In an application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal dated December 30, 2004, the complainant provided the United States Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization Service with factual information about herself, her background and her experiences in her home country of Guinea. This information was in the form of a written statement attached to her application, and was submitted as a basis for her request for asylum. In her application, she certified under penalty of perjury that her written statement was true.
In substance, the complainant’s statement claimed that she and her husband had been persecuted and harassed by the dictatorial regime that was then in power in Guinea. Among other things, the complainant stated that the home she shared with her husband was destroyed by police and soldiers acting on behalf of the regime, and she and her husband were beaten by them. When her husband attempted to return to what was left of their home the next day, she stated that he was again beaten, arrested and imprisoned by police and soldiers. She stated that she also was beaten when she attempted to come to her husband’s aid. In her statement, she attributed the beatings to the couple’s opposition to the regime. She stated that during her husband’s incarceration, he was tortured, deprived of medical treatment, and eventually died as a result of his maltreatment. Following his death, according to her, she began to denounce the regime and finally fled the country in fear of her life, entering the United States in January 2004 to seek refuge (she has told prosecutors that she used a fraudulent visa). She repeated these facts orally during the course of her asylum application process.
In interviews in connection with the investigation of this case, the complainant admitted that the above factual information, which she provided in connection with her asylum application, was false. She stated that she fabricated the statement with the assistance of a male who provided her with a cassette recording of the facts contained in the statement that she eventually submitted. She memorized these facts by listening to the recording repeatedly. In several interviews with prosecutors, she reiterated these falsehoods when questioned about her history and background, and stated that she did so in order to remain consistent with the statement that she had submitted as part of her application.
Additionally, in two separate interviews with assistant district attorneys assigned to the case, the complainant stated that she had been the victim of a gang rape in the past in her native country and provided details of the attack. During both of these interviews, the victim cried and appeared to be markedly distraught when recounting the incident. In subsequent interviews, she admitted that the gang rape had never occurred. Instead, she stated that she had lied about its occurrence and fabricated the details, and that this false incident was part of the narrative that she had been directed to memorize as part of her asylum application process. Presently, the complainant states that she would testify that she was raped in the past in her native country but in an incident different than the one that she described during initial interviews.
Lying to a DHS officer makes her deportable, or at least it would have made her deportable last time I checked, which was 5 years ago. I doubt the Congress changed the laws re immigration perjury in the meantime. I get the impression that she is currently not in deportation proceedings, though she might have been in the past. I suppose her defense is that she had bad advice, but it doesn’t change the fact that she lied. It’s not like people don’t find themselves in possession of one-way ticket to Saint Petersburg under similar circumstances.
The case against DSK is falling apart now, which is not to say that the maid wasn’t raped or that DSK is not a pervert or that his wife is not sorry or that the French are not insane to trust their country to this character. Still, it’s pretty brazen to level accusations against a man that prominent and draw international attention to your shadiness when you might just get kicked out of the country. Then again, maybe she has good reason to believe that nothing will get her kicked out.
Another bit about the accuser:
The hotel maid, a West African immigrant, has occupied the fourth-floor High Bridge pad with her 15-year-old daughter since January — and before that, lived in another Bronx apartment set aside by Harlem Community AIDS United strictly for adults with the virus and their families.
The Post has not been able to ascertain whether the maid, 32, has HIV/AIDS because of medical confidentiality laws.
In good ‘ol days, HIV+ status was grounds to deny admission into the US. Twenty plus years ago my whole family was tested before we were admitted. I believe the government still requires this along with some infectious diseases tests, but some individuals were granted asylum because of their HIV status. In any event, the maid might be deportable because of her alleged HIV status.