BHUTANESE OFFICIAL TURNS SMUGGLER

UNCLAS NEW DELHI 003190

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CVIS KFRD IN BT
SUBJECT: BHUTANESE OFFICIAL TURNS SMUGGLER


1. SUMMARY: Post has identified a Bhutanese smuggler with
connections to the Bhutan Chamber of Commerce. Eight of nine
associated applicants confessed to paying up to $10,000 to their
fixer to allow them to work and/or immigrate to the U.S. Given a
relatively small Bhutanese visa applicant pool (we adjudicated 850
cases in FY-08),such a large group gives us more cause for
reflection when interviewing these applicants. Post has brought
this case to the attention of Government of Bhutan officials in New
Delhi. Post has also completed a validation study of recent
Bhutanese applicants to be reported septel. END SUMMARY.


2. An adjudicating officer facing a larger group of Bhutanese
applicants noted striking similarities in their cases. The group
included a former Secretary General of the Bhutan Chamber of
Commerce (and current owner of a travel agency) and nine others.
The travel agent, Tshering Dorji (DOB 07MAR1947) had traveled to the
U.S. yearly for the past six to seven years, while the rest had
never traveled outside Bhutan (except for India). Each of the
applicants, however, had some connection to the Bhutan Chamber of
Commerce, either as members or having been employed there at some
time. The cases were referred to the Fraud Prevention Unit (FPU),
and the applicants were advised to return another day. A review of
the travel agent's previous applications for visas by the FPU
revealed that he attempted to secure visas for a group of at least
three individuals on August 16, 2005 and a group of at least five
applicants on November 7, 2006. According to ADIS checks, two of
the three applicants in August 2005 have not returned; three of the
five applicants in November 2006 have also not returned.


3. During the follow-up interview, the owner of the travel agency
stated that in the latter years of his life he had decided to
arrange travel for American and Japanese tourists to Bhutan and do
the same for Bhutanese citizens who wanted to go to the United
States. According to him, he charged each of his Bhutanese clients
$10,000 for a one month trip to New York City, Milwaukee, Los
Angeles and San Francisco.


4. Each of the remaining nine applicants was then interviewed
separately. Eight admitted they were charged $10,000 for a tourist
visa to the United States and confessed having discussed with the
travel agent plans of staying in the U.S. for one year or two years.
All eight penned written statements to that effect. Some had
already paid the travel agent $10,000; others had given him a
deposit of $5,000 and would pay the balance of $5,000 upon receipt
of the visa. All of the applicants' DS156 forms noted one-month
intended stays and had been completed and signed by the travel agent
as the preparer.


5. Given the nature of the smuggling plan, the travel agent was
found ineligible under Section 212(a)(6)(E) of the INA. The eigh4
applicants who confessed their misrepresentation were found
ineligible under Section 212 (a)(6)(C)(i),while the last was
refused under Section 214 (b).


6. Post brought the case to the attention of the Bhutanese Embassy
Charge d'Affaires. He indicated he knew Tshering Dorji and would
inform the appropriate Ministry about the case.


7. Post has also conducted a three-part validation study of
Bhutanese student visa applicants, other applicants in FY-07, and
select applicants in FY-08. The results will be reported septel.

MULFORD