must be shown. if a societal wide attitude as this lady describes could be established, and the government knew about it, did nothing, or even encouraged it, then the government might be shown sufficiently complicitous to meet the statutory standard of conduct.
John Jay, formerly a prosecutor in juvenile court in Washington suggests, "a similar standard applies in our civil rights law, and has for years, called "governmental action." as an example, social clubs, like the elks, who were sufficiently linked to governmental action could be prohibited from discriminating.
the legal and intellectual "template" is already there. the argument could be extended in the context of asylum, and the statutory elements to be proved to establish a case. rifqa's case would be a good test vehicle.
plus, there is the issue of time.
it would take time to resolve.
and, finally, there is the issue of her legal status. a person seeking asylum may do so from inside the u.s., and does not have to leave and petition for re-entry. that is the advantage".
Copyright Pamela Geller, All rights reserved. Credit and link.