This article is by Stanislav Stanskikh, a Visiting Scholar at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Research Fellow at UNC-Chapel Hill, and founder of The New England Institute for Country Conditions Expertise. He may be reached here: stanskikh [at] countryconditions.expert
There is an ongoing debate about whether Russians fleeing political repressions and the military draft should be granted refuge in the United States and the West, or whether protection should be refused so that these potential refugees rebel against the Kremlin instead. Opponents also draw a line between “real” refugees and those who left Russia merely to save themselves despite their prior loyalty to the regime. While the Baltic countries and Poland are turning away new arrivals, Germany and some other EU members have extended their welcome by generously granting refugee status. The President of the European Council Charles Michel favors opening the EU to fleeing Russians.
In the late 1990s, I was a law clerk in the Arlington, Virginia Immigration Court. My most memorable case involved a wealthy Russian businessman named Alex Konanykhin and his wife, Elena Gratcheva. Mr. Konanykhin made his fortune–around a quarter billion dollars–in the Wild West of post-Soviet Russia, but was then chased from his country by former KGB agents and criminals intent on stealing his money. The Individual Hearing that I attended took a full week, which is almost unheard of in Immigration Court. Mr. Konanykhin’s attorney was the legendary Michael Maggio, who I got to know a bit during the trial. My role was to sit in the courtroom and take notes. After the hearing, I helped the Immigration Judge write up the decision granting asylum.
There was more to this case, including an appeal to the BIA, improper behavior by several U.S. government officials that resulted in a $100,000 payment to Mr. Konanykhin, an unsuccessful attempt by the couple to evade border authorities and enter Canada, and several different federal court cases. When the dust finally settled from this ten-year odyssey, Mr. Konanykhin received asylum in the U.S. (around the same time, his wife–who was a dependent on his case–passed away). (more…)
Last week, Vladimir Putin and his supporters launched a vicious and unjustified war against Ukraine. The war is an act of mass murder and terror against the people of Ukraine. Given Mr. Putin’s history of oppression at home and violent interventions abroad, there is little reason to be optimistic about how (or when) this war will end. And of course, there is a real danger that the situation will escalate into something much larger.
It is unclear how much support the war has from ordinary Russians. Perhaps many within Russia have been misled by “President” Putin’s propaganda machine, which has repeatedly and falsely accused the Ukrainian government of persecuting Russian speakers in Ukraine, and which has painted the war in terms of Russia standing up to the West. While Mr. Putin’s popularity seems to have increased before fighting started, there are signs that many Russian’s are not buying what he is selling. Indeed, protests have continued throughout the country despite a government crackdown.
And what of Russians living abroad? They are less likely to be swayed by Mr. Putin’s false propaganda, as they have access to more reliable sources of news. My sense is that most Russians in the diaspora oppose the current war.
In this post, I am interested in a specific sub-set of Russians living outside their country: Diplomats and other government employees. If such people defect to protest the unjust war against Ukraine, would they be eligible for political asylum or some other relief in the United States? (more…)
Vladimir Putin has had a gun to the head of Ukraine for years. The most recent troubles began in 2014, when a pro-Russian president of Ukraine fled to Russia, rather than submit to an impeachment vote (he was impeached anyway). Several regions of Ukraine declared loyalty to the former president, and fighting broke out. Ultimately, parts of Ukraine came under Kremlin control, including the Crimean peninsula, which Russia annexed after an “election” by that region’s residents. Since then, fighting and allegations between the two nations have waxed and waned, but the Russians did not move towards a major escalation–until recently.
The current buildup began last fall, and there are now more than 100,000 Russian soldiers and Ukrainian separatists deployed for war. Analyst have suggested that a large-scale invasion is likely in the coming days or weeks. What does this mean for Ukrainian citizens in the United States who face possible persecution if Russia takes over or installs a pro-Russian puppet? Can such people file for asylum now, even though a Russian invasion is still speculative? (more…)
If imitation is the highest form of flattery in art, immigration is the highest form of flattery in politics. The decision to move to a particular country demonstrates the belief that that country is worth living in. So as the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia approaches, it will be interesting to compare the number of athletes who seek asylum in Russia to the number who sought asylum during the 2012 Games in Great Britain.
Sochi-o-path
To make this comparison, we first have to determine how many athletes sought asylum in 2012. I have not seen a concrete count of the number of athletes who “defected” during the 2012 Games. This is because asylum is confidential, and so the British government has not published any figures on Olympic asylum seekers. However, one source estimates that at least 20 athletes and coaches defected during the Games. Cameroon had the most defections: Seven of its 37 athletes did not return home.
When athletes (or anyone) seeks asylum, we can assume that there is a “push” and a “pull.” The “push” is the bad conditions in the home country that lead the person to flee, and the “pull” is the good conditions in the country where the person seeks refuge. The “pull” of the UK is obvious: It is a developed, liberal democracy that generally respects human rights and offers opportunities (educational, professional) for its residents. People fleeing persecution (or economic deprivation) would generally be lucky to start a new life there.
The “pull” of Russia is less obvious. For one thing, Russia is not known as a welcoming destination for non-Russians. Racism and xenophobia are problems, and many minorities have been targeted and killed. Homophobia is also rampant, and institutionalized (though the mayor of Sochi claims that there are no gays in his city). In terms of its economy, Russia is not as an attractive destination as Western Europe or the U.S., but it is better than many places. Finally, the Russian language is not spoken by nearly as many people as English, and so this might create some disincentive for potential asylum seekers. For all these reasons, I doubt we will see many athletes defecting to start new lives in Russia.
To be fair, many of the source countries for asylum seekers do not send athletes to the Winter Olympics. But even if they did, I doubt many of them would desire to resettle in Russia. Conditions there are simply not conducive to starting a new life, particularly for people who come from Africa or Central Asia.
There have, of course, been a few high profile asylum seekers in Russia. Edward Snowden is one, but I don’t think he deliberately chose Russia as his destination country. Instead, it seems he got stuck there on the way to somewhere else. So the Russians really can’t claim him as someone who had a burning desire to resettle in their country.
Another immigrant to Russia is Gerard Depardieu, a “tax refugee” from France who (sort-of) left his homeland due to high taxes and (kind-of) settled in Russia. I suppose in Mr. Depardieu’s case, there was a “pull” from Russia, but that seems more to do with his friendship with President Putin (who summarily granted him citizenship last year) than with his desire to seek a better life there. Indeed, though Mr. Depardieu has citizenship and an address in Russia, it is unclear how much time he actually spends there.
The bottom line is, I don’t think Russia is seen by many as a desirable place to resettle, and I expect that we won’t see many athletes defecting during the upcoming Games. Perhaps the Russians will be pleased by this (Russia for the Russians!). But maybe upon reflection, they will find that it demonstrates a darker truth about the culture and society that they have created.
Recently, I wrote about people from friendly countries receiving asylum in the United States. There are few such cases, and they generally seem to be aberrations. For these reasons, the source countries are not particularly concerned that we are granting asylum to their nationals. That is not always the case, however.
Russia called. They want their Baryshnikov back.
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom granted asylum to Andrey Borodin, a 45-year-old Russian banking tycoon, who owns Britain’s most expensive private house (it’s quite nice, as you can see here). Russian authorities accuse Mr. Borodin of bank fraud. But Mr. Borodin claims that the charges were trumped up after he accused a key ally of President Vladimir Putin of corruption. The case became public after Mr. Borodin and his lawyer spoke to the press about receiving refuge in the UK (Britain, like the U.S., keeps such claims confidential).
Moscow was not pleased by the Brit’s offer of asylum:
The Russian premier’s press secretary Natalya Timakova said that the accusations against Mr. Borodin—who fled to London in April 2011—are of “pure criminal character” involving the Bank of Moscow, which he formerly owned. “There [is] now a practice of seeking political asylum, especially in England, whereby it doesn’t matter what the seeker has done,” she said. “What matters is how loudly he shouts about political persecution—and this will become a guarantee that the asylum will be granted.” Ms. Timakova accused Britain of ignoring that Interpol “is after him.” Moscow also insists that it would continue to demand Mr. Borodin’s extradition from Britain.
Mr. Borodin counters (probably correctly) that, “Any political asylum seeker must submit the application together with… proof showing the political character of the persecution in his native country.” “My lawyers submitted all necessary proof,” added Mr. Borodin.
This case reminds me of one I worked on as a wee law clerk at the Arlington Immigration Court. Alexander Konanykhin was a Russian businessman in the roaring 90’s who made hundreds of millions of dollars. The Russian government eventually seized most of his assets and forced him to flee for his life. He made his way to the United States, but the Russians wanted him back and INS tried to deport him. After an epic trial in 1999, he received asylum. The asylum grant was overturned, but later (in 2007) re-instated, and Mr. Konanykhin is now a successful businessman in the United States. Although Mr. Konanykhin always seemed a bit shady to me, it was quite clear that the Russian government was up to no good. Mr. Konanykhin called the government a “Mafiocracy.”
Between the UK and Russia, I will choose the UK, and–Gerard Depardieu notwithstanding–my bet is that there was ample evidence that Mr. Borodin faced persecution on account of his political activities. He would certainly not be the first Putin opponent to end up in jail (Mikhail Khodorkovsky) or dead (Anna Politkovskaya).
Russia can complain about Britain (or the U.S.) granting asylum to its nationals. But so long as those countries follow international human rights law, and so long as the Russian government continues to persecute its opponents, Russians will be able to obtain asylum in the West. To (badly) paraphrase The Bard: The fault, dear Putin, lies not in the asylum process, but in yourself.
In his native Russia, artist and filmmaker Alexander Kargaltsev was beaten by police at a gay pride event and detained after he left a gay club. He came to the U.S. in 2010 and received asylum in 2011. Last week, Mr. Kargaltsev held his first solo exhibit at a new gallery, called 287 Spring, in downtown Manhattan (which hopefully is not now under water).
The exhibit is entitled “Asylum” and consists of large photos, each depicting a nude gay or bisexual Russian man, with New York City shown in the background. The men have stern expressions, and many were photographed provocatively in public areas, such as Central Park. Under each photo is a caption: “Granted Asylum” or “Asylum Pending.”
The artist, strategically placed in front of one of his photos.
According to curator Ivan Savvine, “The models’ nakedness is a powerful visual statement imbued with symbolism. They are not nude but naked, for they had courage to shed the many layers of fear and come out to the world uncovered, vulnerable, yet proud.” He continues, “Their naked bodies thus also reveal their experience as refugees, for every person seeking refuge rebuilds his or her life completely ‘naked,’ starting from scratch with no family or friends and often without the language they can speak or understand.”
As a humble immigration lawyer who received most of his artistic training from Bill Alexander, I can’t help but find this type of artist speak a bit pretentious. Also, I really can’t imagine many of my clients posing nude in public (and–no offense to my clients–I don’t want to imagine it). But I suppose Mr. Kargaltsev’s exhibit raises some interesting points.
I agree with the idea that refugees start their lives over “naked.” But to me, the more interesting analogy between asylum seekers and nakedness is the idea of exposing one’s past history to the scrutiny of an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge (not to mention to the asylum seeker’s own lawyer). Depending on the person, and on the problems he faced in the home country, relating the story of past persecution can be humiliating and traumatic.
I have represented rape victims and torture victims. When such people apply for asylum, they need to tell these stories. Sometimes, people do not behave honorably under the threat of persecution. They need to relate those stories as well. I remember one client who fled his home when government soldiers broke in to look for him. He left his wife and children behind. My client had to explain this to the Immigration Judge, which was extremely difficult for him to do. This is the type of “exposure” I think about when I think of refugees. And in some ways, it is similar to exposing oneself naked before the camera, flaws and all.
Mr. Kargaltsev’s photos are of gay asylum seekers from Russia. The photos I’ve seen depict good-looking young men whose nudity is nothing to be ashamed of. In my experience, the exposure endured by asylum seekers is a lot less attractive than Mr. Kargaltsev’s images. While Mr. Kargaltsev’s photos certainly add to the dialogue about issues faced by asylum seekers, in my opinion they gloss over the ugly truths about refugees and the pain that they have endured. A more realistic and challenging exhibit in this vein would be less pleasant to look at, but more useful to understanding the real lives of refugees.
A former Marine who claims to have exposed clandestine U.S. support for the Republic of Georgia in its 2008 war with Russia has requested political asylum in Russia. U.S. citizen Patrick Downey first sought asylum in Ireland, where his case was denied–as he puts it–by Ireland’s first ever Jewish Minister for Justice, Equality and Defense. He then “fled” to Russia (after visiting the U.S. for his brother’s wedding), where his asylum case is currently pending.
Patrick Downey (right) is seeking asylum in Russia.
Pravda reports that while living in Georgia in 2007 and teaching English to Georgian billionaire Bidzina Ivanishvili, Mr. Downey “obtained documents” indicating that a U.S.-controlled bank transferred $12 million to Mr. Ivanishvili. Mr. Ivanishvili, in turn, used the money to fund “anti-Russian activities” prior to and during the Russian-Georgian war. Mr. Downey tried to publicize this “sensational material” in the U.S., but no one was interested. However, his activities supposedly brought him to the attention of the U.S. government, which gave him the code name “Trouble Man” and tried to “neutralize” him. Mr. Downey told Pravda, “I began to feel that it was simply dangerous for me to be in the U.S.”
Hence, he fled to Ireland and now Russia.
While I must admit that I am skeptical of Mr. Downey’s claims (and I am not thrilled by his antisemitism), the fact that he is currently receiving publicity from a Russian newspaper is significant. On October 1st, Mr. Ivanishvili’s political party won parliamentary elections in Georgia, and he is likely to become the country’s new Prime Minister. As such, the timing of the article about Mr. Downey–and his claims of a secret anti-Russian alliance between the U.S. and Georgia–has broader implications.
Is Russia trying to intimidate Georgia? Is it trying to send a signal to the United States to keep away? Is Pravda simply writing an interesting story about an American seeking asylum in Russia? I have no idea. But it seems to me, if the Russian government is trying to send some type of message by publicizing Mr. Downey’s case, the message is not a friendly one.
It will be interesting to see what the Russian government does with Mr. Downey. Russia grants less than 5% of asylum cases, so if his case is approved, it might indicate more trouble ahead for Russian-Georgian and Russian-U.S. relations. As for Mr. Downey, if his case is granted, his hopes are the same as those of other asylum seekers around the world: “I will live! I will get married. I do not want to fight, do not want to constantly be afraid. I want a family and a home. I hope that this is what I will get.”
A recent editorial in the Moscow Times calls on the U.S. to deny political asylum to Ashot Yegiazaryan, a member of the Russian Duma from the nationalistic Liberal Democratic Party, who fled to the United States to escape criminal charges related to some shady business deals.
For these guys, you can't spell Russia without SS.
Like a number of Russian oligarchs, Mr. Yegiazaryan made his money in the freewheeling 1990’s and then entered politics. His troubles began when a multi-billion dollar business deal in Moscow went bad, and lawsuits and criminal accusations followed. Ultimately, Mr. Yegiazaryan left Russia and made his way to (where else?) Beverly Hills. Now, depending on the rumor you choose to believe, he will be seeking political asylum in the United States, or he already has a green card. Mr. Yegiazaryan has denied the latter rumor, as it is apparently illegal for a member of the Duma to hold residency in another country. In the mean time, the Russian Duma has stripped Mr. Yegiazaryan of his immunity and the Russian government is pursuing criminal charges.
This scenario–of a businessman rising rapidly to wealth and prominence only to be brought down by criminal charges and accusations of fraud–seems common in Russia these days. When I was a law clerk at the Arlington Immigration Court (in 1999), I worked on such a case. Alex Konanykhin, was a Russian businessman whose case bounced between the Immigration Court, the BIA, and the U.S. District Court. In the end, he received asylum and wrote a book about his experience. Then, of course, there is the case of Russia’s richest businessman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who is currently sitting in a Russian prison, convicted of criminal fraud.
Like these other cases, it is difficult to tell whether Mr. Yegiazaryan is a criminal or a victim. What’s clear in his case, however, is that he is a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, a party founded and dominated by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who has made many anti-Semetic and rascist remarks.
Whether, as the Moscow Times posits, Mr. Yegiazaryan should be denied political asylum (assuming that he qualifies for asylum in the first place) on account of his membership in the LDP may be a complex question. If the LDP has “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in” the persecution of people based on a protected ground, than Mr. Yegiazaryan would not be eligible for asylum. The key word here is “incited.” I do not know what Mr. Yegiazaryan might have said or done, but others in his party, in particular the party’s leader, Mr. Zhirinovsky, have accused Jews of ruining Russia, sending Russian women to foreign countries as prostitutes, selling children and organs, and provoking the Holocaust. That sounds like incitement to me. At the minimum, for Mr. Yegiazaryan to win asylum, he will have some explaining to do.
The wife of alleged Russian arms smuggler Viktor Bout claims that U.S. officials offered political asylum to Mr. Bout and his family in exchange for information about international arms trafficking.
Viktor Bout flashes a V sign while detained in Thailand: Does it stand for Victim or Villian?
According to Voice of America, Mr. Bout was extradited from Thailand to the United States after more than two-years of legal battles between Moscow and Washington. Mr. Bout is alleged to be one of the world’s most notorious arms smugglers and is accused of fueling conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, and South America. He was arrested in Thailand in 2008 after a sting operation in which undercover American officials claimed to be members of the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
Alla Bout says her husband’s extradition was illegal because there was still a case against him pending in court in Thailand. She says that transferring her husband to the United States before the end of legal procedures in Thailand breached legal and humanitarian norms, and demonstrates Bangkok’s complete subservience to Washington.
An open question is whether U.S. officials offered Mr. Bout and his family political asylum in exchange for information about arms trafficking. Such a deal would not be unprecedented: During the Cold War, for example, a number of Soviet defectors were granted asylum in the United States, often in exchange for information about the U.S.S.R., or for propaganda purposes. I do not know whether to believe Ms. Bout’s claim that U.S. officials offered her husband asylum in exchange for information about arms trafficking. If the claim is true, it would appear that the United States has now chosen a stick over a carrot as a means of extracting information from the alleged arms dealer.
On his website, Mr. Bout claims that the charges against him were fabricated by a “corrupt United Nations contractor… [who] became mad for vengeance when Victor [Bout] refused to continue paying him.” Perhaps, but there seems to be some pretty strong evidence against him, including evidence documented in a book: Merchants of Death by Douglas Farah. In any case, Mr. Bout’s guilt or innocence is now an issue for the United States justice system, where he faces charges such as conspiring to kill Americans and supporting a terrorist organization.
