LAOS AND U.S. DISCUSS BASIC PROCEDDURES FOR LAO

UNCLAS VIENTIANE 000120

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: CASC KCRM LA PREL
SUBJECT: LAOS AND U.S. DISCUSS BASIC PROCEDDURES FOR LAO
NATIONALS REPATRIATION

1.(SBU) Summary: During February 25 discussions, Government
of Laos officials and a visiting State/DHS delegation
provisionally agreed on working procedures for handling
repatriation of Lao nationals from the United States. This
second round of talks followed up on initial discussions held
on July 31, 2008. The Embassy will send a diplomatic note
formally seeking GOL acceptance of the procedures.
Implementation of the agreed procedures will begin as soon as
the GOL responds positively. This agreement will provide a
framework for future cooperation on repatriation and
represents a clear advance, since previous repatriation
discussions in 2001 ended without any agreement. The two
sides also agreed to meet again within six months after the
working procedures are implemented, to discuss problems or
desired changes. End Summary.

2.(U) Representatives of the U.S. and Lao governments held a
second round of discussions on repatriation at the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs on February 25. Following is a list of
participants:

Lao Government:
Mr. Mai Sayavongs, Deputy Director of Europe and Americas
Department, MFA
Mr. Souphanh Hadaoheuang, Deputy Director of America
Division, MFA
Mr. Chatoulinh Souidaray, America Division Desk Officer, MFA
Mr. Pannyasinh Nuansangsy, Senior Officer, Treaty and Laws
Division, MFA
Mr. Bounliep Hounvongsone, Deputy Director General of
Consular Affairs Department, MFA
Mr. Phoutdavanh Luangahmath, Chief of Law Institute, Justice
System Administration Department, National Division, Ministry
of Justice
Mr. Souksomboun Khinsanom, Officer, Justice System
Administration Department, National Division, MOJ
Mr. Sisavanh Luanglath, Supreme Court Judge, People,s
Supreme Court
Mr. Amphai Chidmanon, Deputy Director General of Law
Department, National Assembly
Major Sainakhone LNU, Deputy Director General of Immigration
Department, Ministry of Public Security
Major Souvanhnakon Syphamavong, Division Director General,
Immigration Department, MOPS
Mr. Khamphet Somvorachit, Deputy Director General of Foreign
Affairs Division, Supreme People,s Prosecutor
Mr. Lattanaphone Vongkhamsao, Director General of People,s
Reformation Department, Supreme People,s Prosecutor

U.S. Government:
Mr. Peter Haymond, Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy
Vientiane
Ms. Mary McLeod, Assistant Legal Advisor, Bureau of Legal
Affairs, DOS
Ms. Joan Lieberman, Associate Legal Advisor, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, DHS
Mr. Thomas Campbell, Travel Document Unit, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, DHS
Mr. Adrian Macias, Assistant Attache, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, U.S. Embassy Bangkok
Ms. Sengchanh Vanvongsot, Interpreter, U.S. Embassy Vientiane

-------------- --------------
Talks Objectives: Working Procedures, Understanding
Nationality Law
-------------- --------------

3.(SBU) DCM advised that the U.S. had two primary objectives
for the talks. The first was to try to reach agreement on
basic procedures covering all cases. The second was to
identify types of cases that both sides could agree were
appropriate for repatriation, taking into account the
responsibility of countries to accept their nationals back.

4.(SBU) The draft procedures provided by the U.S. for Lao
review before the talks were intended to be simple and
flexible so they could cover all sorts of cases. In summary,
the draft procedures proposed that the U.S. submit a request
to the Lao Embassy in Washington for repatriation of an
individual, accompanied by background information and
available nationality documents. It was then proposed that
the Lao Embassy provide one of three answers within 30 days
of receiving the request:

(1) yes, we agree and we will provide travel documents if
needed for the person to return to Laos;
(2) more information is needed before a decision can be made;
and
(3) no, we cannot accept the return, with the legal
justification.



5. (SBU) Regarding nationality questions, the DCM noted the
U.S. view that if a person living in the U.S. was not a U.S.
citizen, responsibility for that person lies with the country
of origin, which is assumed to be the country of citizenship.
He acknowledged that there were some areas of nationality
where the U.S. and Laos may not yet be in agreement. He
proposed to center this session of talks on identifying cases
where the two sides can agree, with other areas left for
later discussion. The U.S. experts present had some
additional questions regarding previous GOL responses on Lao
nationality law and practice. If there was time and desire on
the Lao side, the DCM added, the U.S. side was prespared to
talk about cases of particular interest to the Lao.

6.(SBU) DDG Mai responded that the Lao side had studied the
draft procedures provided by the U.S. and could in principle
accept them. He noted that in 2007, the USG had sent about
26 people back to Laos, but the repatriation procedures had
not been consistent and had sometimes created problems, as
when the Lao were unaware of a return until the individual
debarked from a plane in Laos. He did indicate a few areas
of concern in the USG draft procedures. The Lao side was
confused about the language in paragraph 4 which appeared to
imply that the Lao Embassy was supposed to issue or deny a
travel document within 30 days, which seemed too short a time
to them in cases where further investigation is required. DCM
indicated that paragraph 4 could be clarified on the point
that issuing travel documents, refusing to issue, or advising
of the need for further investigation were alternatives.

7.(SBU) DHS/ICE Lieberman pointed out that if the Lao side
explains to the U.S. side what further information is needed,
the U.S. side can talk with the individuals to attempt to
obtain further information that might assist in the
investigation. DHS/ICE Campbell added that, for his
purposes, it would be adequate if the Lao side could at least
complete the initial review within 30 days -- which would
involve screening the documents provided for obvious errors
and notifying the U.S. that the case was being forwarded to
Vientiane for investigation. Campbell also offered to
provide a simple form to facilitate the Lao Embassy initial
review response. Mai then asked that paragraph 4 of the
draft procedures be modified to reflect that only the initial
review by the Embassy must be completed within 30 days. The
U.S. side agreed.

--------------
Timeline for Providing a Final Decision
--------------

8.(SBU) DDG Mai then turned to paragraph 5 of the draft
procedures, which asked that a final decision be made by the
Lao Government within 60 days after the end of the initial
review period. Mai explained that investigating cases of Lao
nationals who had lived in the U.S. for more than ten years
was often a challenge, because the geographic designations
(districts, sub-districts, village names) have frequently
changed. The individual may only remember the name of his
native village, but that name may have disappeared. Sixty
days is sufficient for persons who had lived in Vientiane, he
said, but not necessarily for those from remoter locales,
where the Lao side would have to contact local authorities,
and identify budgets for travel to those locations to do so.

9.(SBU) DHS/ICE Campbell advised that the U.S. side's needs
could be satisfied if the Embassy provided a status report to
ICE for cases that could not be resolved within 60 days. The
status report could simply be a phone call. For such cases,
the U.S. would then ask the GOL to provide a decision on the
case as soon as possible. The two sides agreed to redraft
paragraph 5 along those lines.

--------------
Lao Travel and Identification Documents
--------------

10.(SBU) DHS/ICE Campbell asked whether the Lao Embassy could
issue travel documents for Lao nationals or whether all such
had to be issued in Vientiane. MFA/Consular Bounliep
explained that each case must be vetted with Vientiane, but
that the Embassy would issue the documents.

11.(SBU) In response to further questions from Campbell, the
Lao side explained that Vientiane is the only place in Laos
where Lao passports can be obtained. Lao nationals abroad
are supposed to register with the Lao Embassy in their
country or in the nearest country containing a Lao Embassy.
Through this registration, Lao nationals receive a special
I.D. document for use overseas; this is different from the

national I.D. used when the individual is in Laos.

--------------
Consular Notification
--------------

12.(SBU) DDG Mai noted that if a Lao national is arrested in
the United States, law enforcement authorities are obligated
to notify Lao consular officials, so the Embassy should
already know that the individual was detained. He added,
however, that there had been cases where the Lao Embassy did
not receive notification, and stressed that the GOL has
passed a law requiring all their law enforcement authorities
to notify relevant embassies of the detentions of foreign
nationals.

13.(SBU) DHS/ICE Campbell explained that there are 17,000
state and local law enforcement authorities in the United
States, and that ICE is not aware of all arrests of foreign
nationals. The state and local authorities are responsible
for making consular notification. ICE only knows when
individuals come into its custody after serving sentences.
DCM added that the USG appreciates MFA's help in alerting Lao
authorities at the district level of the duty to report
detentions of foreign nationals. State/L McLeod stressed
that the State Department is constantly reaching out to state
and local law enforcement authorities in the U.S. to remind
them of their consular notification responsibilities.

--------------
Repatriation of Lao with Valid Passports
--------------

14.(SBU) ICE Bangkok Macias then asked whether individuals
with unexpired valid passports could be sent back without
vetting the cases through Vientiane. MFA/Cons Bounliep
responded "yes," provided the Embassy receives advance notice
of the return. Campbell undertook to have ICE provide at
least five days notice in the cases of individuals who were
in ICE custody. He noted, however, that there are also cases
where individuals are turned around at the airport and do not
enter ICE custody. Notice should also be provided in those
cases, but realistically might not be received by the Lao
Embassy before the individual arrived in Laos.

15.(SBU) Macias asked whether Lao officers meet everyone who
returns to Laos. The Lao side explained that immigration
officers handle the initial arrivals and interview the
individuals to find out where they are from and how they will
return there. If the Lao Embassy has notified them in
advance, the process is relatively easy. If not, it is
considerably longer and more difficult.

--------------
Losing Lao Nationality
--------------

16.(SBU) The discussion turned briefly to questions about
the responses the Lao side provided to U.S. questions about
loss of nationality. In the case of Lao nationals who lose
nationality when resident abroad, State/L McLeod asked what
the difference was between two categories -- those who lost
nationality after seven years because they were not
authorized to travel, and those who lost nationality after
ten years because they failed to register -- given that exit
visas are no longer required by the GOL. DDG Mai explained
that the first category included those who left the country
without a passport and the second those who left with one.

17.(SBU) McLeod then posed a hypothetical -- a Lao national
who got a tourist visa but then stayed in the U.S. and worked
for 11 year -- and asked whether the individual would lose
Lao nationality. Mai answered "yes," but in response to a
question whether the GOL would consider taking the individual
back, noted that there was a difference between "law" and
"implementation," and that such situations would have to be
addressed case by case. Finally, McLeod asked whether there
were any changes contemplated in the Nationality Law, as had
been suggested at the July 2008 meeting. Mai answered that
the law itself is not going to be changed, but that an
implementing decree is pending with the Prime Minister. DCM
asked to be alerted when the decree is approved.

--------------
U.S. LPRs in Laos
--------------

18.(SBU) DDG Mai raised the case of U.S. legal permanent
residents of Lao origin who came to Laos and chose to stay,
and asked whether the USG would accept them back. DHS/ICE


Campbell explained that, except in special circumstances,
permanent resident status expires after two years, and that
accepting back such an individual would be "very rare."

--------------
Looking Forward, Case by Case
--------------

19.(SBU) DDG Mai closed the meeting by reiterating the GOL
position that repatriation of Lao nationals should be on a
case by case basis, and that there needed to be agreement by
both sides in each case. He indicated that as the procedures
are implemented, the Lao side would be happy to discuss any
issues that might arise. He added that the Lao side could
agree to planning a meeting six months after the procedures
are implemented, as proposed by the U.S. side. The U.S.
delegation promised to forward a revised draft of the
procedures shortly for GOL approval.

20.(SBU) The agreed points from the meeting, as initialed by
DDG Mai and State/L McLeod follow below:


A. The U.S. side will redraft paragraph 4 of the draft
procedures to provide for an initial review by the Lao
Embassy within 30 days of the date of receipt of the request.
In 30 days, the Embassy will notify ICE that the Lao side

(a) will accept the return of the individual; or
(b) will not accept the return of the individual; or
(c) has found defects in the documents; or
(d) has referred the documents to Vientiane for review.

If the Embassy indicates that it will not accept the return
of the individual, the notice will explain why. If the
Embassy indicates that there are defects in the documents, it
will explain the defects.


B. ICE will provide a simple form that the Embassy can use in
making this notification provided for in paragraph 4.


C. The U.S. side will redraft paragraph 5 of the draft
procedures to say that after the Lao side has notified the
U.S. side that a decision has been referred to Vientiane for
decision, the Lao side will try its best to provide a
decision within 60 days after the date of notification. In
cases where a decision is not possible within 60 days, the
Lao Embassy will inform ICE and will provide a decision
afterwards as soon as possible.


D. In cases where a decision is not possible within sixty
days, the Embassy will make an update to ICE by phone or in
writing.


E. A short new paragraph will say that cases involving
unexpired travel documents can be returned to Laos with a
notification to the Embassy. ICE will do its best to provide
at least 5 days advance notice for the cases involving
unexpired passports.


F. The U.S. side will send a new draft of the procedures to
the Lao side via diplomatic note and ask that the Lao side
indicate that it accepts the procedures. The Lao side will
respond by diplomatic note. When the Lao side accepts the
procedures, the two sides will begin applying them
immediately.


G. Within six months, the two sides will meet to review the
implementation of the procedures. The meeting could be either
in Vientiane of in Washington.
HUSO