Commit Insurance Fraud Go Directly to Jail and the Back to Russia

Alexie Legassov, a convicted insurance fraud perpetrator, petitioned the USCA for review of a final order of removal and the denial of a motion to remand. In Alexei Legassov v. Attorney General United States Of America, No. 21-2586, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 24, 2022) the USCA decided it was time he returned to mother Russia.

FACTS

Legassov, a Russian citizen, has lived in the United States since 1993. In 2018, he was convicted in New Jersey of insurance fraud and operating a corporation for criminal purposes. He was sentenced to prison terms of four and five years, respectively, and ordered to pay over $1.2 million in restitution. After the Government initiated removal proceedings in 2019, an Immigration Judge (IJ) concluded that Legassov was removable as a noncitizen convicted of two or more offenses for which the aggregated sentences were five years or more and as a noncitizen convicted of a crime involving moral.

In August 2020, Legassov, proceeding pro se, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At a hearing in January 2021, Legassov testified that he entered the United States due to fears relating to his father’s involvement in investigating the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Although the official cause of his father’s death in 1988 was suicide, Legassov claimed that the Russian government had his father killed and he was warned to stop discussing that topic. Legassov stated that he was not harmed while in Russia, but he believed that the KGB initiated charges against him in 1996 after his departure and that he had been included on a wanted list.

The IJ ruled on several grounds that Legassov did not qualify for relief. In addition to making an adverse credibility finding, the IJ concluded that the one-year filing deadline barred the asylum application, and Legassov failed to provide a significantly changed circumstance to extend the time for filing. Even aside from the one-year bar, the IJ explained that he would deny aylum as a matter of discretion due to Legassov’s criminal history. The IJ likewise decided that Legassov had committed a “particularly serious crime” which rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal, and that Legassov did not qualify for CAT relief where he had not shown it would be more likely than not that he would be tortured upon his return to Russia. The IJ also denied voluntary departure.

On appeal, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning, rejected all grounds advanced in Legassov’s counseled brief, and dismissed the appeal. The BIA also denied a motion to remand because the evidence submitted did not rebut any of the IJ’s findings.

ANALYSIS

Notably, Legassov has not disputed that he is removable on the statutory grounds cited by the agency based on his criminal history (for committing a CIMT and for convictions of offenses carrying aggregated sentences of five or more years’ imprisonment). Also, he did not previously challenge the IJ’s conclusions that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief on appeal in the BIA; although he now claims, in very general terms, that he was eligible.

What remains are jurisdictional and due process arguments Legassov raised before, and the court rejected them for largely the same reasons the BIA did.

Legassov argues in his petition that the immigration court violated his due process rights by failing to adequately explain the proceedings or to develop the record. However, the record reveals no due process violation in Legassov’s proceedings.

the IJ explained to Legassov how he might retain an attorney and, after granting one continuance, the IJ was poised to grant another for Legassov to find an attorney. However, Legassov demurred and asked if the proceedings could move forward, and the IJ obliged. The IJ explained that Legassov would testify in support of his asylum application at the next hearing, and the IJ gave him time to submit documentation; Legassov did both. Legassov does not detail what else the IJ should have explained. Further, he has not shown that any deficiency prejudiced him, which is fatal to a due process claim.

Legassov did not show the requisite prejudice. In addition to the State Department report on country conditions in Russia in the record, the IJ considered statements of Legassov’s relatives and an article concerning the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Legassov does not state what other evidence that the IJ should have helped him obtain or how he was prejudiced by the absence of that material.

Finally, Legassov requested a remand so that his CAT claim could be considered in light of “new” evidence, including his birth certificate, articles about the Chernobyl disaster and his father, and articles about Russian intelligence activities. However, as the BIA explained, this evidence did not meaningfully address the shortcomings of his claims. Therefore, the BIA appropriately denied remand.

The BIA may deny a remand motion where the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief, fails to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, or would not be entitled to discretionary relief even if the motion were granted.

Accordingly, the petition for review was denied.

ZALMA OPINION

In 1993 the United States allowed a Russian Criminal, Legassov, who was wanted by the then KGB, to enter the United States and enter into multiple state and federal crimes until he was finally caught, prosecuted and convicted and sentence to five years in a federal prison and an order to remove him from the U.S. back to Russia. He used the judicial system including appeals to the Third Circuit. He should never have been allowed in the U.S. and remaining in the U.S. violates the law as did his insurance fraud. He should be put on a plane and sent to the mercy of Vladamir Putin. Perhaps he will be conscripted into the Russian military.

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and zalma@zalma.com.

Over the last 54 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created a library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals.

Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe. Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome. Write to Mr. Zalma at zalma@zalma.com; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; I publish daily articles at https://zalma.substack.com, Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/