VZCZCXYZ0008
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVI #1521/01 2880921
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 140921Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY VIENNA
TO RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHDC
RUEAHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1104
INFO RUEHBW/AMEMBASSY BELGRADE 0013
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 1781

UNCLAS VIENNA 001521 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DHS FOR ICE/OPLA AND ICE/OIA; DOJ FOR OSI AND OIA; STATE 
FOR EUR/AGS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CPAS PREL AU
SUBJECT: AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT INFORMED OF KUMPF REMOVAL; 
ACCEPTS APPLICABILITY OF 1988 JOINT STATEMENT 
 
REF: 10-3-08 ST.ANDRE-YAP E-MAIL 
 
¶1. (U) Summary.  State and DHS/ICE representatives from 
Embassy met 10/7 with Austrian Foreign, Justice and Interior 
Ministry officials to request Austria accept the return of 
Josias Kumpf under the terms of the 1988 U.S.-Austria Joint 
Statement.  The Austrians agreed on the applicability of the 
1988 Statement and asked for 1) the text of the legal 
judgments that confirm that Kumpf obtained his 1956 by 
fraud/misstatement (see para 4) and 2) a letter from the 
Embassy confirming that the U.S. has provided the evidence 
required in para 4(b) of the Statement (see para 6 for draft 
text).  The Austrians also had additional questions regarding 
Kumpf that they confirmed is not relevant to their decision 
on accepting his removal but that would be useful in 
assessing how to treat him should he return to Austria.  See 
Action Requests in paras 4 and End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Participants: Austria - MFA: Helmut Tichy, Deputy 
Legal Director; Gerhard Deiss, Director for Legal 
Cooperation; Gregor Csoersz.  Interior: Christian Schmalzl, 
Deputy Director of Immigration Affairs.  Justice: Stefan 
Benner, Office of International Affairs.  U.S.: Dean Yap, 
Econ/Pol Counselor; Steven Madden, DHS/ICE. 
 
¶3. (U) Econ/Pol Counselor briefly reviewed the 
denaturalization and renewal cases against Kumpf and asked 
for formal Austrian review of the case in keeping with the 
1954 Readmissibility Declaration and the 1988 U.S.-Austrian 
Joint Statement.  Pursuant to the 1988 Statement, the MFA's 
Tichy noted that the Austrians do not regard the 1954 
Declaration as having legal effect, but that they agree that 
he 1988 Statement itself does apply.  They also stated their 
understanding that Kumpf's lack of Austrian citizenship was 
not an issue, as the 1988 Statement clearly applies to any 
persons who emigrated from Austrian territory.  Tichy then 
asked for the USG's "proof that (Kumpf's) immigration visa 
(was obtained) by fraudulent means or on the basis of false 
statements," as require din paragraph 4(b) of the Statement. 
 
¶4. (U) Drawing from the material provided in ref e-mail, 
Econ/Pol Couns noted the findings of both the U.S. District 
Court ((U.S. vs. Kumpf, No. 3-C-944) and the Court of Appeals 
for the Seventh Circuit (U.S. vs. Kumpf, 438 F.3d 785, 787). 
Tichy asked that copies of the decisions be provided for GoA 
review.  DOJ's Benner reported that in discussions with the 
U.S. in early 2007, the Amended Decision and Removal Order of 
the Immigration Judge (Jennie L. Giambastiani) had been 
provided to the Austrians, together with copies of various 
evidence submitted to the court did not address the question 
of immigration fraud.  (Note: Embassy was unaware of the 
early 2007 contacts and has requested background information 
on the purpose and outcome of these discussion through Legatt 
channels.) 
 
¶5. (U) Tichy and Benner also asked for a letter from the 
Embassy that would confirm in writing the U.S. request that 
Austria accept Kumpf, the USG view that Kumpf obtained his 
visa by fraudulent means (and cover the court decisions 
confirming this), and confirm that the U.S. had provided, as 
required in para 4(b) of the Joint Statement, that the USG 
had transmitted to Austria "all evidence at (its) disposal 
which led ... to the conclusion" that Kumpf's visa had been 
obtained by fraud.  Benner indicated that in addition to the 
court decisions, the material providing the 2007 discussions 
would be sufficient from the Austrian perspective to meet 
their own legal requirements.  He reported that Austrian 
prosecutors would review Kumpf's case to determine whether 
legal action should be taken against him in Austria. 
 
¶6. U) Action Request: Clearance from the Departments of 
State, Homeland Security, and Justice is requested on the 
following text of a letter in response to the request in para 
5 above: 
 
Begin Text: 
 
"Dear Dr. Tichy, 
 
I wish with this letter to confirm my verbal request of 
October 7 that, pursuant to the procedures in the 
U.S.-Austrian Joint Statement of December 21, 1988, the 
Government of Austria agree to the return of Josias Kumpf to 
Austria, in keeping with the findings of the District Court 
and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that Mr. 
Kumpf obtained his immigrant visa through fraud and false 
 
statements and with the Order of Removal issued by the 
Immigration Court in Chicago, Illinois on January 8, 2007. 
The United States Government concurs with these decisions. 
 
Enclosed with this letter you will find copies of the 
decisions by the U.S. District Court and the Court of 
Appeals, which detail the grounds for the courts' findings. 
I understand that the Government of Austria is already in 
possession of the text of the Immigration Court's decision. 
 
With the transmittal of these decisions, and together with 
the Immigration Court decision and other materials provided 
to the Government of Austria in 2007, I also affirm that the 
U.S. authorities have now transmitted all evidence at our 
disposal which led to the conclusion that Mr. Kumpf obtained 
his immigration visa by fraudulent means or on the basis of 
false statements, as required in paragraph 4(b) of the Joint 
Statement of December 21, 1988. 
 
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have further 
questions, and I look forward to discussing this issue 
further, as necessary. 
 
Sincere regards, 
 
Dean Yap 
Counselor of Embassy" 
 
End Text. 
 
¶7. (U) Action Request - Additional Questions:  In addition to 
the requests above, the Austrian officials asked several 
question relevant to the status and treatment of Kumpf in 
Austria, should he return.  Econ/Pol Counselor affirmed, and 
the Austrians agreed, that the answers to these questions 
were of no relevance in the decision to accept the return of 
Kumpf.  Rather, they were practical questions related to 
Kumpf's status and treatment in Austria.  Embassy would 
appreciate any information Washington agencies can provide on 
these points: 
 
-- Does Kumpf have any legal options that he could pursue to 
remain in the U.S. or to return to the U.S. after removal 
(for example, on the basis of family reunification or 
hardship)? 
 
-- Does Kumpf have any family or other personal ties to 
Austria? 
 
-- What type of document would Kumpf travel on in returning 
to Austria? 
 
-- What is the state of his health (physical and mental)? 
 
-- What is his financial status and, specifically, would he 
have a source of income (such as a pension) to support 
himself in Austria? 
 
GIRARD-DICARLO