BERLIN SENATE ADMINISTRATION DEFENDS DECISION TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BERLIN 000037 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT PASS TO DRL/IRF NANCY HEWITT; EUR/CE CHRIS HODGES AND PETER SCHROEDER E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/12/2020 TAGS: GM KIRF PGOV PHUM PREL SUBJECT: BERLIN SENATE ADMINISTRATION DEFENDS DECISION TO DENY RESIDENCE PERMITS TO AMCIT SCIENTOLOGISTS REF: A. BERLIN 1464 ¶B. STATE 121804 Classified By: Minister-Counselor for Political Affairs George Glass fo r reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Division Director for Foreigner Issues at the Berlin Senate Administration for Interior Issues and Sport, Peter Marhofer, firmly defended his office's denial of residency permits for two AmCit Scientologists to Embassy PolOff on both technical grounds and based on their Scientology affiliation. Marhofer argued that the two applicants were unable to demonstrate that their costs of living would be met by the Church of Scientology during their one year stay in Germany and cited the applicants' inability to provide any evidence of having health insurance while residing in Germany. He categorized the Church of Scientology's activities as posing a "threat to Germany's constitutional order" and raised the question of why the USG was interested in a residence permit denial order case, the outcome of which the Church of Scientology had failed to appeal. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (SBU) PolOff met January 8 with Peter Marhofer, Division Director for Foreigner Issues at the Berlin Senate Administration for Interior Issues and Sport, to register USG concern (per reftel) over the Berlin Senate's treatment of two AmCit Scientologists, who had, pursuant to their documentation, wanted to temporarily reside in Berlin to help train local church staff to assume executive positions in the Church of Scientology organization. Marhofer expressed his familiarity with the cases since it was not common for the Berlin Foreigner Office to refuse residence permits for AmCits. Marhofer said that in comparison with the United States, Germany, and in particular, Berlin, has very lax restrictions regarding residence permit applications. In this case, according to Marhofer, it was clear that the applicants had failed to fulfill the prerequisites for obtaining a residence permit -- even leaving the Scientology association aside. Specifically, Marhofer noted that the applicants were unable to demonstrate that their costs of living would be met by the Church of Scientology during their one year stay in Germany. In addition, Marhofer cited what he referred to as the applicants' inability to provide any evidence of having health insurance while residing in Germany. ¶3. (SBU) PolOff raised U.S. concern about religious discrimination against the Church of Scientology and specific language in the denial orders. Marhofer said the State of Berlin, through its Office for the Protection of the Constitution (OPC),had evidence that the Church of Scientology poses a "threat to Germany's constitutional order." (NOTE: Berlin's OPC actively monitors Church of Scientology activities in Berlin. END NOTE.) ¶4. (C) Marhofer further noted that the officer processing the cases was not convinced that the applicants' intention was to train local staff to assume executive positions within the Church of Scientology. Instead, the officer feared that the individuals in question "were only students who wanted to take courses at the Church" raising doubt about the applicants' true intentions. Marhofer cited OPC information to support the officer's decision. ¶5. (SBU) Marhofer went on to express his surprise with the USG's interest in a case that the Church of Scientology had not even decided to appeal. PolOff reiterated USG support for minority religious groups and noted that the denial order specifically targeted Scientologists in this instance. Marhofer said, "if that were the case, why did the Church of Scientology not challenge the order?" He further argued: "the Church of Scientology did not challenge the denial orders because their documentation was very weak." He added -- in an open challenge directed against the Church of Scientology -- "the Church of Scientology missed a golden opportunity to further test German law." ¶6. (C) COMMENT: Marhofer argued the Berlin Senate's case in a calm manner sticking to what he perceived were the facts. He appeared to take the USG's interests in safeguarding the BERLIN 00000037 002 OF 002 rights of minority religious organizations very seriously but said that in this case, "the Berlin Senate was not convinced that the applicants were pursuing religious activities in Germany." At the end of the meeting, Marhofer offered to serve as an interlocutor with the Embassy on residence permit issues with AmCits in Berlin. Marhofer indicated more than once during the conversation that a formal appeal by the aggrieved AmCits would have been the next logical step in challenging the denial order. END COMMENT. MURPHY