VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVN #0120/01 0720736
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 130736Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY VIENTIANE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2501
INFO RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 7931
RHMCSUU/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS VIENTIANE 000120 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CASC KCRM LA PREL
SUBJECT: LAOS AND U.S. DISCUSS BASIC PROCEDDURES FOR LAO 
NATIONALS REPATRIATION 
 
1.(SBU) Summary: During February 25 discussions, Government 
of Laos officials and a visiting State/DHS delegation 
provisionally agreed on working procedures for handling 
repatriation of Lao nationals from the United States. This 
second round of talks followed up on initial discussions held 
on July 31, 2008.  The Embassy will send a diplomatic note 
formally seeking GOL acceptance of the procedures. 
Implementation of the agreed procedures will begin as soon as 
the GOL responds positively. This agreement will provide a 
framework for future cooperation on repatriation and 
represents a clear advance, since previous repatriation 
discussions in 2001 ended without any agreement.  The two 
sides also agreed to meet again within six months after the 
working procedures are implemented, to discuss problems or 
desired changes. End Summary. 
 
2.(U) Representatives of the U.S. and  Lao governments held a 
second round of discussions on repatriation at the Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs on February 25.  Following is a list of 
participants: 
 
Lao Government: 
Mr. Mai Sayavongs, Deputy Director of Europe and Americas 
Department, MFA 
Mr. Souphanh Hadaoheuang, Deputy Director of America 
Division, MFA 
Mr. Chatoulinh Souidaray, America Division Desk Officer, MFA 
Mr. Pannyasinh Nuansangsy, Senior Officer, Treaty and Laws 
Division, MFA 
Mr. Bounliep Hounvongsone, Deputy Director General of 
Consular Affairs Department, MFA 
Mr. Phoutdavanh Luangahmath, Chief of Law Institute, Justice 
System Administration Department, National Division, Ministry 
of Justice 
Mr. Souksomboun Khinsanom, Officer, Justice System 
Administration Department, National Division, MOJ 
Mr. Sisavanh Luanglath, Supreme Court Judge, People,s 
Supreme Court 
Mr. Amphai Chidmanon, Deputy Director General of Law 
Department, National Assembly 
Major Sainakhone LNU, Deputy Director General of Immigration 
Department, Ministry of Public Security 
Major Souvanhnakon Syphamavong, Division Director General, 
Immigration Department, MOPS 
Mr. Khamphet Somvorachit, Deputy Director General of Foreign 
Affairs Division, Supreme People,s Prosecutor 
Mr. Lattanaphone Vongkhamsao, Director General of People,s 
Reformation Department, Supreme People,s Prosecutor 
 
U.S. Government: 
Mr. Peter Haymond, Deputy Chief of Mission, U.S. Embassy 
Vientiane 
Ms. Mary McLeod, Assistant Legal Advisor, Bureau of Legal 
Affairs, DOS 
Ms. Joan Lieberman, Associate Legal Advisor, Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, DHS 
Mr. Thomas Campbell, Travel Document Unit, Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement, DHS 
Mr. Adrian Macias, Assistant Attache, Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement, U.S. Embassy Bangkok 
Ms. Sengchanh Vanvongsot, Interpreter, U.S. Embassy Vientiane 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
Talks Objectives:  Working Procedures, Understanding 
Nationality Law 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
3.(SBU) DCM advised that the U.S. had two primary objectives 
for the talks. The first was to try to reach agreement on 
basic procedures covering all cases.  The second was to 
identify types of cases that both sides could agree were 
appropriate for repatriation, taking into account the 
responsibility of countries to accept their nationals back. 
 
4.(SBU) The draft procedures provided by the U.S. for Lao 
review before the talks were intended to be simple and 
flexible so they could cover all sorts of cases. In summary, 
the draft procedures proposed that the U.S. submit a request 
to the Lao Embassy in Washington for repatriation of an 
individual, accompanied by background information and 
available nationality documents.  It was then proposed that 
the Lao Embassy provide one of three answers within 30 days 
of receiving the request: 
 
(1) yes, we agree and we will provide travel documents if 
needed for the person to return to Laos; 
(2) more information is needed before a decision can be made; 
and 
(3) no, we cannot accept the return, with the legal 
justification. 
 
 
¶5. (SBU)  Regarding nationality questions, the DCM noted the 
U.S. view that if a person living in the U.S. was not a U.S. 
citizen, responsibility for that person lies with the country 
of origin, which is assumed to be the country of citizenship. 
 He acknowledged that there were some areas of nationality 
where the U.S. and Laos may not yet be in agreement.  He 
proposed to center this session of talks on identifying cases 
where the two sides can agree, with other areas left for 
later discussion.  The U.S. experts present had some 
additional questions regarding previous GOL responses on Lao 
nationality law and practice. If there was time and desire on 
the Lao side, the DCM added, the U.S. side was prespared to 
talk about cases of particular interest to the Lao. 
 
6.(SBU)  DDG Mai responded that the Lao side had studied the 
draft procedures provided by the U.S. and could in principle 
accept them.  He noted that in 2007, the USG had sent about 
26 people back to Laos, but the repatriation procedures had 
not been consistent and had sometimes created problems, as 
when the Lao were unaware of a return until the individual 
debarked from a plane in Laos.  He did indicate a few areas 
of concern in the USG draft procedures.  The Lao side was 
confused about the language in paragraph 4 which appeared to 
imply that the Lao Embassy was supposed to issue or deny a 
travel document within 30 days, which seemed too short a time 
to them in cases where further investigation is required. DCM 
indicated that paragraph 4 could be clarified on the point 
that issuing travel documents, refusing to issue, or advising 
of the need for further investigation were alternatives. 
 
7.(SBU) DHS/ICE Lieberman pointed out that if the Lao side 
explains to the U.S. side what further information is needed, 
the U.S. side can talk with the individuals to attempt to 
obtain further information that might assist in the 
investigation.  DHS/ICE Campbell added that, for his 
purposes, it would be adequate if the Lao side could at least 
complete the initial review within 30 days -- which would 
involve screening the documents provided for obvious errors 
and notifying the U.S. that the case was being forwarded to 
Vientiane for investigation.  Campbell also offered to 
provide a simple form to facilitate the Lao Embassy initial 
review response.  Mai then asked that paragraph 4 of the 
draft procedures be modified to reflect that only the initial 
review by the Embassy must be completed within 30 days. The 
U.S. side agreed. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Timeline for Providing a Final Decision 
--------------------------------------- 
 
8.(SBU) DDG Mai then turned to paragraph 5 of the draft 
procedures, which asked that a final decision be made by the 
Lao Government within 60 days after the end of the initial 
review period. Mai explained that investigating cases of Lao 
nationals who had lived in the U.S. for more than ten years 
was often a challenge, because the geographic designations 
(districts, sub-districts, village names) have frequently 
changed.  The individual may only remember the name of his 
native village, but that name may have disappeared.  Sixty 
days is sufficient for persons who had lived in Vientiane, he 
said, but not necessarily for those from remoter locales, 
where the Lao side would have to contact local authorities, 
and identify budgets for travel to those locations to do so. 
 
9.(SBU) DHS/ICE Campbell advised that the U.S. side's needs 
could be satisfied if the Embassy provided a status report to 
ICE for cases that could not be resolved within 60 days.  The 
status report could simply be a phone call.  For such cases, 
the U.S. would then ask the GOL to provide a decision on the 
case as soon as possible.  The two sides agreed to redraft 
paragraph 5 along those lines. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Lao Travel and Identification Documents 
--------------------------------------- 
 
10.(SBU) DHS/ICE Campbell asked whether the Lao Embassy could 
issue travel documents for Lao nationals or whether all such 
had to be issued in Vientiane.  MFA/Consular Bounliep 
explained that each case must be vetted with Vientiane, but 
that the Embassy would issue the documents. 
 
11.(SBU) In response to further questions from Campbell, the 
Lao side explained that Vientiane is the only place in Laos 
where Lao passports can be obtained.  Lao nationals abroad 
are supposed to register with the Lao Embassy in their 
country or in the nearest country containing a Lao Embassy. 
Through this registration, Lao nationals receive a special 
I.D. document for use overseas; this is different from the 
 
national I.D. used when the individual is in Laos. 
 
--------------------- 
Consular Notification 
--------------------- 
 
12.(SBU) DDG Mai noted that if a Lao national is arrested in 
the United States, law enforcement authorities are obligated 
to notify Lao consular officials, so the Embassy should 
already know that the individual was detained. He added, 
however, that there had been cases where the Lao Embassy did 
not receive notification, and stressed that the GOL has 
passed a law requiring all their law enforcement authorities 
to notify relevant embassies of the detentions of foreign 
nationals. 
 
13.(SBU) DHS/ICE Campbell explained that there are 17,000 
state and local law enforcement authorities in the United 
States, and that ICE is not aware of all arrests of foreign 
nationals. The state and local authorities are responsible 
for making consular notification.  ICE only knows when 
individuals come into its custody after serving sentences. 
DCM added that the USG appreciates MFA's help in alerting Lao 
authorities at the district level of the duty to report 
detentions of foreign nationals.  State/L McLeod stressed 
that the State Department is constantly reaching out to state 
and local law enforcement authorities in the U.S. to remind 
them of their consular notification responsibilities. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
Repatriation of Lao with Valid Passports 
---------------------------------------- 
 
14.(SBU) ICE Bangkok Macias then asked whether individuals 
with unexpired valid passports could be sent back without 
vetting the cases through Vientiane.  MFA/Cons Bounliep 
responded "yes," provided the Embassy receives advance notice 
of the return.  Campbell undertook to have ICE provide at 
least five days notice in the cases of individuals who were 
in ICE custody.  He noted, however, that there are also cases 
where individuals are turned around at the airport and do not 
enter ICE custody.  Notice should also be provided in those 
cases, but realistically might not be received by the Lao 
Embassy before the individual arrived in Laos. 
 
15.(SBU) Macias asked whether Lao officers meet everyone who 
returns to Laos.  The Lao side explained that immigration 
officers handle the initial arrivals and interview the 
individuals to find out where they are from and how they will 
return there.  If the Lao Embassy has notified them in 
advance, the process is relatively easy.  If not, it is 
considerably longer and more difficult. 
 
---------------------- 
Losing Lao Nationality 
---------------------- 
 
16.(SBU)  The discussion turned briefly to questions about 
the responses the Lao side provided to U.S. questions about 
loss of nationality.  In the case of Lao nationals who lose 
nationality when resident abroad, State/L McLeod asked what 
the difference was between two categories -- those who lost 
nationality after seven years because they were not 
authorized to travel, and those who lost nationality after 
ten years because they failed to register -- given that exit 
visas are no longer required by the GOL. DDG Mai explained 
that the first category included those who left the country 
without a passport and the second those who left with one. 
 
17.(SBU) McLeod then posed a hypothetical -- a Lao national 
who got a tourist visa but then stayed in the U.S. and worked 
for 11 year -- and asked whether the individual would lose 
Lao nationality.  Mai answered "yes," but in response to a 
question whether the GOL would consider taking the individual 
back, noted that there was a difference between "law" and 
"implementation," and that such situations would have to be 
addressed case by case.  Finally, McLeod asked whether there 
were any changes contemplated in the Nationality Law, as had 
been suggested at the July 2008 meeting.  Mai answered that 
the law itself is not going to be changed, but that an 
implementing decree is pending with the Prime Minister.  DCM 
asked to be alerted when the decree is approved. 
 
----------------- 
U.S. LPRs in Laos 
----------------- 
 
18.(SBU) DDG Mai raised the case of U.S. legal permanent 
residents of Lao origin who came to Laos and chose to stay, 
and asked whether the USG would accept them back.  DHS/ICE 
 
 
Campbell explained that, except in special circumstances, 
permanent resident status expires after two years, and that 
accepting back such an individual would be "very rare." 
 
----------------------------- 
Looking Forward, Case by Case 
----------------------------- 
 
19.(SBU) DDG Mai closed the meeting by reiterating the GOL 
position that repatriation of Lao nationals should be on a 
case by case basis, and that there needed to be agreement by 
both sides in each case.  He indicated that as the procedures 
are implemented, the Lao side would be happy to discuss any 
issues that might arise.  He added that the Lao side could 
agree to planning a meeting six months after the procedures 
are implemented, as proposed by the U.S. side.  The U.S. 
delegation promised to forward a revised draft of the 
procedures shortly for GOL approval. 
 
20.(SBU) The agreed points from the meeting, as initialed by 
DDG Mai and State/L McLeod follow below: 
 
¶A. The U.S. side will redraft paragraph 4 of the draft 
procedures to provide for an initial review by the Lao 
Embassy within 30 days of the date of receipt of the request. 
In 30 days, the Embassy will notify ICE that the Lao side 
 
(a) will accept the return of the individual; or 
(b) will not accept the return of the individual; or 
(c) has found defects in the documents; or 
(d) has referred the documents to Vientiane for review. 
 
If the Embassy indicates that it will not accept the return 
of the individual, the notice will explain why. If the 
Embassy indicates that there are defects in the documents, it 
will explain the defects. 
 
¶B. ICE will provide a simple form that the Embassy can use in 
making this notification provided for in paragraph 4. 
 
¶C. The U.S. side will redraft paragraph 5 of the draft 
procedures to say that after the Lao side has notified the 
U.S. side that a decision has been referred to Vientiane for 
decision, the Lao side will try its best to provide a 
decision within 60 days after the date of notification. In 
cases where a decision is not possible within 60 days, the 
Lao Embassy will inform ICE and will provide a decision 
afterwards as soon as possible. 
 
¶D. In cases where a decision is not possible within sixty 
days, the Embassy will make an update to ICE by phone or in 
writing. 
 
¶E. A short new paragraph will say that cases involving 
unexpired travel documents can be returned to Laos with a 
notification to the Embassy. ICE will do its best to provide 
at least 5 days advance notice for the cases involving 
unexpired passports. 
 
¶F. The U.S. side will send a new draft of the procedures to 
the Lao side via diplomatic note and ask that the Lao side 
indicate that it accepts the procedures. The Lao side will 
respond by diplomatic note. When the Lao side accepts the 
procedures, the two sides will begin applying them 
immediately. 
 
¶G. Within six months, the two sides will meet to review the 
implementation of the procedures. The meeting could be either 
in Vientiane of in Washington. 
HUSO