|
The Good Fight,
Round II: The Retrial of Imam Mohammad Qatanani
Aref Assaf, PhD
November 6, 2009
Since 1999, US. immigration authorities
have, for a variety of reasons, denied Imam
Qatanani's petition to become a permanent resident. The 47 year old Imam has since 1996 served as the
spiritual leader of the tri-state’s largest Muslim mosque, the
Islamic Center of Passaic County. Over a year ago, a Newark Federal
Immigration, in a much publicized trial, ruled in favor of
the Imam. In his 71-page ruling,
the judge dismissed the government’s case as "patently
incomplete" and two federal agents’ conflicting testimonies as
"not credible." Consequently, the government sought an appeal
from the judge’s opinion. Because of the government's appeal, the case is headed back to court as a result of
split opinion by an the Board of Immigration Appeal. The opinion
denied part of the government’s appeal and remanded the case to
the Immigration Judge saying that he did not give sufficient
weight to the government’s evidence.
At the May 2008 trial, the Department of
Homeland Security, DHS, had sought to link Imam Qatanani, a
Palestinian who emigrated from Jordan to the US in 1996, to
Hamas, which the US classifies as a terrorist organization. The
linkage was one of many tactics the DHS employed justifying and
confirming its denial of residency status. We successfully
argued against the government’s assertions justifying its
deportation proceedings. In the course of a five-day trial
transcribed in over 1000 pages, we proved that the government’s
case was baseless and weak on both evidence and credibility. The
judge who heard expert testimonies from both sides ultimately
agreed with our position.
After ten months of review by the
government-appointed Immigration Board, A 12-page written
opinion was transmitted on October 2, 2009 to the Imam’s lead
attorney, Claudia Solvinsky. As the document states: the appeal
was “sustained in part and dismissed in part;” and it returned
the matter to the same judge for “further consideration of the
evidence of record, for the submission of such additional
relevant evidence as appropriate, and the entry of a new
opinion.”
The Americans for Qatanani,(A4Q) the national grassroots
that supports the Imam, views the Appeals opinion as bittersweet development
and only as a small detour in the Imam’s pursuit of the
becoming a proud and a contributing American citizen. We had
hoped the Appeal’s opinion to be completely in our favor,
ending years of agony and uncertainty for the Imam, his family
and the entire Muslim community. Notwithstanding, we remain
confident of the facts that compelled the immigration judge to
render a favorable ruling. We are ready to again defend the
Imam, demonstrate the irreplaceable values he has come to
represent, and loudly proclaim the Imam’s message of moderation,
proactive and participatory citizenship only furthers the
nurturing of America’s ideals, America’s promise and America’s
future.
By agreeing with the Government’s position, we find the Appeals
Board, contrary to the precepts of our judicial system, to have
engaged in the guilt-by-association travesty: Because my
brother-in-law is thief does not mean that I am also a thief,
for example. Moreover, the
split opinion portends utter misunderstanding of the gross human
rights violations so endemic to the Israeli military occupation
and the military court system employed.
We strongly disagree with the Board's assertion that
confessions obtained through coercion or without reasonable and
transparent judicial oversight, as admissible evidence in
an American court. The Board unambiguously states that criminal
records submitted by the Israeli military courts, which govern
the occupied Palestinian territories, need not meet basic
evidentiary requirements. This conclusion clearly violates due process,
the right counsel and the absolute inadmissibility of
torture-induced confessions. These facts, we argue, have
effectively diminished the Board’s mandate of fairness and
equality before the law.
A closer look at the opinion confirms our assertion that the
members of the Board gave little weight to the lengthy
brief submitted by the Imam's legal team. While we could count
no less than six specific references to the government's brief,
we found no reference agreeing or even acknowledging ours. Are
we correct to assume that the Board's mandate was not to
impartially find fact but rather supporting a
politically-motivated policy of Islamophobia?From the beginning, the A4Q has always
asserted that the Imam’s immigration hurdles have serious local,
national and international implications. We are gratified
by the incredible support from all levels of government
officials, law enforcement members, clergy from all faiths, and
the wide support from the general public.
New Jersey’s Leading newspaper, the
Star Ledger, even prior to Judge Riefkohl’s original ruling
stated succinctly in its Lead Editorial Headline:
“Don’t Deport the Imam”. It added that “It would be
difficult to find an immigrant who has done more for his
community and for state and federal authorities than Imam
Mohammad Qatanani”. It also said “Given evidence that is
flimsier than what is typically offered in Newark parking court,
federal prosecutors have resorted to trying to convict Qatanani
on the basis of guilt by association”. After the verdict was
rendered on September 4th, the Star Ledger again
headlined
“Stop Hounding the Imam” and wrote that “The federal
government's effort to deport Imam Mohammad Qatanani was a
serious mistake from the start. It would be foolish to compound
that mistake by appealing an immigration judge's emphatic
rejection of the deportation prosecution”. After the
verdict was reached, the second leading newspaper,
The Bergen Record, commented in their lead Editorials that
“It is a victory for more than the imam” and that “He's
championed comity among the various religious communities of
Passaic County. A man of peace and moderation, Qatanani's life
and his work here could be symbolized by an olive branch”.
And lastly, the leading,
The New Jersey Law Journal reiterates Judge Riefkohl’s
finding of the “embarrassingly flimsy” evidence against the Imam
and concludes by stating “We question the government’s decision
to prosecute. It was an unwise exercise of discretion and
it reflects poorly on our government and our country. In
the spirit of bridge-building and in the interest of rebuilding
trust in the Muslim community, we would urge the government to
accept Judge Riefkohl’s decision and not pursue an appeal."
We believe it would be a task to find
an immigrant who has done more for his community and for state
and federal authorities than our Imam. Steadfastly, Imam
Qatanani has advocated tolerance and understanding between all
faiths ever since his arrival in 1996. In the dark days after
9/11, Qatanani reached out to members of other faiths and to the
FBI and other agencies. His leading work was critical to helping
Muslims, law enforcement and the larger community mitigates the
uneasiness and the tensions that emerged.
The A4Q, which successfully brought the Imam’s case to national
and even international attention, will again lead the effort to
support the Imam. The community has taken ownership of the
Imam’s case and views its satisfactory conclusion as a defining
expression of its religious and civil rights. Our limitless
faith in the profound justice of the Imam’s case is matched
equally by our unyielding trust in the enduring qualities of
our justice system.
The Imam and his supporters remain
optimistic the truth shall again be affirmed in court and, if
appealed again, to be sustained in higher courts.. It is a noble
goal worth fighting for. We shall keep Imam Qatanani among us as
our spiritual leader and our guiding light.
Related:
Press Release
Background info of the case may be obtained
on the web at
http://www.qatanani.com/site/
and also at
http://www.aafusa.org/story_and_the_fate_of_imam_m.htm
|
The autumn/winter edition of
Banipal Magazine is dedicated to the
memory of Palestinian poet Mahmoud
Darwish.
Click here for more... 
