Counterterrorism & International Human Rights Archives | Page 5 of 8

ACLU Challenges Trump Administration’s New Asylum Rules

August 9, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

The American Civil Liberties Union, coming fresh off a victory over the Trump administration’s family separation policy, is once again filing a lawsuit against the government for deliberately preventing thousands of immigrants from seeking asylum. The complaint, filed on behalf of 12 immigrants from Central American countries, seeks to put a stop to the government’s new screening policies and hopes to persuade the judge that the administration is committing asylum fraud. According to the ACLU, the Department of Homeland Security is manipulating the fast-track removal system, created under President Clinton in 1996, in order to block worthy asylum seekers from getting a full hearing in immigration court. They claim that this change in policy violates numerous laws and statutes, not to mention the separation-of-powers principles outlined in the Constitution.

In order to successfully apply for asylum, migrants have to demonstrate a fear of persecution in their home country based on their inclusion in a certain social category such as race, nationality, or political opinion. Up until recently, victims of domestic violence and related abuse could also claim persecution related to membership “in a particular social group”, meaning their marriage or relationship to their abuser. But in June of this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions overturned a Board of Immigration Appeals court cause that had granted asylum to a Salvadoran woman under this criterion. Attorney General Sessions stated in his opinion that most cases featuring victims of gang and/or domestic violence would no longer be grounds for asylum.

Only a month after Sessions’ ruling, the Justice Department issued new screening policies that placed migrants in fast-track deportation proceedings called “expedited removal”. As a result, a record number of asylum applicants are failing their initial “credible fear” interviews, despite having clear evidence of danger and potential death if they return to their home countries. According to statistics released by Syracuse University, only 14.7 percent of asylum seekers have passed their initial review in 2018 so far. This is a marked drop from approval levels in the second half of 2017, which were nearly twice what they are now. The ACLU, as well as other immigration attorneys and advocates, see this shift as evidence that the Trump administration is trying to reduce the number of people granted asylum by limiting the conditions by which it is granted.

The ACLU has called the Trump administration’s new screening policies “an assault against longstanding elements of U.S. asylum law”, in direct violation of the separation of powers principles in the Constitution. The government is doing so in order to overturn decades of settled asylum law, so that they can set up worthy asylum seekers to fail their credible fear interviews and be deported back to their home countries, where many of them face the all too real prospect of violent harm or even death.

EU to Take Hungary to Court over Prime Minister Orban’s Treatment of Immigrants

July 26, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

The European Union is seeking legal action against the government of Hungary for its treatment of asylum seekers, after threatening to do so for nearly three years. On Thursday, July 19, the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, announced in a formal letter that it planned to ask its highest courts to fine Hungary for not complying with several EU treaties that require member states to provide protection for foreigners seeking refuge. The decision could have fundamental implications for Europe as its nations struggle to reconcile their increasingly different ideas about democracy and human rights in an age of rising nationalism and strongman politics.

The European Union’s decision to take legal action is in direct opposition to Hungarian Prime Minister Orban’s hardline stance against immigration and asylum seekers. President Orban has relied on his nationalist and fear-based politics since 2015, a strategy that carried him to his third consecutive term earlier this year. Details of some of his anti-immigration policies include housing asylum seekers for months on end in remodeled shipping containers and installing a militarized wall along Hungary’s southern border. While Orban’s critics caution that he is neglecting the rule of law and encouraging neighboring countries, such as Austria and Slovenia, to do the same, Hungarian citizens have overwhelmingly endorsed his brand of politics.

According to EU policy, Hungary has two months to respond to the Commission before it begins assessing whether or not Orban and his government have violated any rules. In the meantime, the investigation may empower Prime Minister Orban by keeping public attention on him. This may help him with his plan to pass a constitutional amendment that would prevent the EU from forcing refugee settlement in Hungary. Since virtually none of Hungary’s opposition parties are willing to criticize the administration, the odds for the amendment successfully passing are in Orban’s favor. This is not the first time the EU has demonstrated concern over Prime Minister Orban’s legislation. In the past, he has also been criticized for discrimination against Roma children in schools as well as a lack of protection for pregnant women in the workplace.

U.S. Issues Sanctions Risks for Businesses with N. Korean Supply Chain Links

July 24, 2018 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

On July 23, 2018, the U.S. Department of State, with the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), issued an advisory to high sanctions evasions tactics used by North Korea that could expose businesses – including manufacturers, buyers, and service providers – to sanctions compliance risks under U.S. and/or U.N. sanctions authorities. The advisory also helps businesses in complying with the requirements under Title III, the Korean Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act of the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The advisory warns businesses to be aware of deceptive practices employed by North Korea in order to implement effective due diligence policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements across their entire supply chains.

Multiple U.S. and U.N. sanctions impose restrictions on trade with North Korea and the use of North Korean labor. Annex 1 to the advisory sets forth a more detailed description of the North Korean sanctions prohibitions related to supply chains. The two primary risks are: (1) inadvertent sourcing of goods, services, or technology from North Korea; and (2) the presence of North Korean citizens or nationals in companies’ supply chains, whose labor generates revenue for the North Korean government. The advisory also provides due diligence references for businesses.

The heightened risk for and potential indicators of goods, services, and technology with a North Korean nexus includes:

Sub-contracting/consignment firms [e.g., third country suppliers (Chinese) shift manufacturing or sub-contracting work to a North Korean factory without informing the customer or relevant parties);

Mislabeled Good/Services/Technology: N. Korean exporters disguise the origin of goods produced in N. Korea by affixing country-of-origin labels that identify a third country.

Joint Ventures: North Korean firms have established hundreds of joint ventures with partners from China and other countries in various industries, such as apparel, construction, small electronics, hospitality, minerals, precious metals, seafood and textiles (see Annex 2 of the advisory for a list of known North Kean joint ventures).

Raw Materials or goods provided with Artificially Low Prices: North Korean exporters sell goods and raw materials well below market prices to intermediaries and other traders.

Information Technology (IT) Services: North Korea sells a range of IT services and products abroad, including website and app development, security software, and biometric identification software that have military and law enforcement applications.

The advisory also discusses heightened risk for North Korean overseas labor producing revenue for the government of North Korea. The North Korean government exports large numbers of laborers to meet a single contract in various industries, including but not limited to apparel, construction, footwear manufacturing, hospitality, IT services, logging, medical, pharmaceuticals, restaurant, seafood processing, textiles, and shipbuilding. China and Russia continue to host more North Korean laborers than all other countries and jurisdictions combined. The advisory lists 42 jurisdictions hosting North Korean laborers.

The advisory sets forth potential indicators of North Korean overseas labor.

The advisory gives due diligence best practices, namely those businesses closely examine their entire supply chain(s) for North Korean laborers and goods, services or technology, and adopt appropriate due diligence best practices. This especially applies to those businesses with operations in high-risk countries, or who operate in high-risk industries. Well-documented due diligence policies and practices may be considered mitigating factors when the U.S. government determines the appropriate enforcement response.

The advisory reminds businesses of the penalties on individuals and entities for violations of sanctions and enforcement actions and activities that could result in designation by OFAC. The advisory also provides where interested individuals can find additional information on OFAC sanctions.

During the second week of July the U.S. complained to the Security Council North Korea sanctions committee that as of May 30, North Korea had made 89 illicit ship-to-ship transfers of refined petroleum products. The U.S. asked the committee to notify all U.N. member states of the violations of a refined petroleum cap of 500,000 barrels a year – imposed by the council in December – and order an immediate halt to all transfers. On July 19, 2018, China and Russia delayed a U.S. effort for a U.N. Security Council committee to order a ban on refined petroleum exports to North Korea. China and Russia requested more detail on a U.S. accusation that Pyongyang breached sanctions.

In the coming weeks the U.S. will try to both unilaterally and multilaterally strengthen North Korean sanctions unless and until North Korea starts implementing the June 12 “denuclearization agreement” or joint statements to the satisfaction of the U.S. government.

The next issue of the IELR will have additional information on the North Korean sanctions.

U.N. Moves Forward on Global Migration Pact, U.S. Remains Absent

July 17, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

On Friday, July 13, the United Nations took steps towards completing an agreement focused on improving human rights for global migrants. The agreement, known as the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, was first adopted as an initiative at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September 2016, and at the time was heavily favored by all 193 members. The first major goal was to protect the rights of refugees and migrants in ways such as assuring safe resettlement and helping them get access to employment and education. Since then, it has grown into a global compact that promises to improve the way governments handle migration, focusing in particular on the human rights of migrants. The agreement has been in development since April 2017 and was completed last Friday. It is expected to be formally adopted this December at a meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco.

The pact has garnered attention not only because it addresses an important global issue, but also because the United States is no longer involved in its negotiations. Although the U.S. had been part of the talks since the beginning and President Obama had been a strong supporter of the initial declaration, the Trump administration abruptly ended the United States’ involvement last December, indicating that the agreement would hinder its power to control its borders. Migrants rights advocates noted that the decision to withdraw appeared to reinforce the image of the Trump administration as isolationist. They cautioned that the refusal to participate was “shortsighted and counterproductive”. However, administration officials countered that its decision was merely a defense of American sovereignty and national security, not an unwillingness to cooperate with other countries. Still, the decision was celebrated by President Trump’s base as well as several conservative websites, many of whom have demanded stricter laws against immigration since the campaign trail.

The completion of the Global Compact comes in the midst of a major immigration crisis in the United States. The Trump administration has faced bipartisan uproar due to a policy set forth by the government in May 2018 that required DHS officials to separate asylum seekers from their children at the border. The policy was vehemently decried and has now been effectively ended by a federal judge. This lack of regard for the basic rights of migrants seems to confirm the initial fears of migrants rights advocates when the U.S. pulled out of the decision-making process. Back in December when the decision was first announced, Bill Frelick, an official at Human Rights Watch, said that the United States had demonstrated “a callous disregard for the lives of migrants and jaw-dropping irresponsibility toward the community of nations”. This comment was echoed by Kevin Appleby, the international migration policy direction at an immigration rights advocacy group, who observed that the Trump administration seemed to care more about the whims of its base “than working with the world on a pressing global issue”.

Federal Judge Ends Trump Administration Practice of Arbitrarily Detaining Asylum Seekers

July 9, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has effectively ended the Trump administration’s practice of detaining asylum seekers indefinitely and denying them parole, citing that this goes against government policy. The ruling was the result of a challenge brought forth by the ACLU and several other organizations on behalf of nine detained asylum seekers who have been jailed for up to two years. None of these individuals have committed any crimes and all were initially determined to have credible reasons for seeking asylum. The court ordered Department of Homeland Security officials to go back and review the case of each individual involved in the class action suit and decide which of them should be released on humanitarian parole. Furthermore, while the lawsuit is ongoing, the order prevents ICE from detaining any applicants for asylum for more than a week, unless they have reviewed the case and found credible evidence that the individual poses a threat to national security.

The order specifically targets five ICE agents in officers around the country who have stopped granting parole to asylum seekers since early 2017. This practice violates a government directive from 2009 that indicates that people who demonstrate “credible fear” in their initial asylum interview should be at least considered for release while their application makes its way through the courts, a process that often takes months or even years. In the class action suit, the ACLU argued that the Trump administration has been unlawfully detaining asylum seekers in order to deter others from seeking out asylum. The same argument has been made to explain the government’s impetus for invoking the family separation policy. The ACLU pointed to a surge in detention rates to make their case, noting that in the first eight months after President Trump took office, the number of detained asylum seekers shot up to 96 percent. At its lowest, detention rates were less than 10 percent in 2013.

In his opinion, Judge Boasberg noted that “as the events of recent months make clear, the question of how this nation will treat those who come to our shores seeking refuge generates enormous debate.” He mentioned the previous precedent for treating asylum seekers as established in a “Parole Directive” issued by ICE in 2009, which the plaintiffs insisted the government was no longer following, citing the rising detention rates as evidence. The district court judge ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, arguing that his opinion “does no more than hold the Government accountable to its own policy”.

CARICOM HEADS ISSUE COMMUNIQUÉ ON SECURITY, MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES

July 9, 2018 by Bruce Zagaris Leave a Comment

At 39^th meeting of the heads of government of the Caribbean Community in Montego Bay, Jamaica on July 4-6, 2018, several significant actions occurred on international enforcement and security cooperation, as shown by the Communique.

Jamaica signed the CARICOM arrest warrant treaty, which enables Jamaica and CARICOM countries to more easily surrender individuals without need to extradite them.

After receiving an update on current and emerging Crime and Security issues in the region, the Heads mandated the Regional Security Agencies to work closely with the National Security Heads to address the various challenges emphasizing the need to strengthen the network of security head in the region to promote further information and intelligence sharing.

The Heads underscored the importance of strengthening the use of information and Communications technology in the fight against illicit trafficking in narcotics and firearms, trans-border criminal activities and cyber attacks. They emphasized the importance of working more closely with their international development partners to help the region in this regard.

CARICOM Members were encouraged to urgently update all legal instruments to combat crime and enhance regional security.

The Heads observed with great concern the amendment approved by the UK House of Commons to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill requiring the UK Government to ensure that the British Overseas Territories, but not Crown Dependencies, establish public registers of beneficial ownership information by no later than December 31, 2020.

They expressed solidarity with the territories “adversely affected by this unfair and unilateral action to legislate in areas of domestic policy constitutionally devolved to the territories without the consent of the people. Moreover, the action ran counter to an alternative arrangement to public registers earlier negotiated and agreed with the UK government and put in place at great cost to the overseas territories.”

According to the Heads, this they view as similar to the “unfair, unilateral and punitive extraterritorial measures such as blacklisting and de-risking taken against their own countries financial services sector, also a critical aspect of their economies, despite their best efforts at transparency and compliance.”

The Heads welcomed the report of the Regional Commission on Marijuana, which reviewed information and studies pertaining to marijuana legislation regulating its use and classification, findings related to research conducted on the medicinal use of marijuana as well as the economic and social impact and its implications for the region.

The Heads accepted in principle the need for changes in the classification of the drug which will make it more available for medicinal purposes and research. The acknowledged the region must intensify its lobbying at the international level to facilitate reclassification.

The Communiqué shows that the Caribbean Single Market Economy continues to facilitate streamlined procedure to enforcement cooperation, such as the CARICOM arrest warrant treaty. They continue to try to develop common approaches and policies to transnational criminal threats, such as illicit trafficking in narcotics and firearms, trans-border criminal activities and cyber attacks.

The Heads are also developing common approaches to efforts by extraregional actors to impose tax transparency and money laundering/counter-terrorism financial regulatory and enforcement policies on them. They are especially supportive of the overseas territories because the same policies, e.g., the requirement to have corporate public registers, will undoubtedly be imposed on them, even as they continue losing their financial service markets to other jurisdictions, especially to states in the U.S. which do not even have any private registers and the Trump Administration has not prioritized or pledged to meet international standards in tax transparency or anti-money laundering.

CARICOM has developed a number of regional enforcement and security mechanisms, including CARICOM Implementing Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS), the Association of Caribbean Commissioners of Police, and subregional enforcement mechanisms, such as the Organization of East Caribbean States (OECS) Regional Security System.

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Gains Power to Assign Blame

June 29, 2018 by Maria O' Sullivan Leave a Comment

On June 27, 2018, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) gained the power to assign blame for chemical weapons attacks. This British-led move, opposed by Russia, Syria and their allies, is a big step forward in holding perpetrators of such attacks legally accountable, and comes at a time when chemical weapons are in the spotlight following horrific stories of attacks on civilians in Syria and the Sergei Skripal case.

This latter case no doubt could be why Russia not only opposed the motion but tried to filibuster it, which ultimately passed 82 to 24, with 26 countries abstaining.

Notably, the June 26-28 meeting officially condemned attacks in Syria and the UK, as well as the attack on Kim Jong Nam in Malaysia in February of 2017, assigning blame in cases where it had previously not done so.

In the decision from the meeting, responsibility was assigned to the Syrian Arab Republic for various attacks such as in Khan Sheikhoun. On April 4, 2017, over 80 Syrians were killed following a sarin gas attack on the rebel-held town. Witnesses and activists say that the attack happened when many were asleep. Two months after the attack, the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission confirmed that sarin was used, but did not publicly indicate a responsible party until now.

The decision also assigns responsibility to Daesh (or ISIL) for noted attacks.

Markedly, the decision does not assign blame for the attack against Sergei Skripal or Kim Jong Nam. The inclusion of blame would most likely have brought even greater resistance from Russia and potentially even other states.

On March 4, 2018, Sergei Skripal, a former Russian spy, and his daughter were found unconscious on a bench after they had been poisoned with a nerve agent identified as Novichok, which fueled tensions between Britain and Russia. Russia continues to deny involvement.

Britain seeks to “hold Russia legally responsible” given the Soviet origin of Novichok (although Russia has pointed out that other states can synthesize such chemicals), and for putting the lives of British nationals at risk and violating Britain’s sovereignty. Having had OPCW technical assistance with this case which assessed the agent to be highly pure, Britain could potentially move forward with action following the July 27 vote.

The July 27 vote could be another step towards action against the Syrian Arab Republic as well. The OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism in Syria was the only body with the expertise and mandate “to attribute responsibility of use of chemical weapons in Syria,” although multiple other organizations and bodies exist to draw attention to perpetrators. But this body was short-lived surviving from 2015 until 2017 when it was dissolved following Russia’s inability to accept the findings that held Syria responsible, “an illustration of the broader geopolitical cleavage between Russia and the West.”

Ironically, Iran, supporting Russia’s resistance of the July 27 vote, said in a statement at the session that they questioned whether the move to allow the OPCW to assign blame would “politicize” the body and stated that it would “cause a heavy burden of responsibility and liability for the Technical Secretariat and the DG and place their impartiality under question as well.”

Moving forward, cases such as Syria and Skripal will remain contentious in terms of the proper actions to take and the perceived impartiality of the OPCW; however the motion to assign blame passed on July 27 was a large stepping stone towards international accountability.

Maria O’Sullivan is a Legal Assistant at Berliner Corcoran and Rowe LLP.

Federal Judge Orders Separated Migrant Children to be Reunited with Families

June 29, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

On Tuesday, June 26, a federal judge in San Diego issued a preliminary nationwide injunction ordering Trump administration officials to reunite separated migrant children with their parents within 30 days. The injunction was the result of a class action suit brought forward by the ACLU on behalf of numerous parents who had been separated from their children at the border. The order requires children over 5 to be reunited with their parents within 30 days, while children under 5 must be reunited within 2 weeks. Judge Sabraw’s ruling comes after a growing wave of uproar from both sides of the aisle over the Trump administration’s new policy to separate migrant families seeking asylum in order to deter illegal immigrants from trying to get into the country. This policy was put into place in response to a growing wave of asylum seekers crossing the border from Central America who are fleeing violence and instability in their home countries. After the increasing backlash, President Trump signed an executive order on June 20 that effectively ended the policy of separating families at the border, but little has been done thus far to reunite migrant parents with their children.

Despite the injunction and the fact that separations at the border ended over a week ago, the administration has still made very little progress in complying with the judge’s order. Officials have insisted that the process will be significantly more complicated than it appears, since the children and parents are under the custody of different government organizations. While the parents currently undergoing the asylum process are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security, their children are being detained by the Department of Health and Human Services, and it would require collaboration between the two departments to reunite these families. Furthermore, due to a 1997 court settlement, the federal government is prohibited from housing children in immigration detention centers for more than 20 days. Since the process of seeking asylum typically takes much longer than 20 days, even if children were to be reunited with their parents in federal detention centers, they would have to be removed and placed into foster care or with relatives should the time limit expire. As of the day the injunction was given, there were 2,047 children under the care of HHS, only slightly less than the 2,053 who were being housed when the executive order ending the separation policy was signed.

This most recent crisis is just one in a series of decisions that the Trump administration has taken in order to demonstrate its “zero tolerance” policy towards illegal immigration. The problem with the DACA children, or DREAMERs, remains unsolved and the president has on more than one occasion displayed a desire to cut legal immigration as well, particularly from developing countries. Congress seems alternatively unwilling or unable to solve the immigration crises created by the administration. On Wednesday, June 27, the GOP failed to pass a broad immigration bill that would have covered issues ranging from DACA to the border wall, as well as addressing the family separation crisis. The bill ultimately died in the House after limited Republican support and no Democratic votes. Congress will leave for their Fourth of July recess having failed to solve the situation at the border, once again demonstrating their lack of effectiveness in standing up to the Trump administration.

Sessions’ Rules Against Woman Previously Granted Asylum On Grounds of Domestic Abuse

June 14, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene 1 Comment

On June 11, Attorney General Jeff Sessions vacated a 2016 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals that could have significant consequences for victims of domestic abuse and gang violence who are applying for asylum in the United States. The board had ruled in favor of a woman from El Salvador who had applied for asylum in order to seek refuge from her abusive husband. Typically a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals is binding as the board is considered the highest government authority on immigration law. However, since all immigration courts are part of the Department of Justice, the attorney general has the power to assign himself cases. Cases vacated by the attorney general usually end up back in the federal appeals court. In the case of this particular Salvadoran woman, it will return to the immigration judge who initially denied her application. If the judge denies her again, she will be able to appeal once more.

In order to successfully appeal for asylum in the United States, applicants have to demonstrate that they suffered from persecution in their home countries on the basis of “race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or their particular social group”. Victims of domestic violence usually claim persecution under the last category, a particular social group. If so, they must “share a common immutable characteristic” with other members of their group, and their group must be “socially distinct within the society in question”. Furthermore, if their persecutor is not affiliated with the government, the asylum seeker must prove their government is unwilling or unable to protect them from said persecutor. After the 2016 decision granting asylum to the Salvadoran woman fleeing domestic violence, judges in the Obama administration followed the precedent that allowed other woman to claim similar fears of domestic abuse. Attorney General Sessions’ decision to vacate this ruling will make it significantly harder for those sorts of arguments to prevail in immigration court.

As a reason for his decision, Jeff Sessions emphasized that “the asylum statute does not provide redress for all misfortune” and that although he sympathized with the woman involved, the original language did not intend for “membership in a particular social group” to become a catch-all for unfortunate situations. Furthermore, he believes that the criteria for granting asylum has become too broad and that narrowing the scope of what constitutes a credible fear would help with the growing backlog of 700,000 cases currently making their way through the courts. Critics of the Trump administration, on the other hand, suggest that this is just another effort to deter illegal immigrants from coming to the United States by making the process of applying for asylum more difficult. Furthermore, they complain that this decision has overturned years of work towards providing abused women better protection under the law. Others suggest that Sessions’ intervention in this case was an abuse of power, and that immigration courts need to be independent from the Department of Justice.

For more on this:

Katie Benner and Caitlin Dickerson, Sessions Says Domestic and Gang Violence Are Not Grounds for Asylum, The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/us/politics/sessions-domestic-violence-asylum.html

Maria Sacchetti, Attorney General Jeff Sessions says victims of domestic, gang violence ‘generally’ won’t qualify for asylum, The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/sessions-signals-that-victims-of-domestic-abuse-and-gang-violence-generally-will-not-qualify-for-asylum/2018/06/11/45e54602-6d9e-11e8-bd50-b80389a4e569_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ef9f31a18668

Bill Browder, Self-Proclaimed Enemy of Putin, Briefly Arrested by Interpol in Spain

June 1, 2018 by Madeline Henshaw-Greene Leave a Comment

On May 30, British financier Bill Browder was arrested and detained by Spanish police due to a request from Russia to Interpol. Browder live-tweeted the experience, and was released a few hours later on orders from Interpol’s general secretary. Browder, once one of the largest foreign investors in the Russian stock market, has been persona non grata in Russia since 2013, when he was convicted of tax fraud in absentia and sentenced to nine years in prison. Since then, Russia has tried numerous times to apprehend him through what is known as a red notice, a request a member of Interpol can make to a member in another country to detain and extradite a wanted individual. Browder claims that this is the sixth time that Russian officials have attempted to arrest him using a red notice, and has expressed concern that “‘Interpol is incapable of stopping Russian abuse of their systems.’”

Bill Browder is known for founding Hermitage Capital Management. One of the company’s tax lawyers was Sergei Magnitsky, a whistle-blower on Russian government corruption and mismanagement who was arrested and died in a Moscow detention center. Since then, Browder has led a global campaign calling for sanctions against those involved in Magnitsky’s death, and pushed the United States government to adopt and enact the Magnitsky Act in 2012. As a result, the Russian government convicted him of tax fraud and have been trying to apprehend him ever since. In 2015, Browder published a book about the Russian government’s attempts to arrest him called “Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man’s Fight for Justice.”

Browder was in Madrid to testify in a corruption case involving Russian officials, and was on his way to court when he was apprehended by Spanish police and taken into custody. Spanish law enforcement claimed that he had been brought in because of an arrest warrant for tax evasion that had been issued by Russian authorities. They were forced to let him go upon discovering that the warrant was invalid, since it had expired and Interpol had failed to delete it from their system. Browder disagrees, insisting that the arrest was the result of a red notice and that he was released on the orders of Interpol’s general secretary. If so, it would not be the first time that Interpol has refused to comply with a Russian request for Browder’s arrest. In 2013, Interpol put out a rare statement rebuking the Russian government’s request, stating that its attempt to arrest Browder “‘was of a predominately political nature.’”