Former Assistant Attorney General Christa Boyd-Nafstad, designated in July as an undesirable alien and banned from entering Palau, argues that her designation as an undesirable alien without due process violates Palau and United States Compact of Free Association Agreement.
“ The terms of the Compact Agreement dictate that U.S. citizens receive special treatment under Palauan immigration law, just as Palauan citizens receive reciprocal beneficial treatment under U.S. law. Both are considered “non-immigrant residents” in the other’s respective country. The terms of the Compact Agreement are codified into national law in both the U.S. federal law and Palau national code, and take precedence over any conflicting laws.”
Further, she said, “While it may technically be true that the President of Palau can deem a citizen of a country other than the United States to be an “undesirable alien” inadmissible to Palau for no reason at all, the same can absolutely not be said of U.S. citizens. Absent very specific criteria all U.S. citizens have the right to live and work in Palau. A U.S. citizen cannot be removed from Palau without reason, just as a Palauan living in the U.S. could not be secretly put on a clandestine list and removed from their home in the U.S. with no grounds and no hearing. Just the thought of such a thing happening is so far-fetched that it sounds ridiculous. Yet that is the scenario happening under the Palau Attorney General’s Office,” expressed Ms. Boyd-Nafstad in her communication to Island Times.
In July 2022, a list of 230 foreign nationals, 200 of them from People’s Republic of China, were listed as undesirable alien and border officers were instructed to not let them in the country. One US citizen was among the 230 listed and that person was the former assistant attorney for Palau, Christa Boyd-Nafstad.
Nafstad found out her status while off-island and has been arguing that her designation is based on the personal feelings of Attorney General Ernestine Rengiil, who served as her former boss and not on any mater of legal substance.
“None of the grounds listed in Section 1005 apply to me. The fact that I’m an attorney who graduated in the top 10% of my class and have for 15 years maintained my Bar license without blemish is testament to the fact that there are no grounds for which to be declared an “undesirable alien,” as I could not be a practicing attorney with a spotless record of any of those grounds existed,” expressed Christa Boyd-Nafstad.
“Looking at the laws specifically, the Compact Agreement, Section 142(a) states: “Any citizen or national of the United States may enter into, lawfully engage in occupations, and reside in Palau, subject to the right of that Government to deny entry to or deport any such citizen or national as an undesirable alien.” This language essentially gives U.S. citizens permanent residency in Palau,” asserted Nafstad.
Furthermore, “When a person has permanent residency they are safeguarded from arbitrary and capricious treatment at the hands of the government. There must be actual and legitimate grounds to remove them. Indeed, Section 142(b) adds the requirement that any designation as an “undesirable alien” must be based on actual statutory grounds.”
“The PNC, Title 13, section 1005, contains a list of factors which would make a non-citizen “inadmissible.” The Compact Agreement is an international treaty between the United States and Palau, the mandates of the treaty are converted into national law. If there is a conflict between the national code and the Compact Agreement, the Agreement prevails under the tenants of international law.”
“The language of the Compact Agreement, section 142 is printed in the PNC, Title 13, section 1005, right above the criteria for inadmissibility. Section 142 of the Compact and Title 13, sub-section 1005(l) cannot co-exist and create a conflict of laws. If sub-section 1005(l) could apply to US citizens then Americans could be removed for anything or nothing at all which then would render the words of Section 142 of the Compact completely meaningless,” Nafstad argued. In such a situation, the rules of statutory construction would give meaning to the language of the Compact and hold that sub-section 1005(l) is preempted by section 142 of the Compact.
She said that the arbitrary “discretion of the President” language in Section 1005 cannot be used as a basis to deny entry to US Citizens.
“It is clear from the language of the Compact requiring “statutory grounds” to deny entry to US citizens, that an actual and objective reason be given for exclusion and that it not be based on some petty jealousy or personal grievance.”
Adding, “the requirement of statutory grounds necessarily implies that there must be some sort of due process involved before the right of a US Citizen to enter and reside in Palau can be taken, especially those like myself with both real and personal property in Palau. Removal cannot be done arbitrarily with unlimited discretion and in secrecy, as was attempted here.”
The Compact Agreement must be recognized by both sides and the treatment of each other’s citizens as nationals in their respective countries must be reciprocated. In the U.S. in order for a Palauan citizen to be removed, they must have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or another serious infraction. There is nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act that would conflict with the Compact Agreement by giving unfettered discretion to the President to remove a Palauan citizen for no reason.
The Palauan citizen charged with a valid infraction is then given notice of the charge and a hearing before the immigration court with the right to legal representation. Under the Compact, a U.S. citizen in Palau must be treated with the same respect. Even if sub-section 1005(l) could apply to U.S. citizens, there is still a requirement for the same due process given to Palauans in the U.S. At the very least, the resident must be given notice of the reason and a hearing before a court with legal representation.
“The thought that a resident can be banned by an angry old woman with the grounds being pure jealousy of a young and beautiful woman, makes a mockery of justice and brings shame to the people involved in such a dirty and lawless operation,” expressed former assistant attorney Boyd-Nafstad.
Former Assistant Attorney General Christa Boyd-Nafstad, designated in July as an undesirable alien and banned from entering Palau, argues that her designation as an undesirable alien without due process violates Palau and United States Compact of Free Association Agreement.
“ The terms of the Compact Agreement dictate that U.S. citizens receive special treatment under Palauan immigration law, just as Palauan citizens receive reciprocal beneficial treatment under U.S. law. Both are considered “non-immigrant residents” in the other’s respective country. The terms of the Compact Agreement are codified into national law in both the U.S. federal law and Palau national code, and take precedence over any conflicting laws.”
Further, she said, “While it may technically be true that the President of Palau can deem a citizen of a country other than the United States to be an “undesirable alien” inadmissible to Palau for no reason at all, the same can absolutely not be said of U.S. citizens. Absent very specific criteria all U.S. citizens have the right to live and work in Palau. A U.S. citizen cannot be removed from Palau without reason, just as a Palauan living in the U.S. could not be secretly put on a clandestine list and removed from their home in the U.S. with no grounds and no hearing. Just the thought of such a thing happening is so far-fetched that it sounds ridiculous. Yet that is the scenario happening under the Palau Attorney General’s Office,” expressed Ms. Boyd-Nafstad in her communication to Island Times.
In July 2022, a list of 230 foreign nationals, 200 of them from People’s Republic of China, were listed as undesirable alien and border officers were instructed to not let them in the country. One US citizen was among the 230 listed and that person was the former assistant attorney for Palau, Christa Boyd-Nafstad.
Nafstad found out her status while off-island and has been arguing that her designation is based on the personal feelings of Attorney General Ernestine Rengiil, who served as her former boss and not on any mater of legal substance.
“None of the grounds listed in Section 1005 apply to me. The fact that I’m an attorney who graduated in the top 10% of my class and have for 15 years maintained my Bar license without blemish is testament to the fact that there are no grounds for which to be declared an “undesirable alien,” as I could not be a practicing attorney with a spotless record of any of those grounds existed,” expressed Christa Boyd-Nafstad.
“Looking at the laws specifically, the Compact Agreement, Section 142(a) states: “Any citizen or national of the United States may enter into, lawfully engage in occupations, and reside in Palau, subject to the right of that Government to deny entry to or deport any such citizen or national as an undesirable alien.” This language essentially gives U.S. citizens permanent residency in Palau,” asserted Nafstad.
Furthermore, “When a person has permanent residency they are safeguarded from arbitrary and capricious treatment at the hands of the government. There must be actual and legitimate grounds to remove them. Indeed, Section 142(b) adds the requirement that any designation as an “undesirable alien” must be based on actual statutory grounds.”
“The PNC, Title 13, section 1005, contains a list of factors which would make a non-citizen “inadmissible.” The Compact Agreement is an international treaty between the United States and Palau, the mandates of the treaty are converted into national law. If there is a conflict between the national code and the Compact Agreement, the Agreement prevails under the tenants of international law.”
“The language of the Compact Agreement, section 142 is printed in the PNC, Title 13, section 1005, right above the criteria for inadmissibility. Section 142 of the Compact and Title 13, sub-section 1005(l) cannot co-exist and create a conflict of laws. If sub-section 1005(l) could apply to US citizens then Americans could be removed for anything or nothing at all which then would render the words of Section 142 of the Compact completely meaningless,” Nafstad argued. In such a situation, the rules of statutory construction would give meaning to the language of the Compact and hold that sub-section 1005(l) is preempted by section 142 of the Compact.
She said that the arbitrary “discretion of the President” language in Section 1005 cannot be used as a basis to deny entry to US Citizens.
“It is clear from the language of the Compact requiring “statutory grounds” to deny entry to US citizens, that an actual and objective reason be given for exclusion and that it not be based on some petty jealousy or personal grievance.”
Adding, “the requirement of statutory grounds necessarily implies that there must be some sort of due process involved before the right of a US Citizen to enter and reside in Palau can be taken, especially those like myself with both real and personal property in Palau. Removal cannot be done arbitrarily with unlimited discretion and in secrecy, as was attempted here.”
The Compact Agreement must be recognized by both sides and the treatment of each other’s citizens as nationals in their respective countries must be reciprocated. In the U.S. in order for a Palauan citizen to be removed, they must have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or another serious infraction. There is nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act that would conflict with the Compact Agreement by giving unfettered discretion to the President to remove a Palauan citizen for no reason.
The Palauan citizen charged with a valid infraction is then given notice of the charge and a hearing before the immigration court with the right to legal representation. Under the Compact, a U.S. citizen in Palau must be treated with the same respect. Even if sub-section 1005(l) could apply to U.S. citizens, there is still a requirement for the same due process given to Palauans in the U.S. At the very least, the resident must be given notice of the reason and a hearing before a court with legal representation.
“The thought that a resident can be banned by an angry old woman with the grounds being pure jealousy of a young and beautiful woman, makes a mockery of justice and brings shame to the people involved in such a dirty and lawless operation,” expressed former assistant attorney Boyd-Nafstad.