I am sure that Ragland would argue that his comment does not constitute such a promise or guarantee of outcome of the case, but readers can draw their own conclusion on “”he will certainly get” language. Other than that problem (lawyer promising or guaranteeing the outcome of a case, any case), I am not sure whether Ragland has listened to Guo’s voluminous exposé of CCP (as well as himself) that is readily available over the internet. In addition, I am not sure whether Ragland was the lawyer who filed Guo’s L-1 petition, and his confidence of the L-1 case before the petition was denied by USCIS.
First, let’s get a closer look at Ragland’s client, who was clearly a beneficiary, not a victim, of the CCP. Receiving only elementary school education, he became, according to the Hurun Report, the 74th richest Chinese in 2014, with a net worth of $2.6 billion. By his own statement, his wealth now comprises RMB ¥120 billion (about US$20 billion) in China and $28 billion overseas. The wealth of $50 billion is at par with Google’s Larry Page, and much more than Alibaba’s Ma Yun (a.k.a. Jack Ma). Larry Page has Google to show for his wealth, and Ma Yun has Alibaba. What does the uneducated Guo has to show for his wealth?
Guo said that he worked as an agent for the Chinese Ministry of State Security (equivalent to the Soviet KGB) and have received MSS Medal of First Class three times. Although he did not elaborate how he got the medals, he did cite several of his services to the Chinese government. For instance, when there were rumors that the Dalai Lama had heart problems, he visited the Dalai Lama at the behest of Beijing to size up his health, helping Beijing decide the next move against the Dalai Lama.
According to Guo, he received order from Xi Jinping to investigate Wang Qishan (CCP’s discipline chief who are widely considered to be the second most powerful person in China, after Xi) through Fu Zhenghua (the deputy chief of China’s police).
Then, CCP’s proletariat dictatorship machine started persecuting him and his companies, he started his exposé, in which he declared that CCP was a “big dung pit” where “only maggot could survive.” To illustrate his point, he started to expose Fu Zhenghua, who led the team to persecute him, while continuously talking to his Beijing handlers (whom he called his old leader). Once, during an interview with New York Times’ Mike Forsythe, Guo answered a telephone call that his assistant told Forsythe was a call from Xi’s office.
When Beijing obviously decided against doing anything against Fu, reportedly by Xi’s direct order, Guo decided to up the ante and started to expose Wang Qishan, that Wang’s wife was a U.S. citizen; Wang bought houses in the U.S. (both (against CCP’s disciplinary rules); and Wang’s relation with HNA, which owned, other than Hainan Airlines and many other assets, 10% of Deutsche Bank and 25% of Hilton. All of a sudden, everyone was curious about the ownership of HNA, which was originally formed only in 1993. HNA, under pressure, stated that it was owned by a New York based charitable foundation, which does not have the so-called 501(c)(3) status!
To juice up his exposé, Guo pointed out that one of HNA’s planes, numbered 5273, which sounds similar to “I lover Qishan” in Chinese, was Wang’s private toy. After HNA argued that it was a charter plane, Guo countered with the flight record to prove that it had only been used by Wang’s family and associates. Guo also exposed Wang’s illegitimate children living outside China (sending illegitimate children or/and mistresses to live outside China was one of the hot issue that Wang used to purge CCP officials, now hundreds of thousands and counting).
Perhaps as a compromise, Guo announced that he was not against the nation (i.e., the Chinese government) and Xi Jinping, and changed his tone. The “big dung pit” was gone and replaced by “most of the CCP officials are good people.” His scope of the exposé was limited to Wang Qishan, Meng Jianzhu (the chief of China’s legal apparatus), and Fu Zhenghua.
To make sure that CCP was clear about his loyalty, in a letter dated August 26, 2017, to “Dear Leader [in CCP],” which was widely dissimulated over the internet, Guo requested his “Dear Leader” to “withdraw the Interpol Red Notice against him and stop overseas [the U.S.] lawsuit [against him].” He said that after the withdrawal, he would move to Britain, possibly referring to his expiring B-1/B-2 visa in the U.S.
He said in the letter that he “remains trusting the organization [CCP’s internal language referring to itself] and you [the Dear Leader] that [he] has never crossed the red line,” which probably means he had never exposed anything about Xi and had never openly criticized CCP (or the Chinese government) as an organization, ignoring the “big dung pit” comment, obviously.
He said that he was already “doing [his] best to protect the interests and image of the country [i.e., the Chinese government].” He said that he could have Tony Blair of Britain, among others, to vouch for him. (Other than throwing big names, I don’t know what that was for.)
He suggested to use his influence (his several hundred thousand Twitter and YouTube subscribers) to serve Xi Jinping's “Chinese dream” and “propagandize Chairman Xi's anti-corruption accomplishments.”
He asked the Chinese government to give him clear objective so he could “render meritorious service to redeem his mistakes [presumably the wrong he did to CCP by exposing Wang et al], and use the result of that work to express his support of Xi and patriotism.”
It was this time that CCP went on offensive by refusing to Guo’s requests and have Ma Rui, a former assistant of Guo, file civil complaint against Guo in Manhattan Supreme Court for sexual harassment, among other things. Ma said in the complaint that he escaped Guo’s home in London to the Chinese embassy and then returned to China. According to The Associated Press, “Guo’s staff confiscated her smartphone, computer, passport and keys and forbade her from leaving her room in his luxury apartment in the high-end London neighborhood of Belgravia. To prove her case, the woman surreptitiously met a lawyer friend in London earlier this year to give a written statement about her ordeal and kept her underwear, pregnancy tests and abortion pills as evidence, according to police documents.”
Facing his expiring visa, Ragland filed for asylum protection, under which “any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Of course, his membership as a decorated MSS agent would not do. The only thing Guo could hang his case on is “political opinion.” However, his political opinion has consistently been in line with Xi Jinping. In addition, he has stated repeatedly that Xi Jinping is the “holy leader that only appear once every thousand years.” (In other words, the last time China saw such a holy leader was in the Song Dynasty.)
In addition, in regards to “within the country of such person’s nationality,” Guo stated many times that he was not a citizen of China. According to him, he had 11 passports of various nations and hadn’t used Chinese passports for 28 years.
As a policy, reflected in the laws and regulations, the asylum/refugee applicants are not allowed to cherry-pick the country where they want to stay. For Guo, since he stayed in Britain for a long time before coming to America, he should at least apply in Britain.
Of course, there is the one-year bar, i.e., Guo needs to apply for asylum within one year of arrival. His lawyer probably would argue changed circumstances. However, it remains to be seen whether the USCIS officer or immigration judge, who is an employee of the Justice Department, would agree with him that Ma’s filing of the lawsuit against him constitute such.
Incidentally, Ma’s alleged sexual assault brings up another issue, i.e., criminals are barred from applying for asylum. Since the alleged assault took place in Britain, Britain is a better place to discharge Guo’s asylum/refugee application.
In addition, Guo has said that he did not care whether he get the asylum. He said that the years of delay of his deportation would serve his purposes. He openly touted the advantages of political asylum to his hundreds of thousands of viewers that during the three to twelve years of the proceeding, the U.S. Administration is powerless in deporting him. He did not seem to realize that asylum/refugee is a privilege, not a right. The U.S. government does not have to prove its case against Guo. The burden is on Guo to prove his qualifications. His proposal for his hundreds of thousands of fans to use (or misuse) asylum as a deportation delaying device may not win any favors from the U.S. government. In fact, if the administration so desires, it could expedite his case.
Not to whittle down Ragland’s 100% confidence any further. There is this inconvenient law potentially against Guo known as the Global Magnitsky Act, which targets any foreign citizen “responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in any foreign country.” Spying on the Dalai Lama, and Guo’s three MSS First Class Medals, need to be examined carefully by the government before granting this MSS agent permanent residence status in the U.S. The duty is on Guo to tell the government how he got those medals.
The precedence is clear. When Wang Lijun entered the U.S. Consulate in Chengdu seeking asylum, the U.S. denied his request and returned him to the Chinese authority. Ragland may argue that Wang Lijun then died in prison, but since the U.S. is not returning Guo to China, but to Britain or one of these 11 countries that promised to protect Guo by issuing passports to him, Guo is not facing the fate of Wang Lijun.
In his interview with Mingjing, Ragland mentioned filing suit in the federal district court. Since Guo’s asylum case could not be brought to the federal district court for appeal, I presume that he wanted to file a habeas corpus action in district court. An habeas corpus action is normally used to get a person out of immigration detention. Since Guo is not detained, I am not sure what Ragland was talking about. Unfortunately, Mingjing did not clarify that with Ragland.
Presumably, Guo could also file a motion for the government to withhold his removal (the legal term for deportation). However, since there is no particular reason for Guo to stay in the U.S., that motion is likely to be denied.
Then, Guo may want to use the United Nations Convention against Torture to stay in the U.S. The problem is that he is not facing Chinese persecution, or torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Britain or any of the 11 other countries that he claims that he holds passports.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been quite clear and repeatedly stated that the exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. Guo’s recourse beyond the administrative proceedings is limited.
The first step of Guo’s asylum case is an USCIS interview, where USCIS could grant the asylum outright. However, since Guo’s case is so complex, I would venture a guess that USCIS will refer his case to the immigration court for a closer look. When that happens, the government would have a chance to lay the case against him to an immigration judge.
In addition, technically, Guo does not make a good witness. Anyone curious about his personal character could simply go on to the internet to listen to the recordings of him threatening his business associates. He was vicious. He was nasty. He does not sound like a victim.
Ragland probably should have learned more about his client before giving his 100% confidence opinion to the world.
By Pujie Zheng
Pujie Zheng is an attorney in Los Angeles.
First published on September 23, 2017
For discussions: http://www.facebook.com/pujie.zheng
For past articles: http://pujielaw.blogspot.com/
For past AM1300 (KAZN) programs in Chinese language: http://www.youtube.com/user/pujiezheng
For law firm business (business, patent, trademark, and business-based immigration), please write to info@pujielaw.com or call 626-279-7200.
