Igor Skrijevski Galina Skrijevskaia

Dear Mr. Teeven ! We would like to make few general observation before we kindly reply and state our disagreements on fact and circumstances in your decision to reject our petition. With all do respect, but in your letter You never mentioned, not a single time, such important concepts like Human Rights; Country of Habitual Residence; False Travel Documents ( from the US ). Considering the fact that the US does not have any agreement with Ukraine on exchange of third-county nationals and stateless persons such act - our transportation to Ukraine - was made possible only through fraudulent and unlawful act. For some twisted reasons You blame us for it. We did not fabricated false documents made in the US. We are the victims of unlawful political act. Victims must be protected. And we ask for protection. Our reactions will follow. Betreft de heer Igor Skrijevski en mevrouw Galina Skrijevskaia Op 13 mei jl. heeft u mijn aandacht gevraagd voor de situatie van uw clinten, de heer Igor Skrijevski en mevrouw Galinea Skrijevskaia. U heeft mij verzocht mijn discretionaire bevoegdheid toe te passen opdat er een verblijfsrechtelijke oplossing wordt geboden. Uw verzoek is naast enkele ondersteunende stukken vergezeld door steunbetuigingen van de heer Voordewind, de heer Crielaard c.s., de heer Visscher en door een toelichting van uw clinten zelf. Omdat de verschillende brieven ingaan op de verschillende aspecten in deze complexe zaak heb ik er voor gekozen om deze tezamen te beantwoorden door middel van deze brief. Hierbij probeer ik ook in te gaan op verschillende punten die naar voren zijn gekomen in aanvullende gesprekken die zijn gevoerd met de belangenbehartigers van uw clinten, waaronder een gesprek op 24 juni jl. Ik zal deze aspecten puntsgewijs behandelen, Een afschrift van mijn antwoord zal ik dan ook aan alle betrokkenen sturen. Ten aanzien van de verblijfsrechtelijke situatie van het echtpaar in de Verenigde Staten en de gang van zaken rond hun uitzetting door de Amerikaanse autoriteiten moet ik stellen dat ik niet over een dossier beschik, Het ligt niet in de rede dat ik hier een oordeel over vel. [ 1 ] Het feit dat de VS uw clinten heeft uitgezet duidt wat mij betreft wel op het feit dat zij daar geen legaal verblijf genoten. Wel zal ik nader ingaan op de vermeende betrokkenheid van de Nederlandse overheid bij de uitzetting naar Oekrane, Reaction: Please notice: we never enjoyed legal or any residence in Ukraine. [ 2 ] De Nederlandse overheid was op geen enkel moment betrokken bij of genformeerd over de uitzetting van uw clinten uit de VS naar Oekrane via Schiphol.

Reaction: It is extremely difficult to agree with such statement because after initial investigation of our case in 2008 - 2009 we have been informed by Rob Baljon ( officer of DT&V ) in presence of Pieter Sonafeldt ( crisis team IND ) that American authorities made arrangement with Dutch authorities about our deportation through phone call and without paper trails. Such arrangement was necessary, by the law, for two reasons : Chicago Convention for Civil Aviation Annex 9 Chapter 5 : Inadmissible Persons and Deportees 5.20 Contracting State, in making arrangements for removal of deportee to a destination State, shall use direct non-stop flights whenever practicable. 5.24 Contracting States, when determining that a deportee must be escorted and itinerary involves a transit stop in an intermediary State, shall ensure that escort remains the deportee to his final destination, unless suitable alternative arrangements are agreed, in advance of arrival, by the authorities and aircraft operator involved at the transit location. - this is exactly that happened in our case. [ 3 ] In tegenstelling tot wat uw clinten beweren bestaat er geen enkele internationale juridische grondslag die uitzettingen via andere landen zou verbieden. Reaction: With all do respect we never stated that deportation through third country is prohibited. But it is undesirable and limited. In addition to the Chicago Convention; Annex 9; 5.20 ( see above ) the Netherlands , as a Member of European Community usually complies with European law: Council Directives 2003/110/EC of 25 November 2003 On assistance in cases of transit for purposes of removal by air Article 4 1. The request for escorted or unescorted transit by air and associated assistance measures under Article 5(1) shall be made in writing by requesting Member State [ 4 ] Daarnaast, wanneer de KLM door een (buitenlandse) overheid wordt verzocht een persoon te vervoeren in het kader van een uitzetting uit dat desbetreffende land, vindt er geen enkel overleg plaats met de Nederlandse autoriteiten. Ook niet in het geval van uw clinten. Reaction: According to the European Law authorities of a transit country must be informed ( see above ) and authorize escort to perform their duties such as detention or restriction of movement of deportees. Without such authorization foreign nationals have no rights for law enforcement on the Dutch territory such as Dutch airplane and Shiphol transit zone. [ 5 ] De Koninklijke Marechaussee was evenmin genformeerd over de uitzetting van uw clinten via Schiphol naar Oekrane. Dat is ook niet gebruikelijk, tenzij om assistentie wordt gevraagd. De Koninklijke Marechaussee heeft niet zo'n verzoek ontvangen. Met andere woorden, ik betwist ten zeerste het beeld dat de Nederlandse overheid op enige wijze de uitzetting van de VS naar Oekrane heeft gefaciliteerd. Reaction: Again , it is difficult to agree with such statement because of

European regulations: European Civil Aviation Conference Policy Statement in the Field of Civil Aviation Facilitation, DOC No. 30 10th edition / December 2006 Annex D Guidelines on Deportation and Escort 2.6 In making arrangements for removal of deportees to the destination country direct non-stop flights should be used whenever possible. 2.7 The deporting State shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that the authorities at the final destination, and at any intermediate transit location, are advised of the deportees movement. 3.6 the escort remains with passenger to his final destination unless suitable arrangements are made in advance with the authorities and any connecting airlines at the transit location. If Royal Military Police was not made agreement in advance, in this case, they must to verify documents of people boarding a plane in Schiphol ( like all other passengers ). In 2011 Royal Military police confirmed, that we can not fly and make transit with documents in question ( New York - Schiphol - Kiev ). [6] In de brieven wordt aangegeven dat uw clinten in Nederland terecht zijn gekomen nadat zij door de Oekraense autoriteiten zouden zijn uitgezet met de documenten die zij op dat moment bij zich hadden. In de mij bekende gegevens heb ik geen informatie gevonden die deze stelling ondersteunt. Reaction: We still in possession of originals orders and copies of the travel documents related to our expulsion from Ukraine in 2008. Even more : the IND and DT&V have copies of all these documents and, as they claim, the DT&V have our original travel document related to expulsion from Ukraine and stamped ( marked ) for deportation. [7] Uw clinten zijn in augustus 2008 op Schiphol bij de grenscontrole staande gehouden nadat zij zichzelf daar zelfstandig en vrijwillig presenteerden om de Schengengrens te passeren met de intentie om door te reizen naar Parijs. Volgens hun reisgegevens was het de bedoeling om vanuit Parijs door te reizen naar New York. Reaction: With all do respect it is very dishonest to make false official statements even if they were fabricated by the Ministers deputies. Yes, we independently and voluntary presented ourselves to the Dutch authorities after expulsion from Ukraine in 2008 - the same way like we independently and voluntary presented ourselves to Ukrainian authorities after deportation from USA and arriving in Kiev from Schiphol in 2007. We were not stopped at Schiphol at the border because we never intended to go to the border or through the border. We never been at the border. We never tried to cross the border. Directly from the airplane we reported ourselves to the Immigration Office located well before actual border and tell the Immigration Officer everything: how and why we ended up in Schiphol; we do not have means to travel any further; and we need help and assistance from the Dutch government. We immediately and officially reported controversy about French Shengen visa ( with all details - how and who placed it in our passports and why ) - and all these answers were officially recorded by Immigration Officer - and we signed official report on August 29, 2008 - couple of

hours after our arrival in Schiphol. Outrageous fantasies about intentions to travel to Paris and beyond are very offensive because its a lie. It never happened, it was never intended and the Minister do not have any facts or documents or statements to prove it. [8] Reden voor de staande houding was het feit dat de door hun gepresenteerde Oekraense vreemdelingen paspoorten vervalste Franse Schengenvisa bevatten. Thans wordt door uw clinten gesteld dat deze valse Schengenvisa door de Oekraense autoriteiten zijn geleverd. Reaction: Correction: we never had Ukrainian foreign passport which issued only to refugees legally residing in Ukraine. According to the decisions and follow the orders from the Courts we were issued Stateless Person Travel Documents which do not give rights to enter Ukraine without legal residence permit in Ukraine. We never had such residence permit. Reason for our initial detention was not a false Shengen visa per se, but our open and well intended petition addressed to the Dutch authorities to help us with our unusual situation. We were traveling with Stateless Persons Travel Documents with stamps of expulsion from Ukraine ( we have copies and the DT&V claims they still have originals ). French Shengen visa was a method of expulsion arranged by the Ukrainian authorities - and we immediately reported that upon arrival. As it is related to our unusual case: different governments used different methods of expulsion / deportation / removal. The US authorities used false Ukrainian travel document in 2007; Ukrainians used false Shengen visa in 2008; the DT&V used false EU Standard travel document in 2009. We strongly disagree that it is fair or appropriate to blame us for it. [9] Ik heb echter geen bewijzen die dit bevestigen noch ontkrachten. Uit het dossier kan ik echter niet achterhalen dat zij bij aankomst op Schiphol hiervan aangifte hebben gedaan. Wel is een proces verbaal opgesteld door de Koninklijke Marechaussee van de staande houding i.v.m. de vervalste Schengenvisa. Reaction: As a fact, the Chief Prosecutor of Schiphol airport, who has ultimate jurisdiction over Schiphol area, made a decision not to charge us with any visa violations because of our unusual situation and honest answers. And we did not try to cross the borders of the Netherlands. [ 10 ] Bovendien waren de Nederlandse autoriteiten op geen enkele wijze op de hoogte van een uitzetting vanuit Oekrane via Amsterdam, via Parijs naar New York. Reaction: In the previous remarks the Minister stated that authorities of the Netherlands were not aware about our deportation from New York through Schiphol and to Kiev in 2007, and Ukrainians claim the same. It looks like nobody tells anyone anything, and we are in a middle, abused, persecuted and shipped between the countries - which is a definition of refugees-in-orbit. [ 11 ] Indien zij dus daadwerkelijk zijn uitgezet uit de Oekra'ine en niet zelfstandig zijn vertrokken, strookt dit ook niet met de opvatting van uw clinten en hun belangenbehartigers dat uitzettingen alleen zouden kunnen plaatsvinden via rechtstreekse vliegverbindingen.

Ais deze opvatting al internationale praktijk zou zijn, zou volgens deze redenering de vermeende uitzetting in 2008 vanuit de Oekrane ook onrechtmatig zijn geweest. Reaction: According to the papers from Ukrainian government ( originals available ) their actions had one goal : expulsion beyond the borders of Ukraine. As we understand they acted in accordance with established practices and policies within European community. After failed attempt to place us on Ukrainian airline flying directly to New York on June 13, 2008 ( please, notice: Ukrainian or American airlines did not transported us from New York, but KLM did ) they arranged the next best option : expulsion back to Schiphol on the board of KLM. To our knowledge it was arranged based on the only documented evidence of our unlawful journey : the KLM airline ticket Amsterdam - Kiev dated May 23, 2007. Internal details of arrangement are unknown to us. We were told what to do by the officers of militarized police ( ukr : milicia ), and we did it. We were directed to fly to Amsterdam, and we did. It was the only acceptable choice for us after we were threatened to be expelled to Russia or Kazakhstan, warned about potential prison detention, threatened to be placed in psychiatric hospital or buried alive- these are exact words and intended actions of Ukrainian official from Kiev (during private conversation in October 2007 ) threats of physical violence followed. After so many years of suffering and endless vicious circle we now under an opinion that the Minister should approach American authorities who intentionally or through negligence made the Netherlands a country of destination. [ 12 ] Het ligt dan des te meer in de rede dat dit zo snel mogelijk, vanuit Oekrane, wordt hersteld. Reaction: All international treaties, obligations and responsibilities only apply within jurisdiction of a State where person physically present. This is the Law. Return to the soil of Ukraine is not an option because: a) technical and legal issues; b) we refuse to avail ourselves to any kind of jurisdiction of the officials and the State that already grossly violated our human rights and our life and freedom was and is in danger in Ukraine. And its not our country. To resolve this situation on the soil or at the border of the US would be more appropriate solution considering that our flight and our journey originated in New York, and definitely not in Kiev. [ 13 ] Dat uw clinten ondanks het door de VS opgelegde inreisverbod - waarvan zij op de hoogte waren - met vervalste Schengenvisa via een onduidelijke weg naar New York probeerden te reizen wekt bij mij echter het beeld dat zij willens en weten hebben geprobeerd dit inreisverbod te omzeilen. Reaction. First of all, we dont think any reasonable person could or would believe in this elaborated fantasy. There was no Paris, there was no New York at that time. There was only Schiphol. And we dont know the people who would, in their rightful mind, try to fly to New York with Shengen visa. Second, entry ban was imposed on citizens of Ukraine who are legal permanent residents of the United States according to the US deportation papers. The only reason

for entry ban: immigration violation which is not a crime. We are not citizens of Ukraine, and we are not holders of US Green Card - it is obviously a mistake and must be resolved only within US jurisdiction. Entry ban does not preclude a person from traveling to the borders of the US ( to be expelled / removed / deported to the borders of the US ) and ask the US authorities to cancel entry ban and , I quote : depending on the circumstances of the removal the US border guards will decide further actions. [ 14 ] In de verschillende brieven wordt ook ingegaan op de wijze waarop de Nederlandse overheid de asielprocedures heeft afgehandeld. Er wordt ondermeer gesuggereerd dat de IND het echtpaar zou hebben geadviseerd om een asielaanvraag in te dienen. Daarnaast wordt ook door uw clinten de suggestie gewekt dat de 1ND onterecht de asielverzoeken heeft afgewezen. Laat ik in de eerste plaats benadrukken dat vreemdelingen nooit gedwongen worden een asielaanvraag in te dienen. Uw clinten hebben dit wel vermeld in hun eerste nader gehoor, maar zij zijn er toen al direct op gewezen dat zij de formulieren vrijwillig hebben getekend. Reaction: We never stated that the IND forced us to apply for asylum in the Netherlands. No, it was done by the border guards who put us in isolated, separate detention cells in Schiphol without access to a lawyer or advisor and insisted that they will keep us in the cells until we ask and sign papers for asylum in the Netherlands. Why ? Reason for doing so ? Obviously to transfer responsibility from the airport authorities to the IND. During five years in the Netherlands we heard we same story many times and realized that it is ( or it was ) standard practice at Schiphol airport. In addition, border guards have tricked us by promising to transfer us to the USA at the later time after IND will evaluate our situation and recognize that the US is responsible for processing applications for asylum in our case ( as we understand there are such provisions in the Dutch Law - Aliens Act 2000, Section 30 (a )). Yes, we use word forced application for asylum to avoid misunderstanding. Proper wording would be: application for asylum under duress. Yes, the IND unjustly rejected our applications for asylum by refusing to recognize us as the refugees. According to 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 New York Protocol, Article 1 A. (2) : the term refugee shall apply to any person who not having a nationality and being outside the county of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owning to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. It is not such a difficult definition ! [ 15 ] Zij hebben toen overigens ook gemeld dat zij een eventuele verblijfsvergunning in Nederland zouden weigeren, omdat zij naar de VS willen. Reaction: We thankful to the Minister for bringing up this subject. We never received a firm offer of a residence permit in the Netherlands. However, there was a question, in 2009: If we [ IND ] offer you a residence permit in the Netherlands, as Ukrainians ? Obvious answer was: We will refuse. Our first lawyer Hanno Bos, in 2008 explained to us that the IND will never grant us asylum residence permit. As we understand, from the provisions of the Alien Act, any other type of residence permit will be ineffective due to our specific situation of de jure stateless persons.

At that time we honestly believed that DT&V could arrange our transfer to the USA. If such offer ( of residence permit ) was seriously contemplated by the IND in the past, we are kindly, but urgently asking the Minister to renew this offer for de jure stateless persons in order to reinstate violated human right. [ 16 ] Uw clinten zijn door de IND uitgebreid gehoord over hun asielmotieven, en in de gelegenheid gesteld om aan te geven wat hen in de VS en in Oekrane is overkomen. Alle aspecten zijn meegenomen in de beoordeling van hun aanvragen, maar hebben niet geleid tot een asielvergunning, omdat er geen reden werd gezien om aan te nemen dat uw clinten bescherming nodig hadden. Al in het voornemen in de eerste asielprocedure is gemotiveerd ingegaan op hetgeen nu weer is aangevoerd in de verschillende brieven. Zoals u weet zijn deze besluiten bij uitspraak van de Afdeling d.d. 1 augustus 2011, in rechte onaantastbaar. Reaction: Forcibly displaced persons - from the US or from any other country - always in need of protection. The Minister by himself implies that we need a protection, but for some reasons, according to the Minister, we must ask for protection in Ukraine after that country officially violated our human rights and created conditions for our homelessness, destitution and rightlessness - which is a fact and conclusion of the multiple Ukrainian Courts. Nobody prevents the IND to review our asylum claims again and grant us asylum residence permit. We just asking for discretion and political will to do that.

[ 17 ] In tegenstelling tot het beeld dat door uw clinten wordt geschetst, heeft de Nederlandse overheid, binnen de beschikbare mogelijkheden, wel degelijk geprobeerd om na de eerste afwijzing op de asielaanvraag het vertrek naar en de toegang tot de Verenigde Staten te faciliteren. Graag verwijs ik ondermeer naar de beantwoording door mijn voorganger op vragen van de Tweede Kamer ter zake. (Voetnoot: Tweede
Kamer, Vergaderjaar 2011-2012: Vragen gesteld door de leden der Kamer (TK 2011225637), met de daarop door de regering gegeven antwoorden (908), ontvangen 13 december 2011. )

Reaction: With all do respect this is very misleading and untrue statement. After rejection of the first application for asylum, and any time later, we are not aware of any attempt of the Dutch government to mediate with American authorities about our return to the US. Every actions towards the US, ever mentioned by the DT&V and the Minister, took place during our first six months in the Netherlands, well before rejection of application for asylum. Probably Mr. Teeven is not aware, but our application was rejected on September 3, 2009; on October 8, 2009 we were arrested for deportation; and on October 16, 2009 we were deported to Ukraine with false EU Standard travel documents of Ukrainian citizens produced by the DT&V. Such actions do not indicate any effort of the DT&V to return us to the US. In addition, according to the statement of the Rhodia Maas ( Head of the DT&V ) made on national TV on September 16, 2011 it is our own responsibility [ not the DT&V ] to contact American authorities and return to the US. [ 18 ] Daarnaast heeft de DT&V mede op verzoek van UNHCR Nederland zich bereid getoond om de advocaat van uw clinten in de VS te woord te staan en zo

nodig van informatie te voorzien ten behoeve van eventuele procedures in de VS tegen de Amerikaanse overheid. Tot op heden is de DT&V nog altijd niet door uw Amerikaanse collega benaderd. Reaction: Yes, the UNHCR has mandate and power to protect stateless people and it is within the scope of responsibly of the UNHCR to refer us for resettlement in the USA through Priority 1 category - independently, but cooperation from the Dutch government strongly advised. As we understand, the UNHCR Officer in the Netherlands has unique and very close relationship with Dutch government. We are not blind or stupid. So far we have been pushed between Dutch government - the UNHCR - American lawyer, but nobody wants to initiate any action and try to find durable solution. [ 19 ] Doordat daarmee voor wat de Nederlandse overheid betreft duidelijk was geworden dat een terugkeer naar de VS niet tot de mogelijkheden behoorde heeft de DT&V zijn aandacht richting Oekrane gewend. Gegeven de complexiteit van de zaak van uw clinten is hier ook in het kader van zorgvuldigheid uitvoerig contact geweest met de Oekraense autoriteiten. Reaction : According to Mr. Leers, December 8, 2011 : Door de Nederlandse overheid zijn hierover geen afspraken gemaakt [ tussen de Oekraine en Nederland ] [ 20 ] Uw clinten stellen tevens dat de Nederlandse overheid met in hun ogen onbevoegde functionarissen in Oekrane heeft samengewerkt om hun toelating tot de Oekrane te waarborgen. Dit is niet het geval. Ik merk hierbij op dat ten tijde van de contacten met de Oekraense overheid in de zaak van uw clinten is de verantwoordelijkheid voor de uitvoering van de Terug- en Overnameovereenkomst tussen de Europese Unie en Oekrane overgeheveld van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken naar de State Migration Service. Daarom zijn verschillende brieven ondertekend door verschillende functionarissen. Reaction : As it is a fact, the same Ukrainian official produced multiple letters beginning second half of October 2011. Some letters are signed, some dont. As a fact, this person whos name appears on the letters was dismissed from his position on October 5, 2011 and was not authorized to make any decisions or sign any letters. According to annual Index of Corruption compiled by Transparency International Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe and has the same level of corruption as Syria. Its inevitable that the Dutch government, without realizing this fact, makes illegal arrangements with the most corrupt and criminalized officials in Europe.

[ 21 ] Tijdens deze contacten is inderdaad ook naar voren gekomen dat uw clinten niet in het bezit zijn van de Oekraense nationaliteit. Dit is ook zo bevestigd in de uitspraak van de Opperste Bestuursrechtbank d.d. 03 november 2011. De reden hiervoor ligt in het feit dat uw clinten nimmer voor de Oekraense nationaliteit hebben geopteerd na het uiteenvallen van de Sovjet-Unie. Dit wordt ook niet door de Nederlandse overheid betwist.

Reaction : As everybody knows we were expelled from Ukraine and arrived in the Netherlands in 2008 with Stateless Person Travel Documents and other multiple documents confirming the fact that we indeed do not have nationality of Ukraine. But it was strongly disputed by the IND for at least two years and, we think, it was a main reason for rejection of application for asylum. At this moment we will not elaborate on complexity of relevant American and Ukrainian legislation and our political opinion. We just make a statement that considering all facts and circumstances we never had this option of Ukrainian citizenship. [ 22 ] Ik ben het echter niet met u en uw medeschrijvers eens dat dit moet leiden tot een verblijfsstatus. De Oekraense Opperste Bestuursrechtbank heeft juist de Oekraense overheid verantwoordelijk gesteld om de toegang tot de VS te waarborgen om kort gezegd de situatie van voor 2007 te herstellen. Dit schept geen enkele verantwoordelijkheid of verplichting voor de Nederlandse overheid. Daar is de Oekraense rechter immers dok niet toe bevoegd. 1)Tweede Kamer, Vergaderjaar 2011-2012: Vragen gesteld door de leden der Kamer (TK 2011Z25637), met de daarop door de regering gegeven antwoorden (908), ontvangen 13 december 2011, Net als dat deze mijns inziens niet bevoegd kan zijn om uitspraken te doen over het toelatingsbeleid van de Verenigde Staten. Reaction : Again, we thankful the Minister for bringing up this subject. We are inclined to agree with the Minister about such concept of international practice. Status quo ante was strongly advocated by the father of international law Hugo Grotius ( Hugo de Groot ) famous Dutch jurist who too was persecuted for his political and religious believes and who too refused to change his political believes and it prevented his return to Holland. Status quo ante - "the way things were before" is the best way to end our crisis. It means: return to the same place, to the same status as it was before unfortunate events of 2007. One way or another three governments ( three countries ) participated in unlawful deportation - each contributed its small part - and it is moral and logical, from our view, that everyone will contribute a little effort towards restoration of status quo. Events of 2007 were so unusual that they do not fit into any existing international law. Vacuum of law and vacuum of rights is obvious, but it doesnt mean that we have to be condemned to death. Yes, indeed, Ukrainian government and Courts, the same like the Dutch government and Courts do not have jurisdiction over admission to the US. The same way like American government and Courts and the Dutch government and Courts do not have jurisdiction over Ukrainian citizenship, including fabrication of the applications and travel documents, but it happened. Ukrainian Judges never contemplated admission to the US, they ordered expulsion to the US and out of Ukraine because we, as the social human being, do belong to the USA, not to Ukraine. But who is responsible for our status quo now ? The US ? The Netherlands ? Ukraine ? According to European regulations: European Civil Aviation Conference Policy Statement in the Field of Civil Aviation Facilitation. DOC No. 30

December 2006 Annex D : Guidelines on Deportation and Escort 7. RESPONSILITY ISSUES 7.8 The deporting State will continue to be responsible for the deportee until admission to the State of final destination ( or other State authorizing entry ) has been granted. Its not under dispute that first deporting State was the US. We were not legally admitted to Ukraine or the Netherlands. [ 23 ] Wanneer de uitspraak mijns inziens juist zou worden gevolgd zou het er toe moeten leiden dat wanneer het de Oekraense overheid niet lukt om het echtpaar toegelaten te krijgen tot de VS, het juist aan die overheid is om een redelijke oplossing te vinden. Hoe sneller uw clinten dan ook terugkeren naar Oekrane hoe sneller deze uitspraak kan worden uitgevoerd. Replay : First: as it was stated above the Ukrainian Court never ordered admission to the US, and Ukrainian government is not responsible for stateless persons, habitual residents of the USA, residing somewhere else, but not in Ukraine. Second, very important: such policies of tolerance and finding another solution are long established in the USA. If person can not be deported and he is not a criminal he is granted legal status for illegal. He is not restricted in basic human rights and granted opportunity to reopen old immigration procedures or establish new one. Fabrication and use of false travel documents are not within legal framework of American Law. [ 24 ] Daarbij speelt ook mee dat uw clinten op geen enkele wijze hebben aangetoond zich in te zetten op het verkrijgen van een nationaliteit. Reaction: Not true. In the USA and in the Netherlands we are asking for residence permit based on our statelessness and refugee-like situation. Such residence permit would eventually lead to acquisition of nationality. [ 25 ] Gegeven het dossier en de tijdsverloop ben ik nog altijd van mening dat het in de rede ligt dat zij opteren voor de Oekraense nationaliteit als voormalige burgers van de Sovjet-Unie, afkomstig van het gebied wat nu Oekrane is. Reaction: We are under opinion that the Minister does not have moral and legal authority to force us to change our political opinion and to ask for protection in the most corrupt and criminalized country in Europe. In other words, such opinion of the Minister borderlines with political persecution based on our political opinion and state of nationality ( statelessness ). Considering the fact that we are not Ukrainian subjects and do not have any legal connections with Ukraine; but still, in 2007 high ranking Ukrainian officials managed to kidnap us and, not accidentally, some of them are the same people, former communists, policemen and KGB officers who persecuted us during 80s in Soviet Union. These are the facts. These are not the unbelievable fantasies as it was stated by the IND and other officials who rejected our application for asylum and residence permit in the Netherlands. [ 26 ] In de door u bijgevoegde brief van UNHCR Nederland d.d. 22 juli 2010

wordt ter zake geciteerd uit het Algemeen Ambtsbericht Staatsburgerschap- er Vreemdelingenwetgeving in de republieken van de voormalige Sovjet-Unie van augustus 2002. Reaction: To make it clear : mentioned above report just a reprint from superficial and incomplete Internet web-sites and in no way represents an expert opinion on the subject of Ukrainian nationality. Rules related to citizenship / nationality is a sovereignty of each State governed by internal laws. And such international norms confirmed by 1997 European Convention on Nationality: Article 2, d. "internal law" means all types of provisions of the national legal system, including the constitution, legislation, regulations, decrees, case-law, customary rules and practice as well as rules deriving from binding international instruments. Article 3, 1. Each State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals. Ukrainian Citizenship Law much more complex then it is presented in the UNHCR letter or the General Report. Note !!! : in 1999 the US Immigration Judge erroneously appointed us Ukrainian citizenship and vicious circle - mentioned by the Minister (paragraph [ 31 ] ) - was started. [ 27 ] Sinds het verschijnen van dat ambtsbericht is de Oekraense nationaliteitswetgeving weer enkele malen gewijzigd en is dit ambtsbericht ook geactualiseerd. Reaction: Not true. Law of Ukraine on Citizenship of Ukraine was enacted in 2001 and underwent small amendments in 2005 and 2012 which have no relation to our case. 2001 Law still the same. Law of Ukraine on legal status of foreigners and stateless persons only became more restrictive in recent years. I would refer to Article 24 and Article 25 of Law on Citizenship of Ukraine . Diplomatic establishments of Ukraine and Migration Services of Ukraine do not allowed to accept any documents from persons who do not have legal residence permit in the country of residence or in Ukraine. [ 28 ] Ik verwijs u dan ook graag naar het thematisch ambtsbericht staatsburgerschap- en vreemdelingenwetgeving in Moldavi, Oekrane en WitRusland van mei 2011. Hieruit blijkt dat er wei degelijk mogelijkheden zijn voor uw clinten om alsnog een beroep te doen op de Oekraense nationaliteit. Reaction: To appeal what ? Correct and final decision of Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine ? Or try to prove marriage to Ukraine while we never been married to Ukraine ? Or ask for mercy from Ukrainian criminals who destroyed our lives ? [ 29 ] Doordat uw clinten niet de Oekraense nationaliteit bezitten hecht ik ook weinig waarde aan de inspanningen die u noemt richting de Oekraense ambassade om vervangende reisdocumenten te krijgen. Deze worden immers louter aan eigen onderdanen verstrekt.

Reaction : Such request ( to visit Ukrainian Embassy and to request substitute / replacement travel documents ) was made by the DT&V and conveyed to us by our lawyer. According to the Dutch Law we have the obligations to approach diplomatic establishment of our country of origin and ask for substitute / replacement travel documents. Nothing else . Ukrainian is not our country of origin but we followed orders from the DT&V. Our country of origin is the Soviet Union. In the absence of a country of citizenship a country of habitual residence becomes a country of origin ( European law ). By international law a person can not have multiple places or countries of habitual residence. Only one place or country. As the stateless persons firmly settled in the US we have only one country of habitual residence - the United States of America, and it was established by the Court of law. [ 30 ] Het benaderen van de Oekraense ambassade zou mijns inziens dan ook alleen zin hebben indien uw clinten op serieuze wijze een welgemeend verzoek zouden doen om de Oekraense nationaliteit te verkrijgen. Reaction: Not a single Court or Judge, not in the US, Ukraine or the Netherlands ordered us to apply for citizenship of Ukraine because it would violate our basic human rights. 1997 European Convention on Nationality. Explanatory Report Art.115 As regards Art.18. 2. C. , the will of the person concerned has to be taken into account. This might entail, for example, giving persons right of options or avoiding of imposition of nationality against the wishes of a person. Notice: We left Soviet Union due to political persecution and well before independence of Ukraine and never, not for a single day were the persons under jurisdiction of Ukrainian Law ( 2007-2008: special circumstances ); and we oppose, in principal, the very idea, policies and structure of Ukrainian government which is based - in reality - on political oppression; human rights abuses; endemic and universal corruption; impunity of governmental and security officials. ( see also U.S. Department of State Report on Human Rights Practices in Ukraine, 2012 ) Ukrainian Nationality is not an option for technical and political reasons. [ 31 ] De situatie van uw clinten is niet ontstaan door een onvoorziene samenloop van feiten en omstandigheden noch als onbedoeld gevolg van de toepassing van bestaand beleid. Deze situatie is het nadrukkelijke gevolg van het handelen van uw clinten, ondermeer omdat zij kennelijk niet willen of kunnen accepteren dat zij geen rechtmatig verblijf in de VS genoten. Hiermee zijn zij zelf in een situatie terecht gekomen waardoor zij naar zeggen van hun belangenbehartigers en henzelf refugees in orbit zijn. Deze vicieuze cirkel kan dan ook alleen worden doorbroken wanneer uw clinten ook zelf verantwoordelijkheid nemen voor hun handelen en zich constructiever opstellen in het vinden van een duurzame opposing. Reaction: Respectfully disagree with such statement. American Law prohibits removal of people without citizenship or residence permit in other countries. And this is exactly what happened to us: removed to nowhere with false travel documents ( undisputed fact ). Notice: we never enjoyed residence permit or citizenship in Ukraine but firmly settled

in the US, established habitual residence and did not violated criminal law. False travel documents and unlawful deportation is not a legitimate reason for Ukrainian citizenship, but obvious reason for protection in some civilized country, the Netherlands or the US, for example. According to the US Law to live in the US without residence permit but with knowledge and permission of the US authorities is not a crime. Without false documents and unlawful deportation we would continue to live in the USA and enjoy human rights. There are many appropriate solution to our crisis: *** granting human rights in the Netherlands; *** granting citizenship in the Netherlands; *** return to the border of the US as the returning failed deportees with Ukrainian Stateless travel documents ( help of the Dutch government required ); *** referring for resettlement in the US through the UNHCR ( help of the Dutch government required ); *** referring for resettlement in the US through US Ambassador ( help of the Dutch government required ) Gelet op het bovenstaande zie ik dan ook geen aanleiding om gebruik te maken van mijn discretionaire bevoegdheid. Ik hoop u hiermee voldoende te hebben genformeerd. Hoogachtend, F.Teeven De Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, Reply to the Ministers letter was made by Igor Skrijevski Galina Skrijevskaia