Mitchell urged release of Cubans he now calls a risk to security

By ADRIAN GIBSON

FRED Mitchell, the Minister of Immigration and Foreign Affairs, claimed on Friday that two Cubans who had been detained unlawfully for nearly three years and released by the Supreme Court last week were “national security risks”, three months after he had sought Cabinet approval for their release on parole into the Bahamian population.

Mr Mitchell’s response, in which he said he was alerting border controls to the potential risk posed by Lazaro Seara Marin and Carlos Pupo Mendoza after their release on writs of habeas corpus on Thursday and ordering an investigation, was in complete contrast to a Cabinet memorandum he wrote on November 13, 2015, which has been seen by The Tribune.

In it Mr Mitchell sought to “seek Cabinet’s approval pursuant to the recommendation of the Department of Immigration to parole into the general population from Her Majesty’s Prison both Cuban-born Lazaro (Seara) Marin, aged 39, and Carlos Pupo Mendoza, age 44.”

On Thursday, Supreme Court Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs issued writs of habeas corpus and ordered the release of Marin and Mendoza from the Department of Correctional Services. The Cubans were deemed to have been unlawfully detained for nearly three years. During the hearing, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Franklyn Williams, who appeared on behalf of Commissioner of the Department of Corrections Patrick Wright, submitted to the court that there would be no opposition to the Cubans’ applications.

On Friday, Mr Mitchell released a strongly-worded statement, which said that “the Department of Immigration takes the position that these individuals are a national security risk”.

“We continue to support that position,” Mr Mitchell’s statement said. “Those were the clear instructions from our principals at the highest levels to pursue that position. Those instructions did not change and were not changed.”

Mr Mitchell questioned the ruling, claiming that he has “asked for an investigation then into how a court was persuaded that two people that the government believes with cogent evidence are a security risk, were released into the general population of The Bahamas”.

“All of our border forces have been notified to the potential risk of these individuals being out in the general community and should be so warned,” he said. The minister concluded his statement with the pledge that he expects “to present a full report to the House” on Wednesday.

However, in the memo, signed by Mr Mitchell and by Mychele Mazuir on behalf of Permanent Secretary Philip Miller and submitted to Cabinet on November 16, 2015, Mr Mitchell itemised the historical context of Mr Marin’s and Mr Mendoza’s imprisonment and time in the Bahamas. He said they were residents of the United States, both with criminal records, which meant they continued to be denied eligibility to return. That would also be a barrier to their resettlement in other countries he noted due to the policy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on persons with criminal records.

The memo, which was attached to a Department of Immigration report from November 10, 2015, recommended they be released into the general Bahamian population with an Asylum Seeker Certificate to prevent their re-arrest and that they satisfied safety criteria. The salient points which Mr Mitchell wrote to his Cabinet colleagues included:

“2. Lazara (Seara) Marin and Carlos Pupo Mendoza had resident status in the United States of America at the time they were apprehended in the Bahamas. Mr Marin was a Lawful Alien Resident, and Mr Mendoza was a Permanent Resident.

“3. Mr Marin was apprehended with eleven other Cuban migrants by the Royal Bahamas Police Force on March 20th, 2013 near Kemp’s Bay, Andros. He was same-day committed to the Detention Centre, New Providence.

“4. Mr Mendoza was found landed at Sandy Point, Abaco, and charged with, and ultimately fined for, Illegal Landing contrary to section 19 (1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration Act.”

“5. The deportation order on Marin is two years and seven months in existence as of March 20th, 2013; and the deportation order on Mr. Mendoza is two years and five months in existence as of June 12th, 2013. Both Mr Marin and Mr Mendoza have criminal records in the United States. To date they continue to be denied eligibility to re-enter the United States as a result of their respective criminal records. Their criminal records are also a barrier to assistance in securing 3rd country resettlement through the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The UNHCR policy bars persons with criminal records from its assistance.”

“6. Mr Marin and Mr Mendoza are currently detained at Her Majesty’s Prison as a result of suspicion of their inciting uprising by other Cuban nationals at the New Providence Detention Centre, and an attempted escape by Mr Mendoza.”

Although Mr Mitchell questioned “how a court was persuaded that two people that the government believes with cogent evidence are a security risk, were released into the general population of The Bahamas” on Friday, he told his Cabinet colleagues, at point seven of the November 2015 memo, that “the annexed Report by the Department of Immigration (a report dated November 10th, 2015) has raised concern with regard to the matter of any substantive legal action and/or concern for the profile of the Bahamas as a result of the lengthy detention of Mr Marin and Mr Mendoza respectively while all diplomatic efforts by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have to date not yielded a resettlement solution in these matters.”

The Foreign Minister requested the Cabinet’s support in ascertaining the release of Mr Marin and Mr Mendoza into the general population with the issuance of an Asylum Seeker Certificate to each of the men.

He said: “8. It is in the view that colleagues are being asked to support the position as it may arise from time to time to identify long-detained migrants in detention in the Bahamas who satisfy security criteria to be paroled into the general population where repatriation or 3rd country settlement continues to be extant and/or barred.”

“9. It is therefore recommended by officials that Mr Marin and Mr Mendoza be released into the general population with the issuance to each of an Asylum Seeker Certificate in order to prevent their re-arrest.”

Concluding his memo, Mr Mitchell extended an invitation to his Cabinet colleagues to:

“(a) Note that Mr Lazaro (Seara) Marin and Mr Carlos Pupo Mendoza continue to be detained pending deportation for 2 years and 7 months and 2 years and 5 months respectively.

(b) Note that Mr Lazaro (Seara) Marin and Mr Carlos Pupo Mendoza have not been granted eligibility to re-enter the United States of America as a result of their respective criminal records in the United States of America.

(c) Note that a 3rd country resettlement for Mr Lazaro (Seara) Marin and Mr Carlos Pupo Mendoza would not be facilitated by the UNHCR as a result of the UNHCR’s policy not to assist persons on whom there is a criminal record.

(d) Authorise the release of the two men with an Asylum Certificate or otherwise.”

Adrian Gibson is a former Tribune reporter and writes the Young Man’s View column on Thursdays, in which he has written often about human rights violations in the Bahamas. He is a lawyer who was part of the legal team who secured the release of the two Cubans last week. Comments to ajbahama@hotmail.com

Comments

TruePeople says...

Wtf? If they're American, then send them to America, If they're Cuban Send them to Cuba. When Bahamians get a criminal charge in the states, they get sent back here.

Why are we holding onto US prisoners for the US if they really are US persons? And if we are doing this is the US PAYING US TO?! (Or Cuba, or wherever their supposed to be). QUOTE - Mr Marin was a Lawful Alien Resident, and Mr Mendoza was a Permanent Resident. <- is that in the US or here, i'm a bit confused

That being said, administrative bureaucracy is not justification to jail people indefinitely. Alot of Bahamian Criminals seem to be able to get bail, and are somehow not considered threats to national security. How would this case be different? (Throwing round 'national security' so vaguely is just reminiscent of American Political Parlance... and lacks any specific meaning)

Posted 22 February 2016, 2 p.m. Suggest removal

banker says...

It's just Mad Cow Fweddie talking out of both of his faces at different times. Mitchell makes Pinocchio look like an amateur. Take a closer look at the photo. You can still see a bit of bullsh*t around his lips. Somehow Fweddie thinks that he is above the law.

Posted 22 February 2016, 4:27 p.m. Suggest removal

Ailanic says...

We're running on a dictatorship nation, thing is. The government will soon complain about the US for cutting our trades and shippped food supplies. This will soon hit the lowest point, but any other low point can go even more deeper.

Posted 22 February 2016, 6:42 p.m. Suggest removal

birdiestrachan says...

If America does not want them and Cuba does not want them . It seems the Bahamas has to allow them to stay here. I suppose that is the law.so my question who provides housing and food for them?

Posted 22 February 2016, 9:56 p.m. Suggest removal

Cas0072 says...

Realizing that immigration was legally out of options, the minister presents this position to the board and it is subsequently rejected. And as is their mandate, the department of immigration proceeds in carrying out the decision of the board. It actually sounds like he is doing his job, and not via dictatorship or arbitrarily, as many insist. Maybe certain outspoken QCs and his blind sheep should stop personalizing this a Fred Mitchell thing for bonus points and stay focused on the issue(s), if that is indeed what is about.

Posted 22 February 2016, 10:56 p.m. Suggest removal

banker says...

The issue here is why is Fred Mitchell expressing two diametrically opposite points? Is that cognitively impaired? Is his ethical compass such that it swings with his moods, popular opinion or other unknown factors. The point of this whole article, is that Mr. Mitchell defies rationality when he states two completely different and opposing points of view - one to his cabinet colleagues and one to the public. This type of erratic behaviour is anathema to good governance, and adherence to the very principles of honesty and truthfulness, which are very very plastic when it comes to Fred Mitchell. His type of person doesn't belong in circles of good governance, and it does harm to the Bahamas.

The simplest solution to this whole mess, was that when the men failed to qualify for US re-entry, they should have been put on a plane to Cuba, instead of detaining them for years. It reminds me of the case where the Japanese tourist was illegally held for many many years until a Good Samaritan lawyer got him released and he successfully sued the Bahamian government. Putting it bluntly, our governmental agencies do not operate efficiently or in some cases even operate at all. Part of the reason, is that men like Fred Mitchell who are unacquainted with the truth over 50% of the time are running these governmental institutions.

Posted 23 February 2016, 10:39 a.m. Suggest removal

Cas0072 says...

The point is, he made the case where it should have been made, which is in the house in front of the sitting MPs who make up the board. And as the constitution holds, the department of immigration acted in accordance with the board's decision and as the minister, he publicly supported said position. That is his duty. Yes, he could have gone rogue like Leslie Miller and almost everyone in the FNM, but going along with decisions that we may not fully support is a fact of life for everyone. But then again, he is constantly accused of going rogue with regard to immigration laws and this proves otherwise.

Cuba also rejected these men. However, if you are saying that they should have been put on a plane to their country of citizenship, much like the US does, then I agree.

Posted 23 February 2016, 12:02 p.m. Suggest removal

banker says...

Yep -- put them back on a plane to their country of citizenship. The US does this. Australia does this. Canada does this. Fact of life.

Posted 23 February 2016, 12:15 p.m. Suggest removal

TalRussell says...

Comrades the offical opposition and others who have become involved with this mater should/must been made aware that it is not as simple as deporting the two men back to their homeland of Cuba and it deals with security issues. And, that the Minister is limited as to what he can talk about in the public domain.

Posted 23 February 2016, 10:30 a.m. Suggest removal

My2cents says...

How any Bahamian is comfortable with accepting criminals into the general population of the country when everyone has denied them for that very reason, is absurd. They are criminals who should be deported, or remanded to Fox Hill for as long as it takes to get them deported. No country in the world allows illegal alien criminals the opportunity to start anew and assimilate with their law abiding citizens. Even the U.S. holds such persons indefinitely. The only debate that should be taking place now is how this was allowed to happen and what will be done to fix it...not what the minister said months prior and now. It's irrelevant.

Posted 23 February 2016, 1:07 p.m. Suggest removal

TruePeople says...

we shouldn't be holding onto other countries criminals. If they have no status here then why should they be added to our over burdened prison? What? Bahamas sissy aye? They is Cuban and Cuba say no y'all keep them we ein want them and Bahamas is just say 'Yes Cuba! Right away Cuba!'.

I ein see how you can positively interperate what FMitch sayin. The Courts obviously don't agree with Mitchell.....

Posted 23 February 2016, 1:50 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment