LawNepal

Icon

The Law is above the King ! Site Maintained by Advocate Santosh Giri, LLM (US/Nepal) | Specialization : Human Rights Law of Nepal [CAT, ICERD, ICESCR, ICCPR, CEDAW, Regional and International Instruments] | Freelance Media Monitoring on Human Rights, Legal Development and Violation of Human Rights in Nepal.

LawNepal :: 75,000 Readers :: 176 Nations

I would like to thank each readers from across the globe personally for the continued support, comments, suggestions and for loving Nepal. In 2008, almost 25000 readers visited this blog from all over the world.

Santosh Giri, California, January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day)

Current Country Totals
From 25 Jan 2008 to 13 Jan 2009

[www.clustermaps.com]

United States (US) 15,868
Nepal (NP) 1,663
India (IN) 1,463
United Kingdom (GB) 1,293
Canada (CA) 530
Australia (AU) 448
Nigeria (NG) 214
Philippines (PH) 164
Ireland (IE) 158
United Arab Emirates (AE) 155
Pakistan (PK) 149
Germany (DE) 142
Bangladesh (BD) 126
Hong Kong (HK) 114
Japan (JP) 101
Netherlands (NL) 99
Thailand (TH) 92
Morocco (MA) 86
Korea, Republic of (KR) 86
Europe (EU) 85
Ghana (GH) 84
Italy (IT) 77
Singapore (SG) 77
Qatar (QA) 74
South Africa (ZA) 72
Norway (NO) 70
Egypt (EG) 69
Saudi Arabia (SA) 67
Cameroon (CM) 66
Sweden (SE) 65
Malaysia (MY) 65
Spain (ES) 62
France (FR) 61
Algeria (DZ) 56
Belgium (BE) 55
Jamaica (JM) 52
Iran, Islamic Republic of (IR) 51
Finland (FI) 49
Switzerland (CH) 48
Austria (AT) 47
Mexico (MX) 46
Ethiopia (ET) 44
Turkey (TR) 43
Kenya (KE) 42
Sri Lanka (LK) 41
Kuwait (KW) 37
New Zealand (NZ) 36
Brazil (BR) 29
Israel (IL) 29
Asia/Pacific Region (AP) 29
Denmark (DK) 26
Cote D’Ivoire (CI) 26
Uganda (UG) 25
Indonesia (ID) 23
Romania (RO) 23
Gambia (GM) 23
Jordan (JO) 23
Russian Federation (RU) 22
Poland (PL) 22
Ukraine (UA) 20
Taiwan (TW) 18
Sudan (SD) 18
Trinidad and Tobago (TT) 17
Tanzania, United Republic of (TZ) 17
Bahrain (BH) 16
Lebanon (LB) 16
Greece (GR) 15
Bulgaria (BG) 15
Senegal (SN) 15
Hungary (HU) 14
Cambodia (KH) 14
Albania (AL) 13
Tunisia (TN) 13
Colombia (CO) 12
Portugal (PT) 12
Rwanda (RW) 11
Vietnam (VN) 11
Serbia (RS) 11
Liberia (LR) 11
Peru (PE) 10
Cyprus (CY) 10
Venezuela (VE) 10
Yemen (YE) 10
Dominican Republic (DO) 9
Macedonia (MK) 9
Lithuania (LT) 9
Argentina (AR) 9
Puerto Rico (PR) 9
Croatia (HR) 9
China (CN) 8
Bahamas (BS) 8
Czech Republic (CZ) 8
Chile (CL) 8
Benin (BJ) 8
Myanmar (MM) 8
Ecuador (EC) 7
Guam (GU) 7
Slovakia (SK) 7
El Salvador (SV) 7
Afghanistan (AF) 7
Armenia (AM) 7
Oman (OM) 7
Eritrea (ER) 6
Luxembourg (LU) 6
Bermuda (BM) 6
Georgia (GE) 5
Mongolia (MN) 5
Belarus (BY) 5
Kyrgyzstan (KG) 5
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (LY) 5
Congo, The Democratic Republic of the (CD) 5
Guyana (GY) 5
Costa Rica (CR) 5
Malta (MT) 4
Botswana (BW) 4
Guatemala (GT) 4
Mauritius (MU) 4
Northern Mariana Islands (MP) 4
Belize (BZ) 4
Cayman Islands (KY) 4
Barbados (BB) 4
Maldives (MV) 4
Syrian Arab Republic (SY) 4
Sierra Leone (SL) 4
Latvia (LV) 4
Panama (PA) 4
Palestinian Territory (PS) 4
Slovenia (SI) 3
Uzbekistan (UZ) 3
Fiji (FJ) 3
Tajikistan (TJ) 3
Virgin Islands, U.S. (VI) 3
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (VC) 3
Zambia (ZM) 3
Montenegro (ME) 3
Macau (MO) 3
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BA) 3
Zimbabwe (ZW) 2
Namibia (NA) 2
Guinea (GN) 2
Iceland (IS) 2
Somalia (SO) 2
Lesotho (LS) 2
Burkina Faso (BF) 2
Chad (TD) 2
Mali (ML) 2
Kazakstan (KZ) 2
Saint Kitts and Nevis (KN) 2
Haiti (HT) 2
Malawi (MW) 2
Bhutan (BT) 2
Saint Lucia (LC) 2
Anguilla (AI) 1
Virgin Islands, British (VG) 1
Mozambique (MZ) 1
Cuba (CU) 1
Swaziland (SZ) 1
Brunei Darussalam (BN) 1
Togo (TG) 1
Estonia (EE) 1
Mauritania (MR) 1
Bolivia (BO) 1
Suriname (SR) 1
Gibraltar (GI) 1
Azerbaijan (AZ) 1
Samoa (WS) 1
Honduras (HN) 1
Dominica (DM) 1
Palau (PW) 1
Moldova, Republic of (MD) 1
Guadeloupe (GP) 1
Monaco (MC) 1
Netherlands Antilles (AN) 1
Grenada (GD) 1
Nicaragua (NI) 1
Djibouti (DJ) 1

Filed under: Laws, Legal Development, Social Engineering, कानून नेपाल

Steps and Time Line of Asylum Process- www.uscis.gov

How Long Does the Process Take?
The time frames below apply only if you will be scheduled for an interview at one of the eight asylum offices. Time frames vary for those who live far from an asylum office because asylum officers must travel to other offices in order to conduct the long-distance interviews.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides in Section 208(d)(5) that the initial interview on asylum applications filed on or after April 1, 1997 should take place within 45 days after the date the application is filed, and a decision should be made on the asylum application within 180 days after the date the application is filed, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

 

Applicant files I-589 at the Service Center

  • The filing date is the date the complete application was received at the Service Center.

Within 21 days of the filing date

Applicant receives:

  • Receipt notice that USCIS received I-589
  • Fingerprint appointment notice
  • Interview notice

Within 43 days of the filing date

  • Applicant is interviewed at one of the eight asylum offices, unless applicant lives at a significant distance from an asylum office.

Within 60 days of the filing date

  • Majority of applicants return two weeks after the interview to pick up the decisions on their application, including referrals to the Immigration Court for final determination

Within 180 days of the filing date

  • Applicants whose cases have been referred to the Immigration Court receive a decision on their applications.

Filed under: Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Maoist's Terror, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

Types and Processes of Asylum Decision-www.uscis.gov

Decisions On Asylum Claims

How Will the Asylum Officer Make the Decision About Whether To Grant Me Asylum?
The Asylum Officer will evaluate your testimony, the information you provide on your application, and any supplementary materials you submit to determine if you are a refugee and whether any mandatory bars apply. The Asylum Officer will consider country condition information from reliable sources and will consider the relevant law found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the regulations found in Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and case law. The Asylum Officer will also evaluate the credibility of your claim. See 8 CFR § 208.9. When Will I Be Notified About the Decision on My Asylum Claim?
In most cases, you will return to the asylum office where your interview was held two weeks after the interview to pick up your decision. However, there may be longer processing times if you were interviewed at a district office, are currently in valid status, or if your case will be reviewed by Asylum Division Headquarters staff. You will generally receive the decision by mail if any of these circumstances occur. What Will Be My Status After I Am Granted Asylum?
You will have asylee status. You will receive an I-94 Arrival and Departure record documenting that you are able to remain indefinitely in the United States as an asylee. You will be authorized to work in the United States for as long as you remain in asylee status. You may obtain a photo-identity document from USCIS evidencing your employment authorization by applying for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD). You will also be able to request derivative asylum status for any spouse or child (unmarried and under 21 years of age as of the date you filed the asylum application, as long as your asylum application was pending on or after August 6, 2002) who was not included as a dependent in your asylum decision and with whom you have a qualifying relationship. This means that you will be able to petition to bring your spouse and/or children to the United States, or allow them to remain in the United States indefinitely incident to your asylee status. To What Benefits May I Be Entitled After I Am Granted Asylum?
Asylees are eligible to apply for certain benefits, including an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), an unrestricted Social Security card, cash and medical assistance, employment assistance, and a Refugee Travel Document. For more information on the benefits and responsibilities associated with asylee status, see Types of Decisions, Grant of Asylum, or information for asylees on the website of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Can Asylum Status Be Terminated?
Yes. Your asylee status may be terminated if you no longer have a well-founded fear of persecution because of a fundamental change in circumstances, you have obtained protection from another country, or you have committed certain crimes or engaged in other activity that makes you ineligible to retain asylum status in the United States. See INA § 208(c)(2). An asylee is not a lawful permanent resident. You may apply for lawful permanent resident status after you have been physically present in the United States for a period of one year after the date you were granted asylum status. See Asylee Adjustment for more information about becoming a lawful permanent resident. The law can be found at INA § 209(b). What is a Recommended Approval of Asylum?
You will receive a recommended approval of asylum if an Asylum Officer has made a preliminary determination to grant you asylum, but USCIS has not received the results from the mandatory, confidential investigation of your identity and background. If the results reveal derogatory information that affects your eligibility for asylum, USCIS may deny your request for asylum or refer it to an Immigration Judge for further consideration. See Recommended Approval. What is a Conditional Grant of Asylum?
Prior to the passage of the Real ID Act of 2005, applicants who were found eligible for asylum based on past persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution solely on account of resistance to a coercive population control (CPC) program were subject to a 1,000-per-year statutory limit on grants of asylum based on CPC, and were given a conditional grant until a final approval authorization number bacame available within the annual 1,000 cap. Section 101(g)(2) of the Real ID Act of 2005 eliminated this annual 1,000 cap, and asylum offices have heen issuing final, as opposed to conditional, asylum approvals to new, qualified applicants whose asylum claims are based solely on CPC, as well as to applicants who had previously been given a conditional grant, provided that they clear background check requirements and otherwise qualify for asylum status. See Resistance to Coercive Population Control (CPC) Programs for more information. What is a Notice of Intent to Deny?
You will receive a Notice of Intent to Deny if you are currently in valid status and found ineligible for asylum. You will have 16 days to provide a response to the letter. The Asylum Officer will then either approve or deny the claim. See Notice of Intent to Deny. What is a Final Denial?
You will receive a Final Denial of your asylum claim if you received a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and either did not provide a response to the letter within 16 days, or the Asylum Officer determined that the evidence or argument you provided failed to overcome the grounds for denial as stated in the NOID. See Final Denial. What Does It Mean to be Referred to Immigration Court?
This means that the Asylum Officer was unable to approve your asylum application and you are not currently in valid status. You will receive charging documents that place you in removal proceedings in Immigration Court. Your asylum application will be referred to the Immigration Court for an Immigration Judge to decide during the removal proceedings. See Referral to an Immigration Court. Where Can I Find Further Information if My Asylum Claim is Referred to Immigration Court?
The Immigration Courts are located within the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the U.S. Department of Justice. Information about the Immigration Courts can be found at www.usdoj.gov/eoir or you can call their electronic information system at 1-800-898-7180. You will need your A-number to get information on your case. This telephonic information system can give you information about your next hearing date, time and location; elapsed time and status of the clock for asylum cases; Immigration Judge decision information; case appeal information, including appeal due date, brief due date, date forwarded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and BIA decision and decision date. If the Immigration Judge denies your asylum application, you will receive a notice telling you how to appeal the decision.

Generally, you may appeal within 30 days of receiving the denial. After your appeal form and a required fee are processed, the appeal will be referred to the Board of Immigration Appeals in Washington, DC. For more information, see the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s website at www.usdoj.gov/eoir.

Other

Do I Need to Notify USCIS If I Move?
See How Do I Report a Change of Address to USCIS?You must also notify in writing the local asylum office where you case is pending of any change of address. Please see “Change of Address” on your local asylum office page for more information: Arlington, VA; Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; Newark, NJ (Lyndhurst); New York, NY (Rosedale); and San Francisco, CA.

The regulation pertaining to change of address can be found at 8 CFR 265.1.

Special note for class members of the American Baptist Churches V. Thornburgh (ABC) settlement agreement: ABC class members are instructed to follow the same procedures as all other asylum applicants for reporting a change of address. See How Do I Report a Change of Address to USCIS? Please note, on November 30, 2005, the ABC Project Post Office Box was officially closed and use of Form I-855, ABC Change of Address Form, discontinued. Any mail sent to the ABC Project Post Office Box will be returned to sender if the mail contains a return address, or destroyed if it does not. See USCIS Announces New Address Change Procedures for ABC Class Members and Follow-Up Message: USCIS Announces New Address Change Procedures for ABC Class Members (11/30/05).

How Can I Find Out About the Status of My Application?
There are two ways to find the status of a pending asylum application: you may write to the Asylum Office having jurisdiction over your case or you may visit the Asylum Office where your case is pending. You should be prepared to provide the following information:

  1. Alien number (“A-Number”)
  2. Current legal name and, if different, the name as it appears on the application
  3. Nationality
  4. Date of birth
  5. Current address
  6. Date of interview, if applicable

If you are sending your request in writing, you should sign the request and mark your envelope: ATTN: Status Inquiry. The eight asylum offices are located at: Arlington, VA; Chicago, IL; Houston, TX; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; Newark, NJ (Lyndhurst); New York, NY (Rosedale); and San Francisco, CA. Will I Be Able To Petition To Bring My Family To The United States?
If you are granted asylum, you may request derivative asylum status for any spouse or child (unmarried and under 21 years of age as of the date you filed the asylum application was pending on or after August 6, 2002) who was not included in your asylum claim and with whom you have a qualifying relationship. You must submit a Form I-730, Refugee and Asylee Relative Petition, to the Nebraska Service Center, P.O. Box 87730, Lincoln, NE 68501-7730. The Form I-730 must be filed for each qualifying family member within 2 years of the date you were granted asylum status, unless USCIS determines that this time period should be extended for humanitarian reasons. See How Do I Get My Spouse or Children Derivative Asylum Status in the United States? When Can I Apply To Become a Lawful Permanent Resident?
You may apply for lawful permanent resident status under INA § 209(b) after you have been physically present in the United States for a period of one year after the date you were granted asylum status. To apply for lawful permanent resident status, you must submit a separate Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, for yourself and each qualifying family member to the Nebraska Service Center, P.O. Box 87485, Lincoln, Nebraska, 68501-7485. See Asylee Adjustment. Will I Get a Work Permit?
Asylum applicants cannot apply for employment authorization at the same time they apply for asylum. You will be authorized to work in the United States if you are granted asylum and as long as you remain in asylum status. You are also eligible to apply for employment authorization if you have been given a recommended approval or conditional grant of asylum. You can also apply for work authorization before a decision is made on your claim if 150 days has passed since you filed your complete application with the Service Center and no decision has been made on your application. USCIS has 30 days to either grant or deny your request for employment. The application to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) is the Form I-765. Please see Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and How Do I Get a Work Permit? for more information.

If you are granted asylum before an Immigration Judge and need information on work authorization, see “Notice to Individuals Granted Immigration Benefits by Immigration Judge or Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)”.

Effective November 10, 2002, asylum applicants who have been granted asylum will no longer have to file an EAD application with the Nebraska Service Center in order to obtain an initial EAD. Section 309 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 requires USCIS to issue an employment authorization document containing at least a fingerprint and photograph to an asylee immediately upon a grant of asylum. If an asylee wishes to renew his or her EAD, the asylee will still need to submit an EAD application with the Nebraska Service Center, and pay a fee or request a fee waiver under 8 CFR § 103.7(c). However, asylees are work-authorized regardless of whether or not they are in possession of an EAD. An asylee may want to obtain an EAD from USCIS in order to meet other obligations. For example, the EAD, which is evidence of both identity and employment authorization, can be presented to an employer as a List A document of the Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9). Also, the EAD can serve as evidence of alien registration, which is required by law to be carried by registered aliens at all times.

Can I Travel Outside the United States?
If you are applying for asylum and want to travel outside the United States, you must receive advance permission before you leave the United States in order to return to the United States. This advance permission is called Advance Parole. If you do not apply for Advance Parole before you leave the country, you will be presumed to have abandoned your application with USCIS and you may not be permitted to return to the United States. If you obtain advance parole and return to your country of feared persecution, you will be presumed to have abandoned your asylum request, unless you can show compelling reasons for the return. If your application for asylum is approved, you may apply for a Refugee Travel Document. This document will allow you to travel abroad and return to the United States. For more information on both Advance Parole and Refugee Travel Documents, see How Do I Get a Travel Document? and Form I-131, Application for Travel Document.

How Does the Asylum Program Assure Quality and Consistency in its Asylum Decisions?
The Asylum Program assures the quality of its programs through its Quality Assurance and Training Branch by:

  1. conducting a mandatory and comprehensive 5-week training program on asylum law, interviewing skills and analysis (Asylum Officer Basic Training Course) for all incoming asylum officers
  2. requiring 100% review of all asylum decisions by a Supervisory Asylum Officer
  3. placing one or more Quality and Assurance Trainers in every Asylum Office to conduct training programs, observe asylum interviews, and review decisions
  4. setting aside 4 hours every week for in-house training in the asylum offices
  5. requiring Asylum Division Headquarters review of certain cases
  6. conducting supervisory training programs

Filed under: Asylum in the US, Human Rights, Immigratoin Reform, Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Maoist's Terror, Social Engineering, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

John Grisham…

JOHN GRISHAM

John Ray Grisham* (born February 8, 1955) is a former politician, retired attorney, American novelist and author best known for his works of modern legal drama. In 1977, Grisham received a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Mississippi State University. He earned his J.D. degree from the University of Mississippi School of Law in 1981. During law school, Grisham switched interests from tax law to criminal and general civil litigation. Upon graduation he entered a small-town general law practice for nearly a decade in Southaven, where he focused on criminal law and civil law representing a broad spectrum of clients. As a young attorney, he spent much of his time in court proceedings and preparing for court the following morning. In 1983, he was elected as a Democrat to the Mississippi House of Representatives, where he served until 1990. During his time as a legislator, he continued his private law practice in Southaven. He has donated over $100,000 to Democratic Party candidates. In September 2007, Grisham appeared with Hillary Rodham Clinton, his choice for U.S. President in 2008, and former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, whom Grisham supports for the U.S. Senate being vacated by Republican John Warner (no relation). Grisham himself had considered challenging former GOP U.S. Senator George Allen, Jr., in the 2006 election in which Allen was narrowly defeated by the Democrat James Webb.  In 1984 at the De Soto County courthouse in Hernando, Grisham witnessed the harrowing testimony of a 12-year-old rape victim. [1] In his spare time and as a hobby, Grisham began work on his first novel, which explored what would have happened if the girl’s father had murdered her assailants. He spent three years on A Time to Kill and finished it in 1987. Initially rejected by many publishers, the manuscript eventually was bought by Wynwood Press, which gave it a modest 5,000-copy printing and published it in June 1988. The day after Grisham completed A Time to Kill, he began work on another novel, the story of a young attorney lured to an apparently perfect law firm that was not what it appeared. That second book, The Firm became the 7th bestselling novel of 1991. Grisham then went on to produce at least one work a year, most of them widely popular bestsellers. He has been incredibly successful in that he holds the title for being the sole person to author a number one bestselling novel of the year for seven consecutive years (1994 – 2000). Beginning with A Painted House in 2001, the author broadened his focus from law to the more general rural south, all the while continuing to pen his legal thrillers. Publishers Weekly declared Grisham “the bestselling novelist of the 90s,” selling a total of 60,742,289 copies. He is also one of only a few authors to sell two million copies on a first printing (Tom Clancy is another; J.K. Rowling surpasses them both). Grisham’s 1992 novel The Pelican Brief sold 11,232,480 copies in the United States alone.

Grisham returned briefly to the courtroom in 1996 after a five-year hiatus. He was honoring a commitment he made before he retired from law; he represented the family of a railroad brakeman killed when he was pinned between two cars. Grisham successfully argued his clients’ case, earning them a jury award of $683,500 — the biggest verdict of his career. Another tie to the legal community that he continues to hold is his seat on the Board of Directors for the Innocence Project, an organization dedicated to exonerating the innocent through DNA testing after they have been convicted. On September 28, 2007, Grisham was named in a civil suit in the US District Court, claiming Grisham libeled Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, District Attorney Bill Peterson and Gary Rogers, a former Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation agent. Peterson and Rogers claim that Grisham, along with two other authors, conspired to defame their character through their books. The suit stems from Grisham’s sole non-fiction effort, The Innocent Man, a book about the investigation of a murdered cocktail waitress in Ada, Oklahoma, and how DNA evidence exonerated Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz more than 12 years later.  The Mississippi State University Libraries, Manuscript Division, maintains the John Grisham Room,” an archive containing materials generated during the author’s tenure as Mississippi State Representative and relating to his writings. Grisham’s lifelong passion for baseball is evident in his novel A Painted House and in his support of Little League activities in both Oxford, Mississippi and Charlottesville, Virginia. He wrote the original screenplay for and produced the baseball movie Mickey, starring Harry Connick, Jr.. The movie was released on DVD in April 2004. He remains a fan of Mississippi State University’s baseball team and wrote about his ties to the university and the Left Field Lounge in the introduction for the book “Dudy Noble Field- A Celebration of MSU Baseball.”

Grisham is also well known within the literary community for his efforts to support the continuing literary tradition of his native South. Grisham has endowed scholarships and writer’s residencies in the University of Mississippi’s English Department and Graduate Creative Writing Program, and was the founding publisher of the Oxford American, a ’slick’ magazine devoted to literary writing and famous for its annual music issue, copies of which include a compilation CD featuring contemporary and classic Southern musicians in genres ranging from blues and gospel to country-western and alternative rock. In an October 2006 interview on the Charlie Rose talk show, Grisham stated that he usually takes only six months to write a book and that his favorite author was John le Carré. He lives with his wife, Renée, (née Jones) and their two children, Ty and Shea. The family splits their time between their Victorian home on a farm outside Oxford, Mississippi, and a farm near Charlottesville, Virginia.

Books

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grisham

* My Inspiration !!!

Filed under: Justice, Laws, Legal Development, Young Lawyers, कानून नेपाल

The Nepali Asylum Seeker in UK who alighted himself !

Uddhav Bhandari, a 40-year-old Nepalese asylum seeker, set himself alight in the Eagle Building, Bothwell Street, Glasgow – home to the asylum and immigration tribunal – on March 7. He died 11 days later in Glasgow royal infirmary. He is the ninth asylum seeker to set himself alight in the UK since 1989, five of them since 2002. Why did these people choose this course of action? There is a tradition of public self-immolation as a form of political protest and sacrifice, people burning brightly in death shedding light on what the rest of us refused to look at when they were alive. Perhaps that was in their minds. Ask people about those who burned themselves to death during the Vietnam war and most will remember hearing of them; but I have yet to meet anyone who knows anything about the nine deaths in the UK, despite their being well documented by Harmit Athwal of the Institute of Race Relations. Athwal’s catalogue, Driven to Desperate Measures, listing 221 asylum seekers who have died in the UK, 57 of them at their own hand, was published last year. It received very little press. Bhandari, a father of two, fled Nepal six years ago. A former police officer, he exposed corruption in the Nepalese police and consequently was terrified of returning. He hoped to settle here and bring his family to the UK. Forbidden to work here, he was doing community work mending old bicycles. Bhandari was due to attend a second immigration appeal hearing the day he set himself on fire. This hearing could have resulted in a reconsideration of his case. But a judge had said earlier that he believed it safe for Bhandari to return as he would be protected by his “high profile”. One can only guess that Bhandari didn’t think so and that burning himself to death was preferable. Did he know about the eight before him? Probably not. In October 1989, in Harmondsworth immigration removal centre, Siho Iyiguven, a Kurd, set himself on fire after being refused asylum. Two thousand people followed his funeral procession, intending to lay a black wreath at No 10, but police prevented them. Turan Pekoz, from Turkey, set himself alight in March 1993 at a Croydon immigration centre after hearing that he was not to be reunited with his family. Bayeh Arefanye, a young Ethiopian, set himself alight at a London petrol station in October 1995 because he feared deportation. Forsina Makoni, a 79-year-old Zimbabwean, set herself alight in Gillingham, Kent, in May 2002 after her claim was refused. She didn’t know that Zimbabwe is the one country to which refugees were not being returned by UK authorities. A nameless Iraqi asylum seeker set himself alight in 2004. His story was one of the very few to have made it into the media. It was reported in a local Haringey Turkish paper, Londra Gazete, which mentions that he “may have killed himself because he had been refused asylum”. Anonymous local residents claimed he had conned them out of thousands of pounds. There was nobody to defend his reputation. Nusrat Raza, a young Pakistani woman living in Bradford, was seen by a passer-by as a “great ball of fire coming down the stairs” of her house in June 2005. She had lost her asylum claim. Babak Ahadi, an Iranian asylum seeker, set himself alight in Bristol in July 2005. “I have no doubt in my mind that the failed asylum application had dire results and was the prime cause of Mr Ahadi’s death,” said the coroner at Ahadi’s inquest.

There are few details about the nine, but I was given a pile of official papers and two photos of Esrafil Shiri, a Shia Muslim from Tehran, by campaigners in Salford, where he had lived. Shiri arrived in the UK in the back of a truck in August 2001. “I am glad that I am under the British flag and I am free,” he told an immigration official. He had been a member of the Basij, enforcers of Islamic morality, but became disillusioned and refused to follow orders which meant harming innocent people. If he had returned to Iran he faced torture and probably death, not only for challenging the Basij but as a known bisexual. Rebwar Fatah, an expert advising British lawyers, said that despite social shifts in Iran, homosexuals could expect to be tortured before being put to death. After his appeal was turned down Shiri became destitute. In late August 2003 he took a can of inflammable liquid into the Refugee Action offices in Manchester and set himself alight. It is the brutal effects of increasingly draconian immigration policy, pandering to the floating vote, which result in these deaths. And if it were British citizens burning to death we’d know about it. But rejected asylum seekers? Who cares? Shame on us all.

 

“This appeal is regarding Uddhav Bhandari, the Nepalese asylum seeker who died recently after he poured petrol on himself and set himself on fire in the Immigration and appeal tribunal buildings in Glasgow earlier this month. A post mortem has been carried out and Uddhav’s body can be released to his wife and family who are in Nepal. Uddhav’s family are extremely poor and do not have the funds to pay for the funeral and airline costs. Positive Action in Housing are therefore launching an urgent appeal for donations to the Uddhav Bhandari Appeal to return his body to Nepal so that his family can grieve properly and organise his funeral arrangements according to Nepalese culture. Without this appeal, there is every likelihood that Uddhav’s body could be left in a Glasgow morgue indefiintely, similar to an iraqi Kurd whose body was left in a Kent mortuary for three years before we organised donations from our supporters.The total cost of the funeral and airline costs to return Uddhav Bhandari to Nepal is £3,997. If 100 people give £40.00 each this would achieve the total target. But please donate as much or as little as you can afford, every little bit will help. The sooner the money is raised the sooner Uddhav’s body can be sent back to Nepal. We will publish the money raised so far on our website at www.paih.org. [Robina Qureshi, Director] If you think you can help, please contact a member of PAiH staff by calling 0141 353 2220 or email jamie@paih.org

Source: http://paihnews.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Human Rights, Justice, Laws, Shameful Laws, कानून नेपाल

The Case of Nine Asylum Seekers in the UK

Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWCA Civ 1892
Case Nos: C1/2003/1663, 1749, 1790, 1966, 1984, 2156, 2182, 2183 and 2228IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Jackson J, Moses J, Jackson J, Crane J, Wyn Williams QC,
M.Supperstone QC, M.Williams QC, N.Blake QC, P.Havers QC

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2 A 2LL

19 December 2003

LORD JUSTICE BROOKE
Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
THE QUEEN on the application of NINE NEPALESE ASYLUM SEEKERS
Claimants/Appellants

- and -
IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Respondent

None of the Appellants attended the hearing
The Respondent was not present or represented
Hearing date : 19th December 2003
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©

 
Lord Justice Brooke :
1.   This judgment is concerned with issues of general importance and is released from the usual restrictions on citation.
2.   Nine applications for permission to appeal were listed before me today. All were made by asylum-seekers from Nepal: one of them is a citizen of Bhutan but has lived for many years in Nepal. In each case an Adjudicator dismissed their appeal from a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse them asylum. In each case the Adjudicator did not believe significant parts of the applicant’s evidence. In seven of these cases the asylum-seeker sought permission to appeal from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“IAT”). Permission was not surprisingly refused since the appeal had turned on the credibility of the applicant. In the other two cases the applicant did not seek permission to appeal within the limited time prescribed by Parliament. Instead, an application was made much later for judicial review of the Adjudicator’s decision. Those two applications should have been struck out soon after they were filed in the Administrative Court. In the other seven cases an application was made for permission to apply for judicial review of the IAT’s refusal of permission.
3.   In all nine cases the application was refused on the papers by a judge of the Administrative Court. In each case the application was renewed for a hearing in court, when it was again dismissed by a judge of that court. In each case the applicant then sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from the judgment in the Administrative Court.
4.   The grounds of appeal bear a very striking similarity. I will refer to the applicants by their case numbers. The standard form of words is:
“(i) All my documentary evidence are not properly considered;
(ii) My humanitarian grounds are not taken into account;
(iii) Relevant laws and country information are not properly considered;
(iv) The correct standard of proof is not applied.”

5.   Sometimes the reference in (ii) is to “my human rights claims”. Sometimes the reference in (iii) is to “my country situation”. There also appear the rubrics “Decision is not consistent with other cases” (once) and “Relevant laws are not according to the Asylum laws and Human Rights Act” (once). Each Notice of Appeal is accompanied by a skeleton argument that has clearly been prepared by the same person. All draw attention to the distressing state of affairs in Nepal, and they variously complain that if the judge in the Administrative Court (who is described as “Mr Justice” in eight of these skeleton arguments) had considered the documentary evidence with appropriate care, he would have granted permission to apply for judicial review. None of them address the point that the Adjudicator did not believe their evidence in material respects.
6.   Each of these appeals represents an abuse of the processes of this court. The Practice Directionpdp-52to CPR Part 52 refers to CPR52.11(3)(a) and (b), and prescribes that the grounds of appeal should set out clearly the reasons why one or other of these rules is said to apply. Since no complaint is made of any serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court, the only viable ground of appeal is that the judge in the Administrative Court was wrong. To show why he was wrong, it is insufficient to recite the generalised forms of words I have quoted in paragraph (iv) above, or to refer generally to the distressing situation in Nepal or to rely on the evidence the applicant gave to the Adjudicator which the Adjudicator did not believe.
7.   I have referred to the striking similarities between the nine grounds of appeal and the nine skeleton arguments. There are similar striking similarities between the Grounds for Judicial Review which were prepared in eight of these cases. In five of them it is said that these grounds were prepared with the help of Citizen’s Advice Bureaux: in Aldershot (1663, 1790, 2183), Abbey Wood (1966) and Reading (2228). Another striking similarity is that although each applicant in the Administrative Court asked for an oral hearing after their application was refused on paper, none of them in fact attended before the judge at the oral hearing. In the same way, during the last 24 hours this court has received notification that none of the nine are going to attend court today
8.   So far as the facts of the nine cases are concerned, No 1663 arrived here in May 2002. He said he was indirectly associated with Maoists and that he faced persecution by the Government. The Adjudicator did not believe him. No 1749 arrived here in 1999. She said that she was a member of the Maoist party and faced persecution. The Adjudicator rejected her evidence. No appeal was lodged with the IAT, and 20 months elapsed between the Adjudicator’s decision and the application for judicial review. No 1790 arrived here in 1998. Her application was made on similar grounds. The Adjudicator said that her evidence was particularly unreliable, and that although she was arrested once in 1996, the police released her the next day and had no further interest in her.
9.   No 1966 arrived here in July 2001. He claimed to be a member of the Nepalese Congress Party and he said that he was threatened by members of the Maoist Party. The Adjudicator made adverse findings about his credibility. No 1984 arrived here in August 2001. He claimed that he was accused by the Nepalese authorities of being a member of the Maoist Party, whereas in fact he was a member of the Nepalese Communist party. The Adjudicator accepted that he had been arrested and badly treated in February 199, but he had been released after one week, and he rejected the applicant’s evidence about further police interest in him. No 2156 arrived here in January 2001. He claimed that he was a member of the Maoist party, which he had left after his brother was killed in an operation, and he then went into hiding, fearing the party’s reaction. The Adjudicator did not believe him, and said that a certificate he produced was manifestly false. The IAT said that it was quite untrue that his solicitor had failed him as he had alleged, and explained why.
10.   No 2182 arrived here in March 2002. He claimed to be a member of the National Democratic Party, and that he had been caught in the cross-fire between the authorities and the Maoists after a series of events which also involved members of the Communist party He feared that the Maoists might kill him, and thought that he could not stay in Nepal. The Adjudicator did not believe him. He said that an internal flight alternative was available to him in any event. No 2183 is a citizen of Bhutan who has lived in Nepal for most of her life. She arrived here in March 2002. She said she feared persecution from the Nepalese authorities and the Maoist party. The Adjudicator said that she had been captured by the Maoists because she was a nurse. She had then been arrested by the police in a round-up of Maoists, but was released on proof that she was a local nurse. There was no evidence that nurses as a group were being targeted. The Adjudicator did not accept her reason for moving to Kathmandu, and said it was highly unlikely she would have been recognised there. No 2228 arrived here in June 2001. She said she feared persecution for her political opinions and her membership of the Maoist party. The Adjudicator did not believe her evidence.
11.   In each of these cases the applicants have stayed in this country long after their asylum appeals were determined by the Immigration Appellate Authority by making these unmeritorious applications for judicial review after being disbelieved by an Adjudicator. Judicial review lies to correct errors of law on well recognised grounds. It does not provide an appeal mechanism in cases where an applicant complains that the Adjudicator, who is the tribunal of fact, ought to have believed him/her, but did not. It is of course essential that there should be some appellate system in place to look out for clear cases in which it might be appropriate for an appellate court to intervene (for instance, where there were clearly problems with an interpreter, or clear signs that the Adjudicator did not understand critical evidence), but if the IAT, which is the specialist appellate tribunal, declines to grant permission to appeal, that should almost invariably be the end of the matter.
12.   The reasons why these appellants have decided not to attend the hearing today also bear striking similarities. In general they refer to the political situation in Nepal, and to the concerns they originally expressed to the Adjudicator. Two of them refer to health matters, without sending a medical certificate to the court. No 1790 says that she is totally ill. If there are compassionate grounds why she should not be returned to Nepal, she should make appropriate representations to the Home Office. There are certainly no legal grounds to challenge the IAT’s decision. No 2183, the nurse from Bhutan, gave birth to a child on 13th November 2003, but there is no reason why she could not have sent a representative to court to argue her case. Mr Nicholas Blake QC, sitting as a deputy high court judge, considered a comparable application for an adjournment from her on 3rd October on the grounds of her approaching confinement. He rejected it on the grounds that there were no prospects of a successful challenge to the Tribunal’s decision, and there was no merit in her application for permission. This was obviously correct, and in the exercise of my discretion I refuse her application for an adjournment on the grounds that her underlying appeal represents an abuse of the processes of this court and is totally devoid of merit.
13.   Since these applications have never possessed any merit at all, I dismiss them all today. There simply never have been any viable grounds for judicial review in these cases, and two experienced judges in the Administrative Court have already made this clear in each case.
14.   As I have said, applications of this kind represent an abuse of the processes of this court, which exists to resolve genuine points of law in judicial review cases, and is not a fourth tier appellate court of fact when the original tribunal of fact has disbelieved an applicant. By virtue of the operation of section 101(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which is now in force, there are now very few of these applications still awaiting determination in the Court of Appeal, and I have given a direction to the court staff to bring them all to my attention today, so that I may consider whether they should be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court.
15.   The courts are receiving an increasing number of applications in these cases that are totally devoid of merit, and judges must be readier than ever to use their powers to strike out cases of their own initiative pursuant to CPR 3.3. If they are as devoid of merit as these nine appeals, it would be appropriate for a judge in the first instance to strike the matter out under CPR3.3(4) and give the applicant ten days in which to make an application for a hearing, if so advised. If a hearing is then sought, it should be speedily arranged. Taking this course in clear cases will save the massive amount of time now taken up by the administrative processing of a case before it is listed for a hearing in the ordinary way.
16.   I have referred to the fact that these appellants all decided not to attend the hearing in the Administrative Court, and all decided not to attend the hearing arranged for today. Since they all clearly received notice of the hearing, no difficulty arises. It sometimes happens that an unmeritorious applicant does not attend a hearing and then complains that he/she did not receive notice of it and asks for the matter to be reinstated. Although a hearing will ordinarily be arranged, this does not follow as a matter of right in all circumstances. The decision of this court in R (Idubo) v Home Secretary [2003] EWCA Civ 1203 makes this clear. In that case Pumfrey J, with whom Judge LJ agreed, said at paras 5-9:
“5. In his letter to the court and again in a skeleton argument which was provided to us today and which we have read during an adjournment for the purpose, Mr Idubo sets out again his reasons for challenging the decision of the Adjudicator. These are what Moses J described as an attack on the merits. They do not advance a ground for review of the decision. To that extent the position remains as it was in front of Moses J.
6. The application for judicial review was renewed before Buxton LJ in the Court of Appeal. On 22 April 2002 the application was called on in court. Mr Idubo was not present and the application was struck out. The present application is dated 4 February 2003. In it Mr Idubo says that he never received any notice about his hearing before Buxton LJ. However he did in fact appear on 22 April 2002, a quarter of an hour after Buxton LJ had dismissed his application. He was told to put his application in writing; that he did. He explained that his bus had been late. The Civil Appeals Office wrote to him on 26 April 2002, that is four days after the hearing before Buxton LJ, enclosing an application and a fee exemption form, but he never replied. He was living at the same address, or at least his post was being sent to the same address throughout this period. It was still his address when he had written to the court in connection with the present application.
7. The contents of the application notice are, it seems to us, plainly untrue. The reason for this delay advanced by Mr Idubo is connected with the problems which he has had since the application before Buxton LJ, and in particular in his failure to obtain support from a firm of solicitors specialising in immigration matters in connection it would seem with his detention both at Hatfield and at Orpington. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the application is made to the court on a false basis. Two questions in these circumstances arise. The first is the nature of this application. Once an application has been called on in court there is a hearing. If the applicant does not turn up then the application is struck out or dismissed, which is what happened in this case. The court has a discretion to reinstate the application not because this is a decision of the single judge taken without a hearing, but because there is a general discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules, rule 23.11, to re-list an application on application made for that purpose which could be dealt with without a hearing if the court thinks it appropriate: see CPR 23.8. The discretion is a general one. The court will take into account no doubt the reasons advanced from non-appearance at the original hearing, any delay in making the application, but also the underlying merits. If the court did not have regard to the underlying merits then any application could be indefinitely continued by repeated applications to reinstate on which the applicant did not attend.
8. The second question is what is to be done in Mr Idubo’s case. In our view nothing has been advanced which can affect Moses J’s assessment of the merits of the underlying application. It has none. The delay from the hearing before Buxton LJ in April 2002 was substantial; and no efforts were made to explain it. We understand today that in part Mr Idubo has been in custody, but the court’s invitation to reinstate made immediately after the hearing before Buxton LJ appears to have been turned down. The application notice itself is, for the reasons I have given, untrue.
9. It seems to us that in all the circumstances, the lack of merits in the underlying application are crucial, and for this reason, taken with the delay in the making of the application, and with the untruthfulness of the contents of the application, we take the view that there is no grounds shown for reinstating the application which has been dismissed by Buxton LJ and we refuse to do so. “

17.   Courts should be ready to follow this example, again only in very clear cases. If an application is totally devoid of merit, it is abusing the processes of the court and can be handled accordingly.

Source:http://www.hrothgar.co.uk/YAWS/frmreps/03a1892.htm

Filed under: Human Rights, Justice, कानून नेपाल

The New Nepal

The silver lining:

The dark clouds

Once again, it could be bright and sunny

The prospects

Smiling faces everywhere

Gleaming futures in their eyes

Once over:

The birds shall chirp

And shall the rivers flow

Mighty, clean and clearer

Fresh Mountain air again

The aroma of the soil, rich and ripened

Here it comes:

The season of forgiveness

The festive of colors

Forgetting blunders

Creating spaces within

Festive of sheer happiness

A pursuit-one of its kind

Immense potential

Success to embrace

An opportunity:

A time to correct ourselves

To contribute to the new making

Reconstruction, reinstatement, building

The days of glory

Reconstruct, renovate, and resonate

It’s here to remain:

The promises it has made

The price paid

Priceless

Stable, open, clear and conscience

Let there be light again

Let the pigeons soar

Let the jewel shine again

Amidst the global chaos!

Filed under: Human Rights, Partycracy, Uncategorized

Nepal needs support at this moment.

Nepal needs support at this moment. The Nepalese are the one who need this support to be precise. There's no point supporting the Maoist led war or the present government or even the failed political parties. The need should be analyzed and it has been done time and again. Whatever the results were, no initiation was seen from any reliable source. The hungry are getting hungrier; where's the food?  The poor are getting poorer; where’s alleviation of poverty? The discriminated are bring tortured from all three above mentioned superiors; where's their justice? The women are still being trafficked. The incomparable water resources of 34000MW have still been unutilized; where is the support for this by the international agencies? On the other hand, big nations have been making Nepal as a development laboratory, feeding it with military aid and limiting themselves to the so called human-rights actions. Nothing has changed because of the international aid so far. Whatever has developed has developed due to the natural course of time.

if the international community were really serious about Nepal and were willing to support Nepal to combat its war against 'being a failure state'; they should concentrate on mass investment as donation and aid on hydropower that can be sold in the developing market and power need of the mighty china and India and even other neighboring south Asian countries. Mega production of hydro power or the white gold shall eventually result in infra structure development in the remotest parts of Nepal where the rivers and the reservoirs are available. This shall eventually increase employment and result in increase in per capita income of the Nepalese living below the poverty line. The majority of uneducated Nepalese shall benefit from this outcome through labor and economic benefits. Electricity can in turn help develop sustainable, environmentally friendly transportation systems such as the presently operating cable car system that can reach in all parts of this high and low terrain nation. The electricity can also develop Nepal as the modern mountain tourism spot equivalent to Switzerland. This shall result in more employment generation, giving opportunities to the educated and less educated Nepalese through employment. Electric transportation systems such as trains, trams, trolleys and other similar zero emission vehicles can be operated only when the electricity is generated. It’s a pity that today Nepal is forced to import nearly fifty MW electricity from India every year, to which it is actually supposed to se

There are 4000 villages in Nepal and 50% or more of them do not have power. If this scenario were to be changed, villages could light up resulting to more economic activities for the people. The other factor that has hit Nepal in the recent years is the information and technology. But sadly, only 30 cities are internet accessible. Electricity can help solve this problem too, by providing means of information and technology development in all parts of the nation. Internet and networking can help the public services serve better with immediate transaction and record sharing.

Is it possible in the present insurgent scenario?

Of course. At least it is possible in all the lower belts of Nepal where less or no Maoist casualties have been reported. To start with, huge resources such as arun, koshi, narayani, gandaki, karnali, bheri, mahakali, mechi, bagmati, seti and other major semi rivers are ready for the transformation. The only constraint is finance. Nepal cannot handle this on its own. Nor can it take loan from huge pervert banks who eventually scrap their investment from the poor Nepalese making them poorer. There needs to be a commitment for Nepal from all loving nations around the world. A commitment to change Nepal, transform Nepal and to modernize it; to immunize it from terrorism, from ill political scandals, corruption, power centers, anarchism and autocracy and from the hands of the disillusioned Maoists who are following the path of Mao, of whom even China has discarded his notion.

What about the question then? When is armed revolution justified?

Never. Instead of providing support either to the government or to the Maoists by supplying arms in the name of weapons or military aid or similar known and known means; why not centralize the support for the sole purpose of power development in Nepal? Why justify guns when we have already feared from terrorism versions of 9/11?

Therefore there has to be a commitment from all, all segments, all nations and all concerned to help Nepal modify itself and to help it to rise from its worst situation. It may take another 20 years but the results will be certain. Whereas, given the scenario of another south Asian nation Sri Lanka where the armed conflict has rooted itself for 20 years, if support is made on weapon, Nepal will reach nowhere but collapse. It might not be far when this paradise nation shall be declared as another Kashmir between two arch rivals India and China.

 

May Lord Buddha the peace maker, Lord Vishnu the creator, Lord Brahma the generator and Lord Shiva the destroyer save Nepal from all evils. May lord ganesh, the beginning of all good work, Goddess saraswati, the goddess of knowledge, Goddess Laxmi, the goddess of wealth and Goddess durga, the goddess of strength and truth open the eyes of those who truly adore Nepal and seek peace for her.

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Laws, Legal Development, Mediation/Arbitration, Shameful Laws, Social Engineering, The Judiciary, कानून नेपाल

Let us work too!

Let us work too! Let us be a part of your fate! Let us rebuild and contribute! Katrina is not only a disaster but also an opportunity to build a safer tomorrow for our descendants. Lt us take her as a lesson. The law of the nature is untamable and cannot be judged lightly. Apart from any other man made laws and our schools of jurisprudence, the natural law or the divine law has been the most powerful. Tsunami has already taught us a lesson and without mercy Mother Nature has stricken again. It is awful to know that Katrina is the costliest natural disaster in the United States followed by the last year’s six floods, the 90’s flood and the global terror of 9/11.

A day without Mexico may have expressed the sentiments in some way to those who are really concerned. They say the issue of immigrants, regardless of their status, to be legalized is gone now! What is wrong with allowing us pay you tax as every one does here? It is possible that there are possibilities of terrorism as in the London bombing but hate crime is not the right answer for us. All of us are here because of a reason

Have been terrorized in our homes

We all have an absolute reason otherwise there is no point seeking your protection. Is it wrong to dream of your life standard? We have a past which we cannot change but we do want to be a part of your today to make our tomorrow as better as yours. We all are just but long staying tourist, bound to go back tour origin after serving you. It represents the modern slavery in which you are the vital part of the society but treated differently.

Filed under: A Lawless Scoiety, Gyanendra, Legal Development, Mediation/Arbitration, Shameful Laws, Uncategorized

Marriages

I had a love marriage, a 4 year affair turned to amarriage and i am waiting eagerly for my 5th anneversary on this April 1st. I have my own story and will surely share it with full compassion in a few days. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth.

My cousin, with whom i have been spending these weekends nowadays, is fired with the marriage bullet every now and then by his parents and his relatives, friends, well wishers and he sometimes gets pissed off! I recall him commenting on marriage once last month, “yestai ho bhane ma keta lai bihe gardinchhu…”; and yet another ” ma ta bihe garna jahile pani tayar nai thiye, jahile pani tayar chhu, gardina bhaneko hoina ni, garchhu….tara….mero lagi kasto keti khojne ho bhanera bujhna ko lagi pahile malai ramrari bujheko hunu paryo tapai haru le…….”

A friend of ours H and his girl friend K, both of whom were our closest pals in college days (along with M & K) got married two months ago finally. The irony is that we always suspected this thing would work out between them, given their quarrels, threats, unacceptance from home of each other and several failed attempts of relationship break-ups! But they did any way and i hope they have begun living happily form that day after…

M & K; M the guy was the first in our group to fall over K the gurl; its been 8 years of sheer love affair between them and finally, they compromised (somehow) to be seperate. K the gurl is seperate and the guy sent an email to me yesterday saying that he is finally getting married! With someone else….of course….. and he seemed damn happy. Good for him. With all these years of Masters in Love he can outrun any relationship issues in future, i am dead sure! Good luck for K the gurl. Go for a PHd Gurl!!!

A, the hiphop downtown Kathmandu guy, a lover cassanova; left for abroad study years back (9 years) ended up there in some serious relationship trips , wandered here and there, loved the ‘dust’ instead of people and ended up screwed up in the generation of flowers. Last time he told me that he was marrying a carribian girl and one month later his parents had to bring him back to Nepal, given unforseen reason. What his past explains is not of prime concern to me here. What is important is that, one month and some days in Nepal….and he married an educated professional woman and is enjoying his life. He seems to be more focussed, serious, clean and result orientred now given the fact that he has immense responsibilities to keep up the marriage alive and glowing and to live happily ever after.

A couple more and I am done: I am not bitchin’ around here…just trying to understand the different phenomenon of marriages….. and help them undrestand better who plan to marry ……..

J, dude from KTM , landed up in East Coast, stayed here for 8 yrs as a student, got married last year with a Nepalese gurl there. A couple of months of sheer excitement of a new marriage…..moving from a studio to a 1 bedroom in a suburb from a thin neighbourhood. Ended up with DUI, possession and an e-crime of ‘possible’ sexual harrassment of a minor; forceibly returned (deported!). Lives a happy life now and hates George Bush!!!

R, postgraduate, ended up being here, just because his girlfriend came year a month earlier. Crossed the seven seas to get married and now faces challange to keep up with his decision given the fact that her parents are not willing to approve. The marriage is still kept a secret! But they are married anyway! The gurl lives in east coast and the dude in the west…

B, been here for  4 years. Ended up here after a long serious relationship with a blonde. stayed together for a couple of months, didn’t work and split as good friends. Dont know about the lady but our guy is desperate….haunted by the fear of marriage and the need to marry together. Last time he called his family back home, he had to debate on theissue of ‘marriage’ over the phone at 2 a.m. in the morning!!! See what marriage can do to the singles!

Hey, doc…..you seem to be happy about this that nothin has been written about you! Hold on….Next time I get a chance…..I am going to…..

Ok guys….back to work……mind on work……

Filed under: Gyanendra, Mediation/Arbitration, Shameful Laws, कानून नेपाल

Thank You All

  • 99,667 readers from 176 nations

Stakeholders

Swine Flu Info

RSS Unknown Feed

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Brighter Planet's 350 Challenge
Swine Flu Info

Blog value


My blog is worth $2,822.70.
How much is your blog worth?

RESEARCH

Contact for research on any Nepal issues, political development and for the news and events related to the politics of Nepal.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this Site is for general guidance based on information available in the internet on several matters discussed. THE AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG IS NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES. The author is only licensed to practice law in Nepal. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the updating immigration policies, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information contained in this Site. Accordingly, the information on this Site is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal, accounting, tax, or other professional advice and services. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional accounting, tax, legal or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should consult a professional such as an Immigration law Attorney or related professionals for other subject matters. All information in this Site is provided "as is", with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including, but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event will the author and the organizations the author is involved in will be thereof be liable to you or anyone else for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information in this Site or for any consequential, special or similar damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages. Certain links in this Site connect to other Web Sites maintained by third parties over whom the author has no control. Author and/or this blog and related author’s blogs or sites makes no representations as to the accuracy or any other aspect of information contained in other Web Sites.

 

November 2009
S M T W T F S
« Oct    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

SocialVibe


LawNepal-Twit