VZCZCXRO5768
RR RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHNH
DE RUEHHM #0030/01 0070530
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 070530Z JAN 08
FM AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH CITY
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3536
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE
RUEHHM/AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH CITY 3755

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HO CHI MINH CITY 000030 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR PRM AND EAP/MLS 
STATE FOR ECA/PE/V/F/A (MICHAEL CAIN AND NALINEE CAIN) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREF PREL KPAO VM
SUBJECT: 5TH HUMANITARIAN RESETTLEMENT PROCESS JOINT WORKING GROUP 
MEETING, DECEMBER 13, 2007 
 
 
HO CHI MIN 00000030  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶1.  (U) Summary:  During the fifth Humanitarian Resettlement 
(HR) Joint Working Group (JWG) meeting on December 13, 
discussion centered on plans to conclude the process and was 
generally productive.  The two sides agreed on a final round of 
Public Information Outreach (PIO) throughout southern Vietnam to 
take place over two weeks in January 2008 shortly before Tet. 
We related the necessity for HRS's caseworkers (International 
Organization for Migration (IOM) employees) after June 25, 2008, 
when their visas expire per the current arrangement between the 
GVN and IOM.  The GVN suggested that a direct request from IOM 
would be the most appropriate way to approach visa extension. 
Discussions of fraud prevention led nowhere, but re-enforced our 
perceptions of how much more our two countries could cooperate. 
GVN sensitivity to criticism was manifested both in our 
discussion of fraud prevention and in their complaint near the 
end of the meeting about the 2007 Vietnam Human Rights Act.  End 
summary. 
 
---------------- 
Progress to Date 
---------------- 
¶2.  (U) Post hosted the Fifth session of the JWG.  Representing 
the GVN were Le Xuan Vien, Deputy Director of the Ministry of 
Public Security's (MPS) Department of Immigration and 
Emigration, and five other MPS and MFA representatives. 
Representing the USG side were DPO Angela Dickey, picking up the 
role previously held by former DPO Ken Chern, HRS Chief Tim 
Swanson, and CIS OIC Mary Ann Russell.  Both sides reviewed the 
current state of the process and the work they have put into it. 
 HRS has received over 58,000 HR applications.  Almost 54,000 
cases (representing about 150,000 persons) have not met the 
criteria for the categories open under HR and have been screened 
out.  USCIS has interviewed about half of the cases opened so 
far.  This process has resulted in 1,120 persons either already 
resettled or approved for resettlement.  Over 3,000 more were 
either refused or found not qualified at interview. 
 
¶3.  (U) Vien announced that the GVN has issued a total of 7,800 
passports to persons who notified the GVN that they were HR 
applicants; 800 of those passports were issued since April 2007. 
 The GVN has provided 176 responses to USG re-education release 
certificate verification requests.  More are still pending.  It 
has proven difficult to secure confirmation of  some records 
because some localities have been redistricted and renamed many 
times in the intervening years with consequent shifts in the 
location of, or responsibility for, their records.  Vien said 
that his office has sent some records to as many as six or seven 
provinces without success, but that they were still trying. 
 
--------------------------- 
Public Information Outreach 
--------------------------- 
¶4.  (U) The two sides had agreed to a final round of PIO at the 
fourth JWG in May.  The USG proposed to add three sentences to 
the message emphasizing the process's end and the need to apply 
as quickly as possible.  The GVN agreed in principal to the 
change.  The DPO remarked that the PIO should be as far reaching 
and as thorough as possible so that anyone who was qualified and 
interested in HR would learn about it and be able to apply.  The 
USG asked that the PIO be as long as possible and that the 
message be broadcast or printed as many times as possible in all 
34 provinces from Quang Tri south.  Given the approach of Tet, 
the USG suggested having the PIO in late February as the 
audience would not be distracted with the upcoming holiday and 
because advertising costs before Tet could be relatively 
expensive. 
 
¶5.  (U) Vien noted that based on their discussions with media 
outlets, a two week PIO was feasible given the budget available. 
 The GVN side initially indicated that there would only be one 
newspaper, one television, and one radio announcement each per 
province, they then stated that two announcements in each media 
form would be possible.  Vien suggested that it would be 
psychologically more effective to have the PIO before Tet, which 
would allow potential applicants to discuss whether to apply 
during the family gatherings over the holiday.  It would also 
allow for wider word of mouth dissemination because of the great 
amount of Tet-related travel just after the PIO.   The USG side 
accepted this recommendation. 
 
---------------------- 
Completing the Process 
---------------------- 
¶6.  (U) The U.S. side noted that USCIS has yet to interview 
about half of the screened in cases and that it expects to 
screen in about 700 more cases, including many of the cases 
currently pending re-education camp release certificate 
verification.  The length of time required for verifications is 
 
HO CHI MIN 00000030  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
one of the largest variables in predicting the process's end. 
Since USCIS is planning four circuit rides to HCMC in 2008, 
rather that the three we had planned on earlier, it is possible 
that the entire caseload will be interviewed before 2009.  The 
US side emphasized that this is dependent on whether our 
expatriate caseworkers employed on contract by the International 
Organization for Migration (IOM) are able to work after the HR 
application period ends on June 25, 2008.  The USG side also 
noted that the expatriate caseworkers are also involved in Visas 
93, McCain, and Priority One processing.  Given these cases and 
the likelihood that some HR cases would be pended and take 
considerably longer to conclude, the USG side informed the GVN 
that it was possible that one or two IOM expatriates would be 
needed for a few years after the conclusion of HR.  Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs Consular Department Deputy Chief Nguyen Thanh 
Thuy recommended that this issue be raised with MFA Consular 
through a diplomatic note from IOM once there was a more 
concrete knowledge of the likely need for such personnel. 
 
-------------------------- 
Fraud Prevention - Not Yet 
-------------------------- 
¶7.  (SBU) While verification of re-education release 
certificates has been valuable, in a number of cases the US side 
informed the GVN that the verification result is difficult to 
rectify with other facts.  Vien, with some heat, stated that the 
verifications were confirmations of GVN records and as such were 
absolutely accurate.  He went on that it was possible that the 
actual document presented in a given case might not be genuine 
and that the person who submitted it might have gotten it 
through a broker.  If the latter was true, the applicant may not 
even know where the document came from.  If the document was 
"verified" that did not mean that MPS guaranteed that it had 
issued that particular piece of paper.  Rather it meant that the 
data on the document matched MPS records.  The US side 
elaborated that there were a number of possible reasons for the 
detected discrepancies, imposters being one of them.  The two 
sides agreed to look further at this problem on a case by case 
basis. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The two sides also discussed add-on family members. 
The US side asked the GVN again to inform us when they detected 
such problems, especially since this could relate to alien 
smuggling and permanent ineligibility to enter the United 
States.  The GVN side, seemingly amused that in this instance 
U.S. law is much harsher than Vietnamese law, repeated its 
response to this request.  In such cases, persons are barred 
from exiting Vietnam for five years.  The GVN side (not very 
helpfully) said we would be able to recognize such cases by the 
ban itself.  Earlier in the meeting, Vien had mentioned that the 
two countries should cooperate closely to manage immigration and 
that a list of all HR applicants (the so-called "List A") would 
help the GVN do this. 
 
------------------- 
Unpleasant Business 
------------------- 
¶9.  (SBU) The GVN declined to add any specific items to the 
agenda, but under "Other Business," Vien rather unexpectedly 
raised the 2007 Vietnam Human Rights Bill that has passed in the 
U.S. House of Representatives.  He said that Vietnam was "very 
sad" about its contents -- particularly the items relating to 
"refugee."  He asked where the bill's authors had gotten their 
information about Vietnam and the refugee situation here.  He 
asked what State had or had not done with regard to the bill and 
implored the U.S. side to convey Vietnam's unhappiness with the 
bill, and to inform the U.S. Senate about the bill's 
inaccuracies.  He repeatedly emphasized that Vietnam allows its 
citizens the freedom to immigrate, contrary to the bill's 
portrayal of the situation.  The DPO agreed to pass on these 
concerns, but recommended that the Vietnamese Embassy in 
Washington could do much more to cultivate ties with Congress 
and better represent the GVN's point of view in Washington. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) In contrast to earlier in the process, the GVN 
expressed no great interest in fixing a date for the fifth 
meeting.  Previously the GVN had been punctilious about trying 
to schedule JWG meetings on a quarterly basis as stated in the 
agreement on HR.  In reality, there have been too few discussion 
items to justify meeting so frequently, and the GVN now seems to 
have come around to this point of view.  Vien suggested that the 
next, and final, meeting of the JWG could take place in late 
June after the end of the application period.  He also reminded 
the U.S. side about A/S Sauerbrey's idea of a working visit to 
the U.S. (a possible volvis) so that GVN officials could observe 
USG and NGO operations -- essentially how civil society works -- 
particularly in the contexts of the resettlement process and 
working with ethnic minority communities.  He wondered if such a 
 
HO CHI MIN 00000030  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
trip could be in conjunction with a final JWG meeting. 
 
¶11.  (U) Comment:  The productive and positive aspects of the 
meeting went according to our expectations and the tone was 
cooperative, if not really effusive.  The GVN continues to be 
sensitive to critique as shown by the reaction to the VNHRA and 
their perception that our questions about re-education release 
certificate verifications impugned the integrity of the 
verification process. 
 
¶12.  (U) Comment continued:  JWG members and a number of local 
and provincial officials in the Central Highlands separately 
have expressed interest in learning more about civil society in 
the United States.  A volvis combining these officials as well 
as national-level officials responsible for ethnic minority 
affairs could be made to showcase civil society in the U.S.  For 
instance, it could include a segment in Washington on 
national-level policies and coordination, a visit to a Native 
American community in New Mexico, and another visit of a local 
volunteer agency participating in refugee resettlement from 
Vietnam and elsewhere.  This could advance U.S. interests in 
promoting civil society and greater space for NGO's in Vietnam 
by showing Vietnamese officials how civil society and social 
services operate in the U.S.  End comment. 
FAIRFAX