Several Indians face deportation as ‘Pay to Stay’ visa racket busted in US
Washington, Jan 31: Several foreigners, including from India, face deportation from the US after authorities busted a "pay to stay" visa racket and arrested eight persons on charges of fraudulently facilitating at least 600 immigrants to illegally remain in the country.
In late-night and pre-dawn raids, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested eight foreigners all of whom are either Indian nationals or Indian Americans for aiding foreign nationals to remain in the United States illegally by actively recruiting them to enrol into a fake university in Farmington Hills in Metro Detroit.
Without the knowledge of the conspirators, the university was operated by special agents of the Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) as part of an undercover operation, from a small building in Detroit area. Information made available on the website of this university in particular those related to admissions leaves a lot of questions.
Simultaneously, the ICE also has started detaining foreign students of this fake university and started the process of their deportation.
"Vast majority" of those arrested and detained are Indian nationals, an ICE official told PTI.
"Special agents from ICE's Homeland Security Investigations arrested eight on criminal charges as part of an investigation into potential abuses of the US student visa system," the official said.
In their late 20s or early 30s, those arrested by the ICE include Barath Kakireddy, Suresh Kandala, Phanideep Karnati, Prem Rampeesa, Santosh Sama, Avinash Thakkallapally, Aswanth Nune, and Naveen Prathipati. Six of them were arrested in Detroit area while the other two in Virginia and Florida.
According to an indictment unsealed in a local court Wednesday, these eight individuals helped at least 600 foreign nationals stay in the US illegally.
"As part of this investigation, numerous foreign nationals face administrative immigration violations. Those individuals will be placed in removal proceedings, and ICE will seek to maintain them in its custody pending the outcome of those proceedings," the ICE official told PTI.
The Indian Embassy here and its consulates are in touch with student organisations and offered help. It is also in touch with US authorities.
According to the indictment, from February 2017 to January 2019, a group of foreign citizens, conspired with each other and others to fraudulently facilitate hundreds of foreign nationals in illegally remaining and working in the US by actively recruiting them to enrol into the university.
The university was part of a federal law enforcement undercover operation designed to identify recruiters and entities engaged in immigration. The university had no staff, no teachers, and conducted no real classes.
As part of the scheme, the indictment said, the defendants and recruiters assisted foreign citizen "students" in fraudulently obtaining immigration documents from the school and facilitated the creation of false student records, including transcripts, for the purpose of deceiving immigration authorities.
The illegal documents obtained as a result of the conspirators' actions were based on false claims, false statements, and fraud since the purported foreign students had no intention of attending school, nor attended a single class, and were not bona fide students, federal prosecutors said.
Noting that all participants in the scheme knew that the school had no instructors or actual classes, the ICE said the defendants intended to help shield and hide their customers "students" from US immigration authorities for money and collectively profited in excess of a quarter of a million dollars as a result of their scheme.
"We are all aware that international students can be a valuable asset to our country, but as this case shows, the well-intended international student visa programme can also be exploited and abused," stated US Attorney Matthew Schneider.
"Homeland Security Investigations special agents uncovered a nationwide network that grossly exploited US immigration laws," said Special Agent Charge Francis.
"Each of the foreign citizen who enrolled and made tuition payments to the university knew that they would not attend accrual classes, earn credits or make progress towards an actual degree in a particular field of study a pay to stay scheme," the indictment said.
"Rather their intent was to fraudulently maintain their student visa status and to obtain work authorisation under the CPT (Curricular Practical Training) programme," it said.
This is the second such case when Department of Homeland Security has used a fake university to unearth a fake student visa racket. In 2016, the ICE had arrested some 21 people for similar charges for a fake University of Northern New Jersey.
Meanwhile, social media chatter on various platform in particular those from Andhra Pradesh and Telangana -- indicated that the ICE raids were carried out in various cities across the US -- Columbus Ohio; Houston in Texas, Atlanta in Georgia, St Louis in Missouri and New York and New Jersey.
In a statement posted on its website Reddy & Neumann group of immigration attorney said that it has received multiple reports that the ICE raided multiple worksites containing CPT students authorised by the University of Farmington, located in Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Resolution for his removal: Speaker Birla to be present in House but not chair proceedings
New Delhi (PTI): The Lok Sabha will witness a rare moment most likely on Monday next when Om Birla will not chair proceedings but will be seated amongst the members as the House takes up a notice seeking his removal from office.
As Parliament meets for the second phase of the Budget session on March 9, the Lok Sabha is likely to take up the resolution moved by the opposition against Birla's for allegedly acting in a "blatantly partisan" manner.
According to the rules and laid down procedure, Birla will get a right to defend himself when the resolution is discussed by the lower house. He will also have the right to vote against the resolution, Constitution expert P D T Achary explained.
The expert said while Birla will not chair the proceedings when the resolution comes up before the House, he will be seated in the prominent rows in the Treasury benches.
At least 118 opposition members had submitted a notice for moving the resolution to remove Birla from office for not allowing Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders to speak in the House on the Motion of Thanks to the President's address, as well as for suspending eight MPs.
Congress member and chief whip K Suresh submitted the notice to the Lok Sabha secretariat on behalf of several opposition parties, including his party, Samajwadi Party and DMK.
TMC MPs, however, did not sign the notice.
ALSO READ: Curbs on movement, assembly remain in force in Kashmir after protests against Khamenei's killing
Achary, a former Lok Sabha secretary general, told PTI, that the "allocation of the seat, which the Speaker occupies under such circumstances is not mentioned in the Rules".
He said Birla will also not be able to vote on the resolution using the automated vote system, but will have to fill a slip to register his vote.
He presumes that a seat belonging to a Union minister, who is from the Rajya Sabha, could be given to him as only Lok Sabha members will be able to cast their votes for or against the resolution.
Deputy speaker of the Lok Sabha and deputy chairperson of the Rajya Sabha have their earmarked seats in their respective Houses when they are not presiding over.
Front seats in the opposition benches are allocated to them.
Article 96 of the Constitution bars a speaker or a deputy speaker from presiding over the House sitting while a resolution for his removal from office is under consideration.
The speaker has a constitutional right to defend himself in the House if the resolution is discussed in the Lok Sabha.
At least two Lok Sabha members have to sign the notice to move a resolution for the speaker's removal. Any number of members can sign the notice but a minimum of two is mandatory.
The speaker can be removed from office by a resolution passed by the House through a simple majority.
Article 94C of the Constitution has provisions for such a move.
"All the members of the House are counted to compute the majority, not the members present and voting, which is the normal practice. It means the effective membership of the House, except for the vacancies, is used to calculate the majority," Achary said.
The notice has to be submitted to the Lok Sabha secretary general, and not the deputy speaker or anyone else, he said.
The document is then examined at the preliminary stage to see whether it contains "very specific charges", he said.
"At the threshold itself, there is a process of admissibility. At that stage, it is seen whether it contains specific charges. Specific charges are required as only then the speaker will be able to respond," Achary explained.
The resolution must not contain defamatory language or content.
Article 96 gives the speaker the opportunity to defend himself or herself in the House.
The language of the proposed resolution is usually examined by the deputy speaker, but since the present Lok Sabha does not have a deputy speaker, it may be examined perhaps by the senior-most member of the panel of chairpersons.
The panel helps the speaker run the House in his or her absence.
"The speaker examining a resolution that seeks his removal looks absurd," Achary said, adding that the rule is silent on the subject.
Once the processing part is over, the resolution reaches the House. But it can go to the House after 14 days, Achary said.
The chair then places it in the House for consideration. It is actually the House which admits it, or as the rule says, "grants permission".
Achary further said, "The chair then asks members in favour of the resolution to stand up. If 50 members stand up in support of it and if the criteria is fulfilled, the Chair announces that the House has granted permission. Once the House grants permission, it has to be taken up for discussion and disposed of within 10 days."
Lok Sabha sources said it will be taken up for discussion on Monday itself.
ALSO READ: SSLC exam begins in Kerala; Education Minister wishes students success
There are precedents of resolutions being moved. However, none has been adopted so far.
"The reason -- governments have a majority," Achary said.
The resolution alleges that Speaker Birla had acted in a "blatantly partisan" manner in conducting the business of the House and "abused" the constitutional office he occupies.
The Opposition also accused the speaker of making certain false allegations against members of the Congress.
Three Lok Sabha speakers -- G V Mavlankar (1954), Hukam Singh (1966) and Balram Jakhar (1987)-- had faced no-confidence motions in the past, which were negatived.
