What's new

Devyani Khobragade case: India tightens screws, withdraws privileges for US consular officials

GOI will look into this matter, Not USA.



This seems to be GOI's fault, But again handcuffing in public and humiliating Indian IFS officer is condemn able. For long USA is treating Indian Diplomats badly , GOI is signalling it won't tolerate such behavior from USA.

It is not that the USA justice system and laws are ultimate so that they can do what ever they want with our diplomats. US Diplomats are also violating laws in India. It is more of power projection and strategic importance , might is right kind of situation. Crime and all comes later and India will do what has to be done in this domestic violence case.

She was not handcuffed as clarified by the NY district attorney. She and her father were spreading lies until clarified by the DA and the DA had clearly stated that is a concession given to the Indian official which is not given to a common man. Also she was able to make phone calls which a common man wouldn't have been able to do. GOI is sending false signals on the influence of the IFS community and that is wrong. A group of bureaucrats are making decisions and the people are not seeing that allowing their emotions run high.

We will bend the procedures for you in India while you do the same in US for our officers attitude need to go away. That is why no one has expressed outrage here in US at all the privileges taken away for US officials in India. Those are extra perks which shouldn't have existed before.
 
.
She was not handcuffed as clarified by the NY district attorney. She and her father were spreading lies until clarified by the DA and the DA had clearly stated that is a concession given to the Indian official which is not given to a common man. Also she was able to make phone calls which a common man wouldn't have been able to do. GOI is sending false signals on the influence of the IFS community and that is wrong. A group of bureaucrats are making decisions and the people are not seeing that allowing their emotions run high.

We will bend the procedures for you in India while you do the same in US for our officers attitude need to go away. That is why no one has expressed outrage here in US at all the privileges taken away for US officials in India. Those are extra perks which shouldn't have existed before.

There are various reports in media suggesting many things, There are some biased reports as well. Initial impression is that NYPD staff have not behaved well with her and the reason for the outrage.

Why would US citizens be outraged when extra privileges are with drawn.
 
Last edited:
.
And pay them more than what they themselves earn?

If the diplomats cannot afford to pay the domestic help at least the minimum wage, they should not have domestic help. Most Americans have no domestic help and we live just fine. So for you Indians, in America, follow the American law.
 
.
There are various reports in media suggestion many things, There are some biased reports as well. Initial impression is that NYPD staff have not behaved well with her and the reason fo rthe outrage.

Why would US citizens be outraged when extra privileges are with drawn.

So why do Indians have to be outraged when she was not accorded that extra privilege and arrested (though every opportunity was provided to GOI to avoid this unfortunate incident) ? As for the reports, why not go by the official statement from the DA office?

Ms. Khobragade was accorded courtesies well beyond what other defendants, most of whom are American citizens, are accorded. She was not, as has been incorrectly reported, arrested in front of her children. The agents arrested her in the most discreet way possible, and unlike most defendants, she was not then handcuffed or restrained. In fact, the arresting officers did not even seize her phone as they normally would have. Instead, they offered her the opportunity to make numerous calls to arrange personal matters and contact whomever she needed, including allowing her to arrange for child care. This lasted approximately two hours. Because it was cold outside, the agents let her make those calls from their car and even brought her coffee and offered to get her food.

Link to DA office statement -

Request Rejected
 
.
Point to me the violation of protocol by the US. And look up the 1963 Vienna convention - arrests can be made in serious crimes. In this case, a felony charge which can get 10 years is a serious crime if you agree or not. The draft of what constitutes serious crimes of 1963 Vienna convention says any crime above 5 years or more though it did not pass through.

And I am not spreading lies - I am point out the fact she is not here to manage relationships with US. She is here to do paper work i.e visa issuance. That is why she is working in NY consulate and not in Indian Embassy out of DC.

And I am not ranting. It is a naked fact that Indians are pissed off at the babus and netas in India but still want to condone their acts elsewhere indirectly.


This might help you. And just to remind you, US is selective about upholding the rules & laws.

Breaching the Vienna Conventions - The Hindu
 
.
There are various reports in media suggestion many things, There are some biased reports as well. Initial impression is that NYPD staff have not behaved well with her and the reason fo rthe outrage.

Why would US citizens be outraged when extra privileges are with drawn.

NYPD treat her like how they would treat any one being arrested. They are handcuffed and searched.

The best way to not get arrested is to follow the US rule. As of now, she is a charged suspect and her passport has been revoked. India should hire the best lawyer to represent her.
 
.
This might help you. And just to remind you, US is selective about upholding the rules & laws.

Breaching the Vienna Conventions - The Hindu

I read that news. The focus in on minimum wage in the initial part of the article and the later part about the arrests in the U.S consulate in Tehran dispute, it is about the ruling of ICJ. The article missed out on the false visa charges.

The lesser charge is the minimum wage dispute which can be treated as a civil case. If it was that lesser charge, no one would have given a hoot about the issue.The serious case what the article missed out is filing false visa documents which is a felony or serious crime.

Why US consulate in Tehran dispute is different than this one here is that Vienna convention 1963 allows arrests in serious crimes of consular officials. But what is that crime the consular officials in Tehran did?
 
. .
Now already reports coming that Devyani is innocent with actual evidence...and the arrest is due to mistake by the investigating agencies..

Devyani Khobragade case: Did US state department overplay heavy hand? - The Times of India


This is known from day one when Devyani's dad started claiming that the DS-160 was filed by the maid and not by his daughter as is the norm and which is where the maid had quoted $4500 salary. Along with the papers, there would be a sponsor letter with salary quoted which would have accompanied the DS-160. Why I know this is I have filed few DS-160s myself. So they would have verified various documents as the investigation was going on for months(atleast from September). We can assume that the defense is going to be this from what her father claimed immediately after the arrest and now what the lawyer has claimed. This does not mean there is no case. The TOI is known for its sensational news.

Still the question of $1560, the minimum wage is there. And they can't claim that the housing and food covers the rest beyond the $500 salary. A3 visa clearly states that the additional perks like housing and food should be kept to a minimum part of the salary.
 
.
Decoding the Khobragade controversy: How a row over a maid's visa sparked a full-scale diplomatic incident
By Saurabh Shukla

PUBLISHED: 23:34 GMT, 18 December 2013 | UPDATED: 23:42 GMT, 18 December 2013
The Devyani Khobragade controversy is not just about the provocative arrest of a senior Indian diplomat. Highly-placed sources have told Mail Today that Sangeeta Richard, the maid at the centre of the controversy, was previously employed by a senior US diplomat.

Another intriguing part of the unfolding story is that a visa was issued to the Richard family - Sangeeta's husband Philip and their two children - and they left the country by an Air India flight on December 10, even as New Delhi was engaging with Washington on the issue.

A Mail Today investigation has revealed how the saga unfolded, with the Indian Deputy Consul General finding it difficult even to lodge a missing person's report for Sangeeta Richard with the New York Police Department (NYPD), and how the US ignored India's plea for action against Richard and instead piled pressure on India.


Mail Today has accessed official documents to weave the story together. This is how it all went down:

NOVEMBER 2012: Sangeeta Richard enters the United States with Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade.

JUNE 23, 2013: Richard goes missing. In Delhi, her husband says he has no idea where she is. Richard had some days earlier sought Khobragade's permission to take up another part-time job in New York; it was denied.

JUNE 24, 2013: Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) in New York informed, and its help requested in tracing Richard. An intriguing part of the story is how difficult it became for Khobragade to file a Missing Persons Report with the NYPD. It was on the advice of the OFM, Khobragade went to file a missing person report at the police precinct concerned, but was told that she could not since Richard was an adult, and that such a report could only be lodged by a member of her family.

When Mr Richard, Sangeeta's husband, was contacted, he refused to file a Missing Person Report, indicating his awareness of something being amiss.

article-2526067-1A2F737700000578-294_472x665.jpg

Indian Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade found it difficult even to lodge a missing person's report for her maid Sangeeta Richard

JUNE 25, 2013: Unable to file a report, Devyani sends a letter to the police precinct concerned, requesting them to file a missing person report and trace Richard. Sustained efforts resulted in the NYPD seeking inspection of Khobragade's residence.

As diplomatic premises are out of bounds for local law enforcement agencies, Khobragade was interviewed in front of the Permanent Mission of India, her residence, and a missing person report filed by the NYPD.

JULY 1, 2013: A woman claiming to be the Richard's lawyer calls Khobragade to tell her that Sangeeta would not go to court only if, one, the Indian diplomat signs a 566 form authorising the maid to terminate her employment, and, two, change her visa status from government visa to normal visa, and, three, be compensated for 19 hours of work per day.

Khobragade refuses to negotiate on the phone, insisting that the caller first identify herself. She claims the caller hung up.

JULY 2, 2013: Khobragade informs the OFM about these developments in writing, seeking NYPD support in ascertaining the identity of the caller and her links with Richard, and claiming the conversations clearly indicate that the runaway maid has no intention of returning to India and seems keen to extort money by making false accusations. No action is taken.

Khobragade files a written complaint with the Delhi Police against Sangeeta Richard and her husband Philip Richard, accusing them of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and asking the police to begin proceedings against them and recover the maid's official passport.

JULY 5, 2013: Khobragade files complaint of "aggravated harassment" with respect to the phone call received on July 1 for extortion and blackmail. No action taken by NYPD. Michael Phillips, Director (Human Resources) at the US embassy in New Delhi, is called by senior MEA official and briefed about missing maid, reports filed with the US State Department and NYPD, and the FIR filed in India against Sangeeta Richard.

The assistance of the State Department and US Embassy is sought in locating the maid and sending her back to India to pre-empt this being used as an immigration channel. The US Embassy conveys its understanding and promises to follow-up with the State Department and local authorities. No feedback is received India's requests, however.

Similar requests were made by the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. to the State Department in Washington D.C.

Lack of cooperation by Philip Richard prompts Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to advise Khobragade on filing a First Information Report in Delhi against the Richard family for wilful deceit and attempt to cheat to illegally immigrate to the US by wrongful means.

Based on the MEA's advice, Khobragade also files for an anticipatory anti-suit injunction in the Delhi High Court so as to prevent filing of any case in the US by Richard to avoid ensuing litigation in the US.

JULY 8, 2013: Khobragade is called to 'Access Immigration', an immigration lawyer's office, to discuss terms of settlement with Richard. Accompanied by the consulate officers, Khobragade meets Richard who seeks payment of $10,000 and the granting of an ordinary Indian passport, along with whatever immigration relief is required to stay on in the US on that ordinary passport.

Consulate officials tell Richard that she cannot remain in the US under any circumstances without legal authorisation, and that she should return to India as per her contract with Khobragade. Richard is told that any argument over salary or working hours could be settled in the consulate before her return to India. Richard refuses, saying that she wants to remain in the US.

Khobragade complains to the NYPD about the demands, but there is no response. Richard's passport is revoked and notice for termination of her personal identity also given to OFM with effect from June 22, 2013. Richard is now staying illegally in the US. A felony / theft complaint is filed with the NYPD against Richard by Khobragade's husband, reporting theft of cash, Blackberry phone, two SIM cards, a metro card (valued at $113) and documents such as contracts, signed receipt book-cum-working hour log. No action is taken.


article-2526067-1A2F738F00000578-523_964x623.jpg

Watchful: The US Embassy in New Delhi has been under scrutiny since the evolving row took hold

JULY 15 & 19, 2013: Philip Richard filed a writ petition against Khobragade and the Union of India, alleging that his wife Sangeeta Richard was in police custody in New York since July 8, 2013, charging the Indian diplomat with "slave labour" and illegally making Sangeeta sign a 'second contract' with far less pay and perks. The Union of India is accused of not paying according to the requirements of the local law. Richard withdraws his writ petition four days later.

JULY 30, 2013: A copy of Philip Richard's writ petition is forwarded to OFM, which states that Sangeeta is in police custody in New York, for producing the maid at the Consulate so she can be repatriated to India as requested by her husband in his writ petition. Consul General is also informed that Richard was last seen at the office of Access Immigration on July 8, 2013. No action taken by the US.

article-2526067-1A2F73CF00000578-791_472x631.jpg

The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations, in New York

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013: The US State Department issues a one-sided letter to the Indian Ambassador, projecting the allegations of the maid which are of "considerable concern", and asking for the allegations to be probed. It also seeks a voluntary meeting between Khobragade and the Bureau of Diplomatic Security in the State Department as well as proof of payment of minimum wages from the embassy.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013: In Delhi, MEA calls US officials and strongly protests against the tone and content of the letter.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2013: Delhi High Court issues an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Philip and Sangeeta Richard, restraining them from initiating any legal action or proceedings against Khobragade in any Court / Tribunal / Forum outside India with regard to her employment. The final hearing in the matter is scheduled December 13, 2013.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2013: A reply is sent to the State Department by the Indian Embassy in Washington, rebutting the allegations and bringing out the facts of the case while highlighting the fact that Sangeeta Richard is seeking monetary settlement and a US visa, thereby seeking to subvert both Indian and US laws. The letter also emphasises that the matter is an issue between the Government of India and one of its employees and is not subject to US regulation or adjudication. Assistance of the State Department is sought in locating and repatriating Sangeeta Richard to India.

NOVEMBER 19, 2013: Metropolitan Magistrate of South District, New Delhi, issues a non-bailable arrest warrant against Sangeeta Richard.

DECEMBER 6, 2013: The arrest warrant issued by the Delhi Metropolitan court is forwarded to the US State Department and the US Embassy in New Delhi, requesting them to instruct the relevant authorities in the US to arrest and repatriate Sangeeta Richard to India through the Consulate in New York, so that due process of law may be prosecuted in India. No action is taken by the US.

DECEMBER 12, 2013: Khobragade arrested on the basis of a Second District court warrant for visa fraud as she drops her daughter to school in New York. Immunity is denied under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) for this "felony charge" Bail posted at $250,000, Khobragade's passport is seized, and she is asked not to leave the country or seek another travel document though she can travel within the US after notifying authorities. She is been not to be in touch with Sangeeta Richard.

JANUARY 13, 2014: Next date of hearing is announced, but Khobragade's attorney claims he is not free that day and is negotiating another date, which will be known in due course. Pre-trial process commenced on December 16, 2013 where a urine sample was taken by US authorities for drugs testing.



US says Indian government knew about the case
By Indira Kannan in Toronto


The United States had informed the Indian Government about the allegations against Devyani Khobragade, the Deputy Consul General in New York, over three months prior to her arrest last week.

A State Department official told Mail Today: "To confirm, the State Department notified the Indian Embassy in writing on September 4. The Department of State advised the Embassy of the Republic of India of allegations of abuse made by an Indian national against the Deputy Consul General of India in New York."

This refers to the allegations by Khobragade's former housekeeper and babysitter, who the US Attorney's office in New York claims was brought in to the US on the basis of fraudulent information given by the Indian diplomat and then paid less than the amount specified in her contract, and less than minimum wages in America.

The State Department said the notification sent to the embassy was part of official procedure and the department's policy of advising foreign missions of allegations made involving a member of a mission or a family member. Officials at the Indian Embassy in Washington, DC could not be reached to comment on what, if any, action was taken by the Indian government upon receipt of the notification from the State Department.

The State Department has clarified that Khobragade has consular immunity, which applies only to functions performed in line with her official duties and not to alleged crimes such as visa fraud. She does not have diplomatic immunity which applies across the board.

With the Indian government now reportedly moving to obtain diplomatic immunity for Khobragade, the disclosure of the State Department's prior notification could raise the question as why Indian officials did not anticipate possible action against their diplomat and take action to provide her with diplomatic immunity earlier if they were convinced there was no wrongdoing on her part.

On December 5, 25 current and former Russian diplomats in New York and their spouses were charged with defrauding Medicaid, a state-run healthcare program, but none was arrested or prosecuted as the US said they enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

Decoding the Devyani Khobragade controversy: How a row over a maid's visa sparked a full-scale diplomatic incident | Mail Online

Now combine that story with this one below, and the story becomes interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2528046/Fear-loathing-New-York-Former-diplomat-Prabhu-Dayal-reveals-Indian-envoys-US-fall-victim-maids-pursuing-American-dreams.html
 
.
The problem is the IFS officers community especially the younger generation officers is putting pressure on the Government. And the stupid media is another reason. But if you see the comments in TOI and other media sites, there are not many sympathizers for the consular official unlike the overwhelming support here in PDF. Especially the release of Adarsh scam report has reduced the sympathy for Devyani. There will be reciprocal measures to soothe the diplomatic community in India just like what is going on now. Also once another hot topic pops up, everyone is going to forget this and move on and it will be business as usual as both countries can't afford a deadlock.

It has nothing to do with sympathy for Devyani, but for how Indian diplomats will be treated in the US, about what double standards the US have and most of all, about if she really had done something wrong in this case, or if it's just a try of Sangeeta to get a permanent stay in the US.
These are the core points and are not based on emotions, the actions India take now according to the article for example imo should had been done even before this case, since there is no reason to give US diplomats in India more privileges than Indian diplomats have. Same goes for the fact that the US have no right whatsoever, to move Indian citizens out of India, without consulting Indian authorities! That's a major offence against the Indian government and Indian laws too and not just an unproven visa flaw. And although americans doesn't bother too much about it, even in US law it still says innocent until proven guilty, so why are they doing more to protect Sangeeta, instead of proving Devyani being guilty first?

Indian government is doing the right thing and should keep showing a strong stand against the US, with the support of opposition parties, like it is the case today. The US needs to understand where the limits are, be it in the above mentioned points, or on India being one of the most spied nations of US intelligence agencies. Both shows that the US is still far away from being a reliable partner for India.
 
.
It has nothing to do with sympathy for Devyani, but for how Indian diplomats will be treated in the US, about what double standards the US have and most of all, about if she really had done something wrong in this case, or if it's just a try of Sangeeta to get a permanent stay in the US.
These are the core points and are not based on emotions, the actions India take now according to the article for example imo should had been done even before this case, since there is no reason to give US diplomats in India more privileges than Indian diplomats have. Same goes for the fact that the US have no right whatsoever, to move Indian citizens out of India, without consulting Indian authorities! That's a major offence against the Indian government and Indian laws too and not just an unproven visa flaw. And although americans doesn't bother too much about it, even in US law it still says innocent until proven guilty, so why are they doing more to protect Sangeeta, instead of proving Devyani being guilty first?

Indian government is doing the right thing and should keep showing a strong stand against the US, with the support of opposition parties, like it is the case today. The US needs to understand where the limits are, be it in the above mentioned points, or on India being one of the most spied nations of US intelligence agencies. Both shows that the US is still far away from being a reliable partner for India.

There are no double standards here. And if India has let go of an US diplomat who had committed a crime which warrants 10 years, then India is at fault and I never heard any story around that. The extra privileges granted beyond the norms were misused by the Indian diplomats in harassing their maids which is nothing short of human trafficking and visa fraud - 2 serious crimes. Let me leave this case as you said innocent until proven guilty. I am pointing to the 2010 case - a 17 year old girl who was brought in as maid after the terms agreed was $120 per month, less than 2 day salary for even a neighborhood teenager in US doing part-time. The diplomat under question, Neena Malhotra was found guilty in absence in civil court as she could not be prosecuted in criminal court due to the full diplomatic immunity she enjoyed. And what is that the GOI had done to that lady? Nothing. She is in a plump position in India.

There is a limit to the abuse of privileges by the Indian diplomats. It goes both ways. India allowed its officials to abuse their privileges abroad and local laws were not followed and I could say the same - that India was not acting as a responsible partner prior to this incident. Even then, US did bring it to GOI's notice in September about this particular issue and GOI did not do a squat then. Now don't blame US when US DOJ moved in to make the arrest.

As for the moving Indian citizens out, Preet Barara is at fault for using the wrong choice of words and stupid at best. But beyond that, the family of Sangeetha are not accused of any crimes and they applied for the visa and granted as other Indians do. Why does the question about India's permission arise if Sangeetha's family are free citizens?
 
.
This is known from day one when Devyani's dad started claiming that the DS-160 was filed by the maid and not by his daughter as is the norm and which is where the maid had quoted $4500 salary. Along with the papers, there would be a sponsor letter with salary quoted which would have accompanied the DS-160. Why I know this is I have filed few DS-160s myself. So they would have verified various documents as the investigation was going on for months(atleast from September). We can assume that the defense is going to be this from what her father claimed immediately after the arrest and now what the lawyer has claimed. This does not mean there is no case. The TOI is known for its sensational news.

Still the question of $1560, the minimum wage is there. And they can't claim that the housing and food covers the rest beyond the $500 salary. A3 visa clearly states that the additional perks like housing and food should be kept to a minimum part of the salary.

In a recent talk show he presented a copy of the application, which showed that the maid had filed and signed the application, not his daughter, she only used Devyani's computer, but Devyani according did not signed anything as it seems.

Also there is no case of minium wage, there is only a case of which law applies to the contract made with the maid. The maid is contracted by the GOI, the contract was signed in India according to Indian laws and Indian minumum wage regulations. The maid signed the contract on her accord and was not forced to go to the US and work for a lower salary than usual in India, in fact the reports states, that even without the additional perks (which also included health insurance, or flight tickets to India or back...), she earned more than the usual minimum wage in India.
She was contracted to work for Devyani in assistance of her official work and was not allowed to work in other US jobs, so was not part of the US labour market, so how can the US minimum wage apply to her?

The fact is, this has nothing to do with US labour law, but with US rules and regulations with foreign countries about their official employee (which includes both Devyani and the maid, since both are contracted according Indian laws and regulations!).
Do you really think that the US embassy in India will be pay Indian workers according to US minimum wage?
 
.
Let me leave this case as you said innocent until proven guilty.

Why? We are not discussing other cases but this one and so far it is still not proven that "she" has made the application, or that there is a visa flawed, so lets not distract from this case, with pointing out a single other case without a relations or generalizing. There are hundreds of Indian diplomats in the US and in the last few years, AFAIK not even a handful such cases happened, let alone were proven. So let's stick on facts of this case!


As for the moving Indian citizens out, Preet Barara is at fault for using the wrong choice of words and stupid at best. But beyond that, the family of Sangeetha are not accused of any crimes and they applied for the visa and granted as other Indians do. Why does the question about India's permission arise if Sangeetha's family are free citizens?

Because it's the US side that claims the family was threatened and that was the reason why they moved them to the US. They didn't just applied for a visa to the US, they was evacuated from India, without consulting Indian authorities or provide any reason for that!
Even if there would have been threats, the US have no right to do as they wish in India and would have notified the Indian counterparts about the threats and even according to Indian laws, they would had been provided with higher security or at least an investigation about the treats.
And even if the family are free citizens, there is a warrent and investigations against Sangeetha by the Indian authorities, so on what basis can the US move the family out, although these issues according to Indian law are not resolved?
 
.
In a recent talk show he presented a copy of the application, which showed that the maid had filed and signed the application, not his daughter, she only used Devyani's computer, but Devyani according did not signed anything as it seems.

You are talking about the DS-160 which is filed by the applicant and not by the sponsor. But there are additional documents needed like sponsor letter from the employer(or relative if the DS-160 is for a family visit) stating the salary to be offered etc. People who had done the DS-160 would know this.

Also there is no case of minium wage, there is only a case of which law applies to the contract made with the maid. The maid is contracted by the GOI, the contract was signed in India according to Indian laws and Indian minumum wage regulations. The maid signed the contract on her accord and was not forced to go to the US and work for a lower salary than usual in India, in fact the reports states, that even without the additional perks (which also included health insurance, or flight tickets to India or back...), she earned more than the usual minimum wage in India.
She was contracted to work for Devyani in assistance of her official work and was not allowed to work in other US jobs, so was not part of the US labour market, so how can the US minimum wage apply to her?

The fact is, this has nothing to do with US labour law, but with US rules and regulations with foreign countries about their official employee (which includes both Devyani and the maid, since both are contracted according Indian laws and regulations!).
Do you really think that the US embassy in India will be pay Indian workers according to US minimum wage?

You are wrong when you state that the contract is done between the maid and the Indian Government. The Indian Government compensates these diplomats for the maids hired by them. There is a proposal for the Government to contract these maids itself and diplomats can pick from the pool of these contracted maids to avoid the similar incident which has happened. If these maids were contracted to Indian Government, there is no question about the employer/employee relationship arise between the diplomats and the maid. And A3 visa norms dictate that minimum salary is to be offered to the maid as per US labor terms. So both Devyani and the maid is at fault here. And the additional perks you quote - look up the clause in A3 - additional perks should be only a small portion of the wage. So there goes her argument down the drain that the maid is provided free house/food etc.

And I am repeating for the umpteenth time - if you can't pay US minimum wages for the maid, then do not have a maid. Live like other Americans and even Indians living in US do - do your own household work. You are not an elite club here if you can't afford.

Why? We are not discussing other cases but this one and so far it is still not proven that "she" has made the application, or that there is a visa flawed, so lets not distract from this case, with pointing out a single other case without a relations or generalizing. There are hundreds of Indian diplomats in the US and in the last few years, AFAIK not even a handful such cases happened, let alone were proven. So let's stick on facts of this case!

Fine. Lets stick to this case but will point to the trend when necessary.

Because it's the US side that claims the family was threatened and that was the reason why they moved them to the US. They didn't just applied for a visa to the US, they was evacuated from India, without consulting Indian authorities or provide any reason for that!
Even if there would have been threats, the US have no right to do as they wish in India and would have notified the Indian counterparts about the threats and even according to Indian laws, they would had been provided with higher security or at least an investigation about the treats.
And even if the family are free citizens, there is a warrent and investigations against Sangeetha by the Indian authorities, so on what basis can the US move the family out, although these issues according to Indian law are not resolved?

It is foolish of Preet Barara to utter a statement like the family is in danger and something. Maybe Sangeetha being the witness in the case would have placed it as a condition - who knows? . But again you have not answered my question - what rule US broke in having the family moved to US? They are free citizens and they came on their own and flew with proper visa and Indian passports. If there is a case against Sangeetha, she is the accused. Not her father or brothers or husband or anyone. Didn't help the outcry and does not bode well for the relationship but beyond that there is no basis for your argument.

Beyond that, point to me where a legal procedure was violated by US in the whole episode. There is only one party here who is at fault(or maybe two - the maid herself in being cahoots with Devyani but US laws allow one to be treated as a witness)
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom