Federal judge strips Ukrainian immigrant of U.S. citizenship (08/17/03)

Federal judge strips Ukrainian immigrant of U.S. citizenship

by Andrew Nynka

PARSIPPANY, N.J. - A United States federal judge stripped a Ukrainian man of his U.S. citizenship on July 31, saying he illegally acquired an immigrant visa when he entered the country over 50 years ago as a refugee of World War II.

Jakiw Palij, 79, "made material misrepresentations in his application for a visa to immigrate to the United States," U.S. Federal Judge Allyne Ross said in her ruling.

The judge's decision means that Mr. Palij, who received his U.S. citizenship in 1957, was ineligible to become a United States citizen under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 - which enabled European refugees to immigrate to the United States following World War II. The ruling also opens the door for Mr. Palij's deportation from the United States.

Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations (OSI) alleged that Mr. Palij misrepresented his service as a guard at a labor camp in Nazi-occupied Poland and his membership in several Nazi-led units that committed atrocities against civilians during World War II. They did not, however, accuse the Ukrainian of murder, nor did they say he was involved in the murder of civilians during World War II.

In order to establish whether Mr. Palij did in fact misrepresent himself when he applied for U.S. citizenship, the government offered what Judge Ross called "voluminous" background material to support their case.

A large portion of that background material revolved around the testimony of Dr. Peter Black, a Holocaust historian with the OSI, who filed an affidavit in support of the government's motion.

At the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, Mr. Palij said government proof of his involvement in persecution at the Polish SS training camp in Trawniki wasn't credible. Judge Ross rejected that argument, saying in her decision that Mr. Palij did not submit "a single affidavit affirming his innocence of the acts the government alleges."

In June 2002 the government asked for a summary judgment in its civil case against Mr. Palij, saying that all necessary factual issues in the case were settled or so one-sided that they need not be tried. Judge Ross's decision ruled in favor of the plaintiff, saying that the government used "clear and convincing evidence" to prove its case.

"Although at the summary judgment stage the court is obliged to view facts in a light most favorable to the defendant, defendant's failure to offer anything more than his objections compels the court to rely on the government's submissions," Judge Ross wrote.

Judge Ross called the defendant's objections to the government's claims of uncontested facts "non-specific," and said that at other times the "defendant simply characterizes the government's allegations of facts as 'an expression of opinion about history.'"

Mr. Palij referred the court to "historical materials that differ from the opinions of the Office of Special Investigations historian," Judge Ross wrote. However, "no such materials are provided or cited," the judge's statement said.

Additionally, Mr. Palij refused to testify at his deposition "for fear of subsequent foreign criminal proceedings." There is speculation among lawyers familiar with defending men in Mr. Palij's situation that much of his defense strategy, as well as his refusal to speak with the press, stems from a fear of the tactics used by the prosecution to twist the facts of a case in their favor.

In a statement made in May 2002, when a case was first filed against Mr. Palij, OSI Director Eli Rosenbaum said, "Palij and his fellow 'Trawniki men' played instrumental roles in carrying out Adolf Hitler's genocidal ambitions by rounding up, guarding and helping to murder Jews throughout Nazi-occupied Poland."

In her decision, dated July 29, Judge Ross addressed Mr. Palij's silence. "Finally, in response to questioning at his deposition, defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment. This being a civil proceeding, the court draws a negative inference against him on account of his refusal to discuss questions relating to his service at Trawniki and finds that his silence further corroborates the allegation of his service."

Both Mr. Palij and his attorney, Ivars Berzins, could not be reached for comment about the case and a statement on Mr. Palij's behalf has not been made. A woman who answered the phone at Mr. Berzin's office told The Ukrainian Weekly that Mr. Berzins is "not interested in speaking with the press," and promptly hung up the phone.

During the court proceedings Mr. Palij did not concede to allegations that he was a Trawniki guard and, according to Judge Ross's decision, Mr. Palij argued against a summary judgment, saying that "a trial is necessary to dispel serious doubts on critical issues."

"The government has marshaled convincing evidence that defendant indeed served as an armed Trawniki guard, and that his service resulted in the persecution of civilians," Judge Ross wrote.

"The fact that there is no direct evidence that defendant patrolled the perimeter or otherwise helped to guard the Jewish labor camp does not diminish the strength of the government's evidence," Judge Ross wrote. "However, courts have attributed actions to an individual based on his membership in a particular organization at a particular time and have deemed this evidence sufficient to establish that he assisted in the persecution of civilians."

"Furthermore, the government's expert historian concluded based on this evidence that defendant as a Trawniki guard necessarily shared in these duties of persecution," the judge's decision reads. "Given no reason to conclude otherwise by defendant, the court finds that defendant performed guard duties at the Jewish labor camp as part of the training regimen he completed there in 1943."

Mr. Palij, a Jackson Heights, N.Y., resident for some 50 years, is believed to still be living in his home town. It is not known if Mr. Palij will appeal the judge's ruling, although that option is available to him.

| Home Page |