Bolante deportation looms

THE prospects of being deported to the Philippines loomed large for former agriculture undersecretary Jocelyn ‘Joc-Joc’ Bolante after the Board of Immigration Appeals in Chicago denied his claim for asylum and withholding of removal from the U.S. under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in June last year.

Bolante, who is accused of masterminding the P728-million fertilizer fund scam allegedly diverted to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidential campaign in 2004, however filed a petition for a review of his case with the Federal Court of Appeals. The decision on Bolante’s appeal is expected within this month or July after oral arguments were heard last February 11, 2008, disclosed University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque.

Roque, who is currently in New York to attend the Assembly of State Parties of the International Criminal Court at the United Nations, has obtained a copy of the decision of the immigration appeals board that he furnished the PCIJ.

In its June 25, 2007 decision, the board upheld the ruling of the Chicago Immigration Court dismissing Bolante’s asylum request on the ground that he was suffering from a “genuine fear of political persecution.” The board agreed with the findings of Immigration Judge George Katsivalis, who noted that:

• respondent (Bolante) did not present any evidence of past mistreatment or harm;

• the evidence revealed that there were presently no charges pending against the respondent with regard to the fertilizer scam and only an arrest warrant for his failure to appear and testify before the Senate;

• his prosecution was clearly not a pretext for persecution as he was never sought out for arrest until he failed to comply with numerous subpoenas.

Read the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Court of Chicago.

“For all the reasons noted by the Immigration Judge, we agree that respondent failed to establish that he suffered past persecution nor a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his imputed political opinion,” declared the board.

It also said that “prosecution for the violation of a law of general applicability is not persecution, unless the punishment imposed is for invidious reasons.”

The board similarly rejected the testimony of the witnesses Bolante presented in court, including himself, finding them not material and credible.

Bolante’s son Owen claimed that he received “unfulfilled threats and text messages” from unknown persons. Bolante also argued that a bounty has been set for his capture, that radical groups may attempt to capture him, and that government authorities cannot protect him from these groups.

Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Felix Montes testified that Bolante could be harmed if he will be returned to the Philippines as “a lot of people are out to get (him)” and “who might use him as a tool to get at the President.”

Without elaborating, retired Major General Rodolfo Estrellado, Bolante’s colleague at the Rotary Club, also said the same thing, and even made mention of the fact that there have been “755 (cases of) political killings in the Philippines that have remained unsolved.”

The board, however, noted that Montes, who is similarly implicated in the fertilizer funds scam, “remains unharmed in the Philippines and similarly not charged.” His testimony, according to Judge Katsivalis was also “lacking in detail and entirely speculative.”

It also affirmed the judge’s ruling that “unfulfilled threats” do not support a claim of past or future persecution, and that there was no evidence presented regarding the existence of a bounty.

As to the political unrest raised by Estrellado, the board said that dangerous conditions as random isolated criminal acts, civil strife, and general unrest in the alien’s homeland do not necessarily rise to the level of persecution in asylum cases.

Bolante has been in detention since his arrest on July 7, 2006 upon arriving in Los Angeles owing to a cancelled visa. He was told by a U.S. immigration officer that the U.S. Embassy in Manila revoked his B1/B2 visa in light of the arrest warrant issued by the Senate for his role in the fund scam.

Roque, who along with fellow UP law professors Merlin Magallona and Raul Pangalangan, filed an amicus brief in August 2006 in an effort to convince the immigration court not to grant Bolante’s request for political asylum, noted that both the courts’ decisions did adopt their arguments and the attached annexes, including copies of the Senate and Commission on Audit reports on the fertilizer funds scam.

But while pleased with the recent decisions, Roque expressed concern regarding the arguments raised by Bolante’s lawyers in his petition for review pending with the federal appellate court. As proof of his claim of persecution, Bolante’s lawyers have argued that the Ombudsman has yet to file criminal charges against him despite the Senate’s issuance of a warrant of arrest.

This, claimed Roque, is an indication of a “clear collusion” between Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and Bolante. “Apparently, her inaction is not only to prevent the filing of a criminal complaint that can be the basis for extraditing Bolante. It is also being used as proof of persecution in favor of Bolante,” he said.

Roque likewise expressed alarm about Montes’s testimony. “First, it bothers me that no less than a Usec of the DA could lie brazenly about the Senate persecuting Bolante. As Usec, he is subject to the qualified political agency doctrine which means that his pronouncements, when given in official court proceedings, are deemed as declarations of the President herself.”

He recommended that Montes and Estrellado be charged in the U.S. for false testimony.

For further background on Bolante’s immigration case, see also:

• The Bolante Files
• The Bolante Files 2
• The Bolante Files 3