U.S. Anti-Terrorism Tactic: Immigration

An Uncertain Future

Prosecutors said they don't think the charges against Hajbeh have been pretexts. They have emphasized that his immigration applications listed him as a single, never-married man at times when he either had a wife or was divorced.

Hajbeh's marital status might seem arcane, but it matters legally. He was sponsored for immigration by his mother, who had a green card, allowing her to live permanently in the United States. But under the complex web of immigration rules, she was entitled to bring with her only her unwed children.

Hajbeh married Najwa in 1988, a few years after his mother first sought to have him join her. He divorced Najwa in 1992, shortly before he immigrated, and remarried her a year later.

Danny Onorato, Hajbeh's attorney in the criminal case in Alexandria, said that Hajbeh was simply a man who made mistakes because of his poor English in the early 1990s. "For him to be confused and inadvertently fill things out a certain way, there was an explanation for that," Onorato said in an interview.

Those arguments played out again in immigration court in Arlington, with the trial finally drawing to a close Feb. 3. The courtroom filled with Hajbeh's wife and children, his friends from the mosque, the activists from Unity in the Community. They hushed as the judge began speaking.

"I have found . . . the government has not met the burden of proof" on the fraud charge, Iskra declared. However, he added, Hajbeh's immigration documents were invalid, because they were intended for an applicant who was single.

Hajbeh, in other words, had no legal right to be in the United States.

The Jordanian is now facing the final round of his legal battle. He is asking the judge to waive deportation, saying it would cause hardship to his family and expose him to torture back home. The hearing is set for late April.

If he is deported to Jordan, Hajbeh could spend the rest of his days in prison, under the sentence he and other defendants received in 1999.

Or maybe not.

Consider what has happened to Hajbeh's co-defendants in Jordan. Their first conviction was thrown out by a civilian appeals court. Then they were again convicted by the military court. Then acquitted. Then convicted. Back and forth the case went, with the appeals court citing both procedural problems and insufficient evidence, according to Musleh Farah, a defense attorney.

The latest verdict came in December. For the fourth time, the Jordanian military court found the alleged terrorists guilty, but handed out sentences of five years or less, which equaled time served. The men are now free.