Which of several methods of getting into the US did “refugee” family Tsarnaev use?

Update:  Blogger Federale has more information on the asylum claim here.  Wonder how the aunt fits into all this, looks like the WHOLE family came at some point!

Has anyone figured this out yet?  I assumed by now some crackerjack investigative reporter would have unearthed their immigration paperwork—maybe they have.  If you see it, let me know!

We have been told innumerable times since Friday that they are “refugees” or received “political asylum.”   Those are slightly different terms of art.  I’ve got farm chores to do, so no time to explain the slight difference now.

Maret Tsarnaev, aunt of alleged Boston bombers says she is studying law. But, did she say she did the paperwork to get her brother and family into US? How?

In my post on Friday I reported this:

A commenter tells us that it’s a chain migration refugee case (sometimes called family reunification) usually done through resettlement contractors like Catholic Charities.  Will look for a link:

Not a rumor, sister of father on Canadian TV said she did refugee paperwork for mom and dad in 2002, they got it. Then under refugee family reconcilement, got 2 sons, the jihadists, and two daughters into US.

However, I got thinking today about the I-130 and the I-730 visa application process.  Surely some real investigative reporters are looking through the records for those Visas!

But how could an adult apply for refugee status for her extended family?  (They are not her spouse or children). It doesn’t make any sense unless she lied somehow.  Although once Mom, Dad and little Dzhokhar got in then they surely used one of these to get the remainder of the kids in.

A year ago next month I reported on how those two Visa programs have a serious potential for fraud, and here is what a kind reader sent to explain the two programs.  Visas for family reunification explained:

A few days ago I reported on Somalis in Minneapolis who are angry that the US State Department/Homeland Security are making it harder for them to bring their “families” to the US.    I explained that the P-3 program had been suspended in 2008 when it was learned that tens of thousands of Africans (mostly from Somalia) had gotten into the US fraudulently—they lied about their family relationship.  The program is still partially closed.   And, now the I-130 visa process has added some hurdles which has ticked-off the would-be migrants (and their lawyers) even further.

Since these visa application processes are all ‘greek’ to those of us on the outside, I appealed for help in understanding the I-130 visa and the I-730 visa as it relates to “refugees.”    A kind reader with experience has sent us the following explanation (emphasis mine).   This will be filed in our ‘where to find information’ category for your future reference.


This is the name used for a form to apply for the legal immigration of certain relatives of  certain types of US legal residents. It is not a part of the US refugee resettlement program. It’s an application for a permanent visa based on family relationship criteria.

Any  US citizen can petition for parents, spouse , minor children, single adult children over 21, married children , and siblings. (spouses and minor children of beneficiaries are included on the visa)

Depending on the relationship to the petitioner,there are various waiting times based on the number of pending applications.

Parents, spouses and unmarried minor children are eligible for “immediate” visas and it’s just a matter of the actual processing time (although  it’s usually several months to a year).  Older children have a much longer waiting period and for siblings, the wait hovers around 10 years .

Legal permanent residents (green card holders) can only petition for spouses, unmarried minor children. Those are not “immediate” visas, but are subject to another waiting list but is usually 3-4 years),

Visas  are initially adjudicated by the visa center here in the US simply based on documentation presented with the application, and then (provided they are initially approved) , once they become “current” , sent overseas to the nearest embassy/consulate for final decision, based on a face to face interview and documentation.

The US petitioner is also required to file an “affidavit of support” (showing financial ability to support the applicant (s)) which precludes the applicants from accessing any public benefits upon entering the US. (this is a whole other issue, since  actual enforcement of those affidavits varies greatly from state to state and many legal visa recipients do access public benefits).

At one time, in the P-3 program, US relatives who were US citizens were barred from utilizing the P-3 process and required to file I-130’s. Refugee advocates successfully lobbied to have this rule changed, thus US citizens could file P-3 applications.  While no longer required to, they could still also simultaneously file I-130’s  as a back up in case the applicants failed to meet refugee criteria (one does not preclude the other). In my experience, most US relatives chose not to file the I-130s and , instead, rely solely on the P-3 process which, as you know, confers refugee status and eligibility for all available public benefits and puts no onus of financial responsibility on the US anchor relative.


This is where the lines can get a bit blurry.

This is a US visa called “following to join.” There are 2 categories:

Visa 93 (US relative was admitted as a refugee)
Visa 92 (US relative was granted political asylum in the US)

Applicants are limited to spouses and unmarried minor children (not parents, siblings, married or over 21 kids).

Relationships must have existed prior to granting of US petitioner’s status (some tricky parts here!).  Application must be filed within 2 years of granted status.

Visas 92/93 can be filed simultaneously with  P-3 applications.

Those applications are initially approved  by US immigration processing centers (there are only a couple who do these) and sent to the local embassy/consulate for final adjudication. The applicants are under no requirement to provide any proof of refugee claims themselves,  but only proof of relationship to the petitioner.  If the visa is granted, they are admitted to the US under “derivative refugee/asylee” status.  Affidavits of support are not required, and they are eligible for public benefits subject to the petitioner’s income (again,… my experience showed a large amount of  easily-conducted fraud).

Of course I find it amusing beyond belief that the “persecuted refugees” (Mom and Dad) decided to go home to their persecutors a year or so ago and left the boys behind going to school and living off the US taxpayer in some form or another.

I’ll bet you a buck we will find immigration fraud in the case of the Brothers Tsarnaev—assuming some enterprising reporter does the digging and gets the news out!

No patriotic assimilation! Instead taxpayer-funded Balkanization

In the wake of Boston, author/investigator Stanley Kurtz , writing at NRO, said that the Boston terrorist attack brought to the light of day the great failing of the once successful assimilation of our immigrant population—the loss of that all important anchor of patriotic assimilation.

The mainstream press is filled with stories and opinion pieces about the connection between the Boston bombings and the immigration reform bill. The point in common is a near-total failure to grapple with the weightiest Boston-related argument critics of the bill have offered – that the terror attack is an extreme symptom of a far broader problem, the breakdown of our system of patriotic assimilation.

Read it all.

Kurtz and John O’Sullivan, also at NRO, wrote late last week about a new study by the venerable Hudson Institute:

…  John Fonte and Althea Nagai (“America’s Patriotic Assimilation System is Broken“)

Here is O’Sullivan:

We know very little of the marathon bombers and their motives thus far, but what we know points to some very obvious points. Some of these points are so obvious, moreover, that commentators and politicians are already saying that we shouldn’t even consider them.

The first point that strikes me is that these young men should have had every reason to be happy in the United States and grateful to the country for its giving them sanctuary.


In that case — and I suspect we shall find also in the case of the marathon bombers — the explanation was (or included the fact) that they had been assimilated into a nullity.

Myth explodes! 

Referring to Britain’s Subway bombers raised in the UK in upstanding families, O’Sullivan continues.

They had therefore looked around for a heroic cause they could identify with. The radical Islamists provided them with the cause of radical Islamism — and they embarked on the relatively short road to mass murder.

When that happened, several British commentators argued that this wouldn’t happen in America because America, with its public and private ceremonies of Americanization, had solved the conundrum of how to turn immigrants into loyal and patriotic Americans.

Alas, I had to tell them sadly that they were a generation behind the times. America now bore all the marks of a society that had been subjected to several decades of relentless indoctrination in the dogmas of multiculturalism and bilingualism. And the results are now in.


Into this moral and patriotic vacuum seeps what Orwell called “transferred nationalism.” In his day this was usually some variety of Marxism; today it often often a variation on radical Islam. But it is adopted and sparks violent thoughts in the minds of young men whom official America has shielded from the old Americanization.

Getting patriotic assimilation right is as vital — perhaps more vital — than getting border security right. It is an essential part of any comprehensive immigration reform worth the name. To propose opening the country to millions of new immigrants until we have solved this problem is simply to invite more violence from more young men whom we have disoriented and left victim to the worse impulses.

It is worse than Kurtz and O’Sullivan know!  

Not only are we not encouraging assimilation of ethnic groups being admitted under the legal framework of the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, we are in fact ENCOURAGING BALKANIZATION through grant programs for Ethnic Community Based Organizations administered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

You tell me!  If we are giving federal grants to groups like these, are we encouraging separation and notions of ethnic superiority—-you betcha!   Consider these ethnic-centered groups which received grants in 2009 as mini-ACORNS.  Fostering competition, they help THEIR people get hooked up with social services and teach them how to stand up for the “rights” of THEIR people.

The Southern Sudanese American Association, $100,000, AK

From Association of Africans Living in VT website. Your tax dollars supplied them with $165,000 in 2009. For what?

Boat People, SOS, Inc., $100,000, AL

Somali Bantu Association of Tucson, $197,688, AZ

Horn of Africa Community in North America, $135,000, CA

Lao Family Community Development Inc., $198,154, CA

Merced Lao Family Community Inc., $183,381, CA

Merced Lao Family Community Inc., $180,891, CA

Colorado African Organization, $197,308, CO

Pan African Association, $177,555, IL

Center for Prevention of Hate Violence, $184,719, ME

Minnesota African Women’s Association, Inc., $123,758, MN

Karen Community of Minnesota, $169,000, MN

Montagnard Human Rights Organization, $181,390, NC

Asian Community & Cultural Center, $125,000, NE

Sauti Yetu Center for African Women, Inc., $107,590, NY

Sauti Yetu Center for African Women, Inc., $152,056, NY

Somali Bantu Association of San Antonio, $174,345, TX

Somali Bantu Community of Greater Houston, $125, 695, TX

Association of Africans Living in Vermont, $165,531, VT

Pan African Community Association, $166,824, WI

Yikes!  It gets worse, here is an up-to-date list of Ethnic groups (now called Ethnic self-help groups!) getting your money and fostering separation and nationalism (theirs!).  Readers if these cities needed an organization to teach immigrants English (how about local junior colleges for this?) and how to access stuff (taxpayer goodies)—why isn’t the government funding one multicultural organization where all the disparate groups come together (get instruction on how to get food stamps, health care, education) and are taught American civic responsibility, history and patriotism?

In addition to the usual African and Asian groups listed above, this latest list funds Ethnic groups including those for Iraqis, Karen (Burmese), Bhutanese, Ukrainian, Ethiopian, Haitian, other Burmese, and Chaldean.

Much more in our category on ECBOs here.

We need more diversity from Kyrgyzstan, says Gang of Eight bill

Yesterday the Daily Caller alerted us to another section of the monster “comprehensive” immigration reform bill that relates to the already existent DIVERSITY Visa Lottery.  Yes, you have the right.  We have another LEGAL immigration program that brings in 50,000 or so “diverse” immigrants a year so that we assure what?—DIVERSITY in our immigrant populations.

We need to be sure we have a representative sample of people from Kyrgyzstan in America. Diversity is beautiful! Right?

Regular readers here may know that Virginia Republican, Robert Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has for years tried to kill this ridiculous fraud-ridden lottery.

Here is what the Daily Caller reports on the “reforms” to be made via the Gang of Eight bill to the Diversity Visa Lottery:

The Senate’s pending immigration bill would give an advantage to people seeking to immigrate from Kyrgyzstan, the former Soviet republic that provided passports to the two ethnic Chechens who allegedly bombed Boston.

As part of a compromise that would replace the current “Diversity Lottery” program, countries with low rates of immigration to the United Sates — including Kyrgyzstan and Russia — would be awarded five points.

The five-point bonus could have a significant influence on who gets to live among 310 million Americans, because only the top-scoring applicants in the bill’s new merit-based immigration system would be granted green cards.

This system would give a person with a Kyrgyzstan passport an advantage over otherwise equally qualified people from countries like Mexico, the United Kingdom, Canada and Brazil. Those countries do not qualify for the bonus because they send large numbers of people to the United States.

The same bonus is also offered to people from a series of unstable countries that are not covered by the Diversity Lottery, a State Dept. program that annually offers 55,000 green cards to people in countries that send few immigrants to the United States.

Those countries include Egypt, Libya, Somalia and Tunisia, as well as countries alongside the war-wrecked Chechen homeland in the Caucasus mountains.

We have resettled over 100,000 Somalis through Refugee Resettlement, so why are they allowed to participate in the Lottery?

All of our posts on the Boston refugee bombers are here.

State Department will hear testimony from the public in May about refugee resettlement

Readers this post is a repeat of one I wrote last week.  I promised to reprint this information every week until the deadline for testimony—May 8th—arrives.

You have virtually no voice in the decision about bringing refugees to America—where they come from and in what towns and cities they will be placed.  However, each year the US State Department hears mostly from federal resettlement contractors (nine major and approximately 300 subcontractors) to help them determine who (and how many) will be resettled.   The contractors have a vested interest because they are paid by the head (by you, the taxpayer) to resettle as many refugees as the State Department lets them have.

Anne Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for PRM, revolved into her job from a resettlement contractor position at the International Rescue Committee. Before that she was at the State Department!

The State Department will be looking to set its (the President’s) goals for FY2014 on May 15th.

You can send testimony too!   Here is what you need to do, be sure to pay attention to the last part about copying your testimony to your elected officials.  (Your US Representatives and Senators have pretty much abrogated their roles in questioning this program.)

And, one last thing—The Boston Chechens were not the first refugee/asylee terrorists who have entered the US and been caught, just the most successful so far.

My post from last week:

Every week from now until May 8th, I’m going to repeat this post!

Do not be silent!

The US State Department holds a hearing, usually in May, largely populated by the refugee contractors telling sob stories and looking to boost the number and variety of refugees (not to mention the contractor’s income) to be admitted to the US in the upcoming fiscal year.  My report on last year’s hearing is here.

Last year, and maybe for the first time ever, critical comments outnumbered those looking to add more refugees to already overloaded cities and states.  Let’s do it again!

The whole Federal Register Notice is here.

The meeting’s purpose is to hear the views of attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 2014 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Your testimony can be long or short, detailed or general, but get something in by the deadline of 5 p.m. May 8th!

Address testimony to:   Anne Richard, Asst. Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration, US State Department, Washington, DC.

Reference Federal Register Public Notice 8241

E-mail or fax to Delicia Spruell:

Persons wishing to present written comments should submit them by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2013 via email to spruellda@state.gov or fax (202) 453-9393.

Now listen-up, this is important!   If you don’t copy your testimony to your elected officials, you can be sure your testimony to the State Department will never see the light of day!

You must put cc at the bottom of your testimony and list the following:

~Your member of the House of Representatives  (look up their addresses!)

~Your US Senators

~Any elected officials in your state who may be interested

Also, send to (and list on your testimony):

~US Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border SecurityGo here for list of Subcommittee Members.  You will be listing and mailing to the Subcommittee, however, if your US Senator is on that subcommittee then please be sure they are listed prominently on the testimony you send to the State Department.  Mail to:  U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security, 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510.  Mail your testimony to the Subcommittee even if your Senator is not on it!

~House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border SecurityGo here for a list of all the Subcommittees and see if your Member of Congress is on the Subcommittee.  But, even if he or she isn’t then still send your testimony here (addressed to the Subcommittee):  2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, p/202-225-3951.

When sending anything to your US Senators or Members of Congress always ask a question so that hopefully it forces them to answer your letter!  You might ask them to put pressure on the State Department to have this “hearing” held in several locations around the country!

If you plan to attend the hearing in Washington on May 15th (location and time details in my previous post), you need to let Ms. Spruell know by the same deadline.

Persons wishing to attend this meeting must notify the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone (202) 453-9257 by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, to reserve a seat.

Send me a copy of your testimony and indicate whether or not I have permission to publish it!

I made a special category for testimony last year, here.  So, check it out and see what others said last May.

Send copies to Ann@vigilantfreedom.com