1. Why the refugee board's decision has formed an additional
risk of return for my family, and me.
(This document).
2. How my lawyer's translator torpedoed my chances to get a positive decision.
(Document #3).
4. My observations regarding the hearings and the negative decision (Document # 3).
(Group of Documents #4).
5. My observations regarding the text of the negative decision ("Conclusive Decision").
(Document # 5).
6. My final statement.
(This document, paragraph 1.7.).
In any decision in our case I ask you to take into consideration the next documents, which I have submitted on November
the 7-th, 1997, for post-determination revue.
7. Adjustment to my refugee claim as an essential explanation of that risk.
(Document # 2).
8. List of supporting documents.
(Document # 6).
9. Supplements.
(Group of Documents # 7).
10.List of Organizations.
(Document AC)
INTRODUCTION
Introduction.1. There are some important, from my point of view, details, which never appeared in my refugee claim.
My advisers were strongly opposed to the next passages.
a) Anything that could throw a shadow to the state's of Israel good image.
b) Statements, which would mention Israeli army.
c) Any claims, which could include politics or politically motivated persecutions.
Introduction.2. They said (may be, indirectly) that the influence of Israeli lobby is very strong everywhere. They said
that by mentioning about the violations of Russian speaking people' human rights in Israel, discrimination of them in
Israeli army, or politics behind persecutions, from which we suffered in Israel, we could make the commissioners just
furious. They could accuse us in exaggerations (a word, which became very popular when an excuse must be
found for an inhuman action) and refuse to accept us as refugees.
Introduction.3. These advisors (including my wife) partly convinced me, partly sounded ultimate. Now I see even
better then before, that they were right, and I must completely recognize their marvelous competition. Now I could
understand that my lawyer's, maitre's Le Brune, recommendations were very wise. In the same time my lawyer's
translator inserted 2 statements into my refugee claim, which I never authorized her to insert and which were in
complete contradiction to my lawyer's recommendations. The 1-st is a statement that I was a well-known dissident in
ex-USSR. The 2-nd is a declarative passage about slavery. In the Document #3 you could read more about this.
Introduction.4. Suspending some information from entering my refugee claim I did it because I was afraid that the IRB members - instead of defining my chances to be a conventional refugee - would define my "guilt".
Introduction.5. But during our refugee hearings (because of my lawyer's translator's distortions and because of
commissioners' aggressive behavior) I was forced to mention such things, which I decided not to mention before.
When it became clear that the commissioners were extremely partial towards us, and that we had no what to loose,
all three above-mentioned "self-restrictions" became not important any more.
Introduction.6. In the same time events, which I was afraid to mention in my refugee claim and my lawyer did not
recommend to mention, were accessible for the Immigration Board as others (besides my main refugee claim)
documents in my file. I handed them over to my lawyer, and he adjusted them to my file before or between the
hearings. It means that the information, which I enter now in Document # 2, is not new, and was in my immigration
file before. In the same time, it was up to my lawyer to share this information or not. Recently I took all documents,
which were in my file, away from my lawyer, including letters to Jerusalem Post (see Document # 5 in