कानूनको बिषयमा रुची हुने सबैलाई यो ब्लगमा स्वागत छ, नियमित रुपमा यो ब्लग हेर्न र आवश्यक देखीएको सल्लाह, सुझाव प्रतिकृया दिई सहभागीता जनाउन तपाईंहरु समक्ष हार्दिक अनुरोध छ।

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

जनताको पैसा उडाउने सांसद अव अदालतको नजरमा परे

अन्तरीम व्यवस्थापिकाको रुपमा प्रकट भएको व्यवस्थापिका-संसदका प्रत्येक सदस्यलाई रु. १० लाख दिने निर्णयको विरुद्धमा दायर गरिएको रिट निवेदनमा सर्वोच्च अदालतले कारण देखाउ आदेश जारी गरेको छ । माघ १५ गते माननिय न्यायाधिश राम प्रसाद श्रेष्ठको एक्कल इजलासले प्रारम्भीक सुनुवाई पछि त्यस्तो आदेश दिइएको हो । सो आदेशमा "निवेदकको माग वमोजिम आदेश किन जारी गर्न नपर्ने हो यो आदेश प्राप्त भएको मितिले बाटोको म्याद बाहेक १५ दिन भित्र मिसिलसाथ महान्यायधिवक्ताको कार्यालय मार्फत लिखित जवाफ पठाउन भनी" उल्लेख गरिएको


रकम वितरण गर्ने कार्य अन्तरीम आदेशबाट तत्काल रोक्ने वा नरोक्ने विषयमा यही माघ २२ गते मंगलवार छलफल हुने भएको भनी विपक्षीहरुलाई डाकेको पनि छ ।अदालतले त्यसरी रकम बाडनका लागी अनुमति दिने मन्त्री परिषदको निर्णय पनि पनि अदालतमा पेश गर्न आदेश दिइएको छ ।


सार्वजनिक धनमाल सरकारमा बसेकाहरुले आफु खुसी बितरण गर्न थाले भन्दै अधिवक्ता विष्ण, धर्मराज रेग्मी, श्याम बहादर शाही लगायतका १३ जना कानून व्यवसायीहरुले संयुक्त रुपमा सो रिट दायर गरेका हुन । रिट निवेदनमा आगामी चैत २८ गते संविधान सभाको चुनाव हुने भनि सकेपछि त्यसलाई प्रभावित गर्न यस्तो रकम वितरण गर्न लागिएको दावी गरिएको छ ।सांसदले त्यसरी रकम खर्च गर्न कानून बनाएर पाउने हो तर त्यस्तो कानून अहिलेसम्म नभएको र निर्वाचन लागि सकेको हुदा आचार सहिताको पनि उल्लघन हने रिटमा मुख्य कानूनी दावी लिइएको छ ।

Saturday, January 26, 2008

अब गुठीको जग्गा निजी बनाउन नपाईने

हालै सर्वोच्च अदालतले गुठीसम्बन्धी केही कानूनहरु संविधानसंग बाझिएको हुदा बदर हुने निर्णय गर्दै तिनिहरुको लेनदेन व्यवहार गर्न रोक लगाएकॊ छ । तीन जना माननिय न्यायधिशहरु राम प्रसाद श्रेष्ठ के. सी. र दामोदर शर्माको बिशेष इजलासले फैसला गरेको हो ।


गुठी संस्थान ऐन, २०३३ का दफा २५(ग) र ३६ मा दर्तावाल मोहिले कानूनले तोकेको रकम गुठी संस्थानलाई बुझाएमा राज गुठीको जग्गा रैतान नम्बरी (रैकरसरह) मा परिणत गर्न पाउने कानूनी व्यवस्था रहॆको छ । यो व्यवस्था संविधानको धारा १७(३) अन्तर्गत पर्ने धर्म र संस्कृतिक हकसंग बाझिएको सर्वोच्चको ठहर गरी ति दफाहरु अमान्य घोषित गरेको हो ।सर्वोच्च अदालतले मालपोत विभागबाट २०४५ असोज ३० मा जारी गरिएको निजी गुठीको जग्गा सट्टापट्टा गरी बेच्न पाउने कानूनी व्यवस्था पनि संविधान विपरीत भएको भन्दै बदर गरेको छ । त्यस्तै रजीष्ट्रेशन प्रयोजनको लागी तोकिएको न्यनतम मुल्य कुनै बैकमा अक्षयकोष राखी निजी गुठीको जग्गा रैकर सरह बेचबिखन गर्न दिने भुमिसुधार मन्त्रालयले २०४९ को निर्णयसमेत कानूनसम्मत नभएको र गुठी जग्गाको हिनामिना भएको भन्दै त्यसलाई पनि बदर गरेको छ । जांचवुछ आयोग ऐन २०२६ अनुसार वरिष्ट अधिवक्ता बसन्तराम भण्डारीको संयोजकत्वमा गठीत गुठीसम्बन्धी उच्चस्तरीय आयोगले दिएको प्रतिवेदनमा उल्लेखित सुझावहरु कार्यान्वयन गर्न निर्देशनात्मक आदेश पनि जारी गरिएको छ।


गुठी जग्गा बिक्री-वितरण रोकी धर्म-संस्कृति जोगाउन माग गदै जनहित संरक्षण माचका तर्फबाट अधिवक्ताहरु प्रकाशमणि शर्मा , मिहिरकुमार ठाकुर र रमा पन्त (खरेल) ले २०५८ चैत १२ मा सार्वजनिक सरोकारको रिट निवेदन दर्ता गर्नु भएको थियो ।

Hague Academy of International Law 2008 Summer Session


The program for the Hague Academy of International Law's 2008 Summer Session is now available. Here are the courses:

Private International Law (July 7-25)
Peter Trooboff (Covington & Burling): General Course: Globalization and Private International Law: Adapting Settled Theory to New Challenges
Luiz Baptista (University of Sao Paulo): Joint Ventures or Associations of Companies in International Commerce
Heinz-Peter Mansel (University of Cologne): Private International Law of Security in Movables
Marie-Laure Niboyet (University of Paris X): International Disputes and Civil Procedure
Paul Beaumont (University of Aberdeen): Protecting Children and Preventing Abduction: The Experience with International Instruments
Dário Moura Vicente (University of Lisbon): Intellectual Property in Private International Law
Campbell McLachlan (Victoria University of Wellington): Lis Pendens in International Litigation
Stefania Bariattti (University of Milan): International Insolvency Proceedings
Public International Law (July 28-August 15)
Ahmed Mahiou (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Aix-en-Provence): General Course: International Law and the Dialectic between Rigourism and Flexibility
Emmanuel Decaux (University of Paris II): Contemporary Forms of Slavery
Rein Müllerson (King's College London): Promoting Democracy through International Organizations with Special Reference to Central Asia
Laurance Boisson de Chazournes (University of Geneva): Relations between Universal Organizations and Regional Organizations
Gerhard Hafner (University of Vienna): The Emancipation of the Individual from the State under International Law
Raul Pangalangan (University of the Philippines, Manila): Disputed Islands in the South China Sea and Southeast Asia under International Law
Daniel Thürer (University of Zurich): International Humanitarian Law: Theory and Practice

Saturday, January 19, 2008

अदालतमा झगडीयाले ताण्डव नृत्य गरे

सर्वोच्च अदालतमा मुद्दाको सुनुवाइ भई रहेको वेला ईजलास भित्रै न्यायपलिका विरुद्ध नारावाजी गर्ने १७ जनालाई प्रहरीले पक्राउ गरेको छ । काठमाण्डौको नया वजार स्थित चः मती भन्ने ठाउमा जग्गा एकीकरण आयोजना गर्ने र नगर्ने विषयमा स्थानिय बासीन्दाहरु बीच विवाद भई २०५९ सालमा सर्वोच्च अदालतमा रिट निवेदन दर्ता भई माघ ४ गते अन्तिम सनवाई भइरहेको थियो । माननिय न्यायाधीश बलराम के. सी. र तपबहादुर मगरको संयुक्त ईजलासमा कानून व्यवसायीहरुले बहस गरिरहदा केही व्यक्तिहरुले पेशी स्थगीत गर्न माग गदै न्यायालय र न्यायधीश विरुद्ध नारावाजी गरेका थिए । उक्त मद्दामा जग्गा एकीकरण आयोजनाका तर्फबाट बहस गर्न तोकिएका सरकारी वकिल ठोक प्रसाद शिवाकोटीले बहस गर्न नसक्ने भन्दै सनुवाई स्थगित गर्न निदेदन दिएका थिए । तर इजलासले अन्तरीम आदेश भई सकेको र अग्राधिकार प्राप्त उक्त मुद्दा पटक पटक स्थगित भएको भन्दै सनुवाईको क्रम अघि बढाएको थियो । सो बमोजिम कानून व्यवसायीहरुले बहस गरिरहेका थिए । यसैलाई आधार बनाएर ति व्यक्तिहरुले पेशी स्थगित गर्न माग गरेका थिए ।मुद्दाको सुनुवाइ प्रारम्भ भई रिट निवेदकका वकिल रमण कुमार श्रेष्ठले बहस गरिरहेको बखत केही आक्रोशित व्यक्तिहरु पेशी स्थगित नभएको भन्दै इजलासमा रहेका न्यायाधिशहरु र प्रधान न्यायाधिशको विरोधमा अपशब्द प्रयोग गदै इजलासमा प्रवेश गरेको थियो । त्यसपछी इजलास प्रवेश बन्द गरी सनुवाई गरिएको थियो ।इजलास प्रवेश बन्द गरे लगतै तिनीहरु झन उग्र हुदै हुलहुज्जत र अपशब्द प्रयोग गरी सुरक्षामा खटीएका मर्यादा पालकलाई हातपत गर्न थाले । यसबाट अदालतको काम कारवाहीमा अबरुद्ध भएपछि अरु सरक्षाकर्मी मगाएको र तिनिहरुलाई पक्राउ गरेको सर्वोच्च अदालतले जनाएकोछ । महत्वपूर्ण कुरा के छ भने सर्वोच्च अदालतले नयाँ सुरक्षा योजना लागु भएको भोलीपल्ट नै यो घटना भएको छ । सिहदरवार स्थित महानगरीय प्रहरी प्रभागले पक्राउ गरेका १७ जनालाई हिरासतमा राखिएको र सर्वोच्च अदालतको निर्णय बमोजिम कानून कारवाही गरिने जनाएकोछ ।सर्वोच्च अदालतका रजिष्ट्रारले यो घटनालाई गम्भीर रुपमा लिएको र ती व्यक्तिहरुलाई अदालतको अवहेलनामा फौजदारी कसूरमा मुद्दा चलाईने भएको जनकारी दिनु भएको छ ।

Friday, January 18, 2008

Nepalese legal portal launched!

A brand new website related to Nepalese legal system has been lauched. Please check at http://www.legalnepal.com


This website covers latest legal news, interviews and legal article from Nepal. Also this site allows the readers to ask legal question online and get answers from a qualified lawyer in 2-3 days. One ambitious aspect of this website is to digitize much of the legal codes and statutes in Nepal.


One of the cool features is online telephone directory for Kathmandu and Nepali-English date converter.

Monday, January 7, 2008

LLM Guide

Here is a the link to a great website for those looking forward to continue their legal education and pursue a LLM. This website helps you choose best law school for you, allows you to discuss about the programs and gives your advice on funding options



Saturday, January 5, 2008

न्यायाधीशहरुको सुनवाई हुने भयो

पुस १२ गते न्याय परिषद वैठकले सर्वोच्च अदालतमा रिक्त रहेको दईवटा स्थायी न्यायाधिशको पदमा नियुक्ती गर्न उपयक्त ठहरर्‍याई संसदीय समितिमा सिफरीस गरिएका ताहिर अन्सारी र राजेन्द्र कोईरालालाई सो संसदीय सुनवाई विशेष समितिले उहाहरुको सुनवाईका गर्नका लागी यहि पुस २३ गते दिउसो ३ वजे वोलाएकॊ छ । यसै बिच यी प्रस्तावित न्यायाधिशहरुको सम्बन्धमा सर्वसाधारण नागरीकहरु के कस्तो धारणा छ सो बुझ्ने उद्देश्यले सो समितिले प्रस्तावित न्यायाधिशहरुको सम्बन्धमा कुनै गुनासो वा उजुरी भए पुस १४ देखी १८ गतेसम्मको समय भित्र समितिमा पठाई दिन होला भनी सार्वजनिक सुचना जारी गरेको थियो । १९ गतेका दिन बसेको बिशेष समितिको बैठकमा दिईएको जानकारी अनुसार सो अवधिमा प्रस्तावित न्यायाधिश कोईराला बिरुद्ध एउटा मात्र उजुरी परेको छ भने अन्सारी बिरुद्ध कुनै उजुरी परेको छैन । २०६२ फागन ८ गतेका दिन एउटा जग्गा सम्बन्धी मुद्दामा श्री कोईरालाले घुस खाई नजिर उल्लघन गरेको भनी काठमाण्डौ महानगर पालिका वडा नं. १० का रमेश पौडेलले आरोप लगाएका छन । आमोद प्रसाद उपाध्यायको सभापतित्वमा वसेको सो वैठकमा सांमसदहरुले मद्दाको हारजीत हेर्ने नभई न्यायधिशको दक्षता , निष्पक्षता स्वच्छता हेर्ने वताउनु भएको बुझिएको छ । संसद राजनैतिक गर्नेहरुको थलो भएको हुदाँ यसले न्यायपालिका र न्यायाधिशको बिषयमा सनुवाई गर्न मिल्दैन भन्ने संबिधानबिद्हरुको धारणा अझै कायमै छ । संविधानले स्वीकार गरी सके पछि जो सुकैले यसलाई पालना गर्नै पर्ने हुन्छ । तथापि यस्ता सुनवाईको नाममा न्यायाधिशहरुलाई मनौवैज्ञानिक त्रास उत्पन्न गर्ने र स्वतन्त्र न्यायपालिकाको धारणालाई समाप्त गर्ने काम भने हुनु हदैन भन्ने न्यायीक क्षेत्रको अडान रहेको छ ।

डा. गिरीले अवहेलना नगरेको ठहर

राजा ज्ञानेन्द्रको प्रत्यक्ष शासनकालमा मंत्रीपरिषदको उपाध्यक्ष पदमा रहेका डा. तुलसी गिरी विरुद्ध अदालतको अवहेलनामा कारवाहीको माग गदै दर्ता गरिएको मुद्दा सर्वोच्च अदालतले यही पुस १९ गते खारेज गरेको छ । माननीय न्यायाधीश अनुपराज शर्मा र तपबहादुर मगरको संयुक्त इजलासले मुद्दामा माग गरिए बमोजिम अबहेलनामा कारवाही गर्नु पर्ने नदेखिएको भन्दै मुद्दा खारेज गरेको हो । गिरीले संबिधानको अपव्याख्या र अदालतको अवहेलना गरेकोले कारवाहीको माग गदै नेपाल बार एशोसिएसनले २०६२ असोज ५ मा मुद्दा दर्ता गरेको थियो । नेपाल वारका तर्फबाट तत्कालिन महासचिव माधव वास्कोटा निवेदक भै यो मुद्दा दायर भएको थियो । गिरीले २०६३ साल असोज ३ गते बिराटनगरमा आयोजित पुर्वान्चलस्तरीय सरकारी आमसभामा "अदालत पनि दलको पक्षमा लागेको” र "दलको हावाले न्यायाधीशलाई छोएको” जस्ता आरोप लगाएका थिए ।

Friday, January 4, 2008

Interview with Santosh Giri - Nepalese Lawyer in the US

Santosh Giri is working as an immigration paralegal with The Chugh Firm in Santa Clara, USA since January 2006. His primary concentration areas are immigration laws such as Specialty Occupation (H), Intra Company Transfer (L), Extraordinary Ability (O), TN Visas, Permanent Employment and Residency Process and Legal Drafting such as RFE and Appeals. He is also a certified Legal Researcher on West Law and LexisNexis. He obtained his Bachelor in Law in 2000 from Nepal Law Campus, followed by Master of Laws in Commercial Law (LLM) in 2002. In 2005, he completed an Orientation in USA Law Program from University of California Davis and UC Berkeley Boalt Hall. He graduated from Golden Gate University (GGU), San Francisco in May 2007 with a LLM concentrating in immigration law. He is currently pursuing a Post Graduate Diploma Specialization on Immigration (Refugee and Asylum) Law at GGU. He started to practice law in Nepal as a pleader since 1998 and as an advocate since 2001. He is currently preparing for his Attorney License Examination from State Bar of California. Prior to joining The Chugh Firm, he worked as a research assistant in an asylum project at Golden Gate University on discrimination against Sikh asylum seekers based on improper translation, interpretation and representation. In Nepal, he practiced corporate law and served as a company secretary and legal advisor for some leading private and public companies. He worked under supervision of advocate Krishna Prasad Bhandari. He practiced public interest litigation and human rights law through leading national and international human rights organizations in Nepal such as Peace Brigades International; Lawyers National Campaign against Untouchability; Human Rights and Environment Protection Nepal; Forum for Women, Law and Development and LAWYERS. He is also the coordinator of an ad-hoc organization Association of Nepalese Lawyers in the United States [ANLUS]. He has also been providing US Immigration related information through his personal blog.

As a lawyer, what are the differences you found between practicing law in Nepal and in the US?
Practice of law remains the same in both jurisdiction and is subject to the rules of professional responsibility. However, the professional responsibility rules in the US seem to be rigid, transparent and active in comparison to Nepal. I am not a lawyer in the US yet but as a law student and observer of the legal practice in the US, I can say that the US legal practice is extremely developed and systematic because of the immense resources available for legal research such as LexisNexis and Westlaw; structured legal practice such as specific forms and information required for immigration law; prompt, fair and approachable justice system in comparison to the Nepalese justice system.

There are many Nepalese in the US who have successfully obtained asylum. What are the requirements for asylum?
Convention against Torture (CAT) is the basis of political asylum. A torture victim has the right to seek protection in the nation where he can be protected from being deported to the nation where he/she fears that their life is at stake due to persecution in the past and/or continuous threat of persecution.

CAT defines torture as:
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


The basis asylees can seek protection is:
Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
In order to qualify for asylum, you must establish that you are an asylee who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality, or last habitual residence in the case of a person having no nationality, because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

This means that you must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for your persecution or why you fear persecution. (See section 208 of the INA; 8 CFR sections 208 and 1208, et seq.)

An asylum application is also considered to be an application for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, as amended. It may also be considered an application for withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture if you checked the box at the top of Page 1 of the application form, or if the evidence you present indicates that you may be tortured in the country of removal. (See 8 CFR sections 208.13(c)(1) and 1208.13(c)(1).) If asylum is not granted, one may still be eligible for withholding of removal. In order to qualify for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, you must establish that it is more likely than not that your life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion in the proposed country of removal. If you obtain an order withholding your removal, you cannot be removed to the country where your life or freedom would be threatened. This means that you may be removed to a third country where your life or freedom would not be threatened.

The Convention Against Torture refers to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. To be granted withholding of removal to a country under the Convention Against Torture, you must show that it is more likely than not that you would be tortured in that country.” Torture” is defined in Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture and at 8 CFR sections 208.18(a) and 1208.18(a). For an act to be considered torture, it must be an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment, it must cause severe physical or mental pain and suffering and it must be specifically intended to cause severe pain and suffering. Torture is an act inflicted for such purposes as obtaining from the victim or a third person information or a confession, punishing the victim for an act he or she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing the victim or a third person or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind. Torture must be inflicted by or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. The victim must be in the custody or physical control of the torturer. Torture does not include pain or suffering that arises only from, is inherent in or is incidental to lawful sanctions, although such actions may not defeat the objective and purpose of the Convention Against Torture.

Since the Maoists are now part of the government, do you think it has now become harder to convince the US officials?
Below is a chart that shows the asylum data for the Nepalese asylum seekers. The approval rate is roughly 50%.


The following is the up-to-date data of Nepalese Asylees who have been approved under affirmative and defensive asylum since 1997 till 2006.


Now coming to the part about the Maoist inclusive government and its impact on Nepalese asylum seekers, the first thing to consider is that threat or persecution may still be prevalent because of the following:

1. Splinter Groups such as those in the Terai
2. Radical organizations such as YCL
3. Threats on account of race such as Madheshis vs. Pahades
4. Threats on account of social discrimination and torture such as caste, gender and transgender discrimination coupled with severe physical and mental torture
5. Threats on account of religion such as minorities being subject to persecution
6. Threats based on political affiliations such as being associated with the pro-monarch political parties.

It is likely that new cases will be continued to be filed in the days to come and there is also a possibility of emergence of newer bases of persecution.

In your opinion, what are the urgent changes required in Nepalese legal system?
- There are numerous things to be changed and the Nepalese legal system is already in the verge of transformation. The recent initiatives taken by the Rt. Hon. Chief Justice and the preceding CJs in the areas of e-judiciary, online tracking system of cases, intra-court networking, security procedures, judicial academy, and specialized bench provision are some of the milestones which should be considered as the lay bricks of the foundation of a sound judiciary.
- Secondly, the notion of independence of judiciary must be preserved and separation of powers and check and balance must prevail under all political conditions. Judiciary has been the only functional state mechanism throughout these years of political turmoil where a legislative based on a popular-will ended in 2002 and an executive based on such legislative was never present since then. The 2006 revival of the parliament and the executive formed thereby have been interim in nature but significant in transformation of the nation to a true democracy.
- Thirdly, there are other areas where the changes must be initiated immediately, to name a few:
- Revision of the Rules of Professional conduct of the Lawyers and strict action against defaulters
- Hourly billing system which shall ensure approachable and convenient justice system, ensuring uniform expenditure to all instead of chaotic legal fees
- State sponsored pro-bono legal services instead of the current ‘show-off’ legal aid so that the legal aid becomes actually available to the stakeholders; a proper and clear socio-economic standard must be set to identify the stakeholders. Initiatives should be taken to institutionalize and integrate widespread legal aid services available throughout the nation through various organizations. Local Bar Units should be used as the ultimate point of contact for the pro-bono stakeholders. This shall also ensure potential employment and opportunity for the local lawyers.
- Adequate raise in the benefits, perks and remuneration for the appointee-lawyers (Baitanik Wakil) and judiciary employees which shall ensure decrease in corruption. A significant raise and benefits and annual revision shall curtail corruption completely in the long run.
- Online filing, procedural and decision system in the quasi-judicial areas such as Company Registrar Office, Patent, Design and Trademark, Copyright, Land Revenue, Land Reform, Tax, Labor etc. Online system will guarantee swift and prompt justice along with elimination of corruption in these areas which is extremely rampant based on my personal practice experience as a corporate lawyer in Nepal


For somebody in Nepal aspiring to practice law in US, what suggestions do you like to give him/her?
- Practice in the US for a law practitioner from Nepal comprises of a specific road-map. States such as California, Texas and New York allow foreign lawyers to take the bar exams. If the law student is not yet licensed in a foreign jurisdiction, he/she may be required to complete additional credit hours of law study from the American Bar Association accredited law school. Therefore the first step is to be licensed in Nepal to take this privilege.
- Bar Exam test on various major areas of law and consume a vast amount of time and energy for the preparation. There are various bar exam preparation classes that are available which are costly and tightly scheduled.
- It is advisable to complete a LLM Program before the Bar exam for the better understanding of the common law of the US and the black letter law of the corresponding state.
- If the student’s legal vocabulary is weak, there are various legal English courses available during summer in nearly all states. It is advisable to attend one of these schools as well.
- While studying in law schools there are various practical training opportunities available through various law firms and organizations. One should focus on such practical training, internship, externship and even volunteer for the sake of first hand experience of the actual law practice
- Several law schools offer scholarship based on merit and need to students of developing nation ranging from 25% to full scholarship. It is wise to plan, prepare and contact several law schools before taking a final decision.

You are also involved with The Association of Nepalese Lawyers in United States (ANLUS). Can you tell us more about this?
Association of Nepalese lawyers in the United States (ANLUS), is an ad-hoc non-for-profit (proposed IRC Section 501(c)(3), founded on June 19, 2006 by a group of Nepalese Lawyers and Law students present in the United States. We are still in a developing stage due to presence of our associates in various states. Currently ANLUS serves as a database and a common point of contact for the stakeholders. We are planning for our first annual meeting in 2008. Association of Nepalese lawyers in the United States (ANLUS) primarily aims at conservation, development and modernization of our Nepalese Legal System through its own resources viz. law students, law academics and lawyers from Nepal and practicing Nepali attorneys in the US. Details can be found at http://www.anlus.wordpress.com/
The main objectives of ANLUS are :
-To create a platform for Nepalese Lawyers and Law students for better coordination and cooperation for academic and professional career in the United States;
-To organize conferences, seminars and interaction on issues related to rule of law in Nepal and legal career;
-To facilitate Nepalese Lawyers and Law Students in attending law schools in the United States and lobby for scholarship on their behalf


How are Nepalese people doing in terms of legalizing their status as compared to other communities? What are the major hurdles faced by Nepalese in the US?
- Nepalese or not, all nonimmigrant are and should be aware of the legal consequences by one way or other and therefore should not risk their legal status. Per my observation, Nepalese are on a safer side compared to other so-called “illegal immigrants”. It may be due to the minimal percentage of presence in the US. We are the minority among the minority.
- There are numerous people from our community who have been out of status for one reason or the other. Some are hoping for a new immigration reform agenda which shall be probably initiated again after the 08 GOP elections under a possible democrat government.
- There are also hopes among us for immunity or amnesty:
- The first United States amnesty was in 1986, and it allowed millions of illegal immigrants to receive a Green Card which could then lead to U.S. citizenship in later years. Before this first amnesty was granted, the United States government had only given amnesty on a case by case basis. In the cases where the government gave amnesty to illegal immigrants, it was only done on a small scale. For a period of over 200 years this was how the government granted amnesty, but in 1986 Congress introduced new immigration legislature. They passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act or IRCA which gave approximately 2.8 million illegal immigrants legal status in the United States. In addition, their immediate relatives or dependents which included about 143,000 individuals also qualified for the same status. The result of the amnesty introduced by Congress was that illegal immigration grew in significant numbers.
- When the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed, it was only meant to be a “one time” amnesty but it actually turned out to be the beginning of many amnesties that would follow. To date there have been additional amnesties that have been granted to illegal immigrants which include:
- Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens.
- Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
- Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
- Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America.
- Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
- Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens.
- LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens

- There are currently several bills in the United States congress that could possibly create the 8th Amnesty.
- Each amnesty has been on a different scale, some granting amnesty to as little as 125,000 illegal immigrants while others have granted amnesty to almost 1 million illegal immigrants. Currently there are plans to introduce another amnesty to the approximate 12 million illegal immigrants that reside in the United States. Critics claim that immigration amnesties entice an even greater number of illegal migrants, since they hope for another amnesty which can grant them permanent resident status in the United States.
- Nepalese are mostly in the US as students or professionals. Maintaining Legal status and guidelines thereof are available easily at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) website www.uscis.gov. Community discussion forums such as www.sajha.com are also very helpful in these regards along with numerous immigration law related websites.
- Major hurdles faced by Nepalese communities are lack of communication and lack of initiative to gather adequate information. Costly legal services and inadequacy of Nepalese Attorneys in all parts of the US is another obstacle. Currently, lawyers from our community are in New York, New Jersey and Texas only. Although this serves adequately for our community in these states, there are numerous other states where attorneys from our community are not available. On the other hand the modern technology has made it possible for Nepalese to obtain legal services from anywhere in the US. There are also several Nepalese paralegals like me who work in immigration law firm and provide service through our attorneys.

There is a talk in Nepal about allowing some sort of dual citizenship arrangement for NRNs. How critical is this issue for the Nepalese living in the US?
Dual citizenship or dual nationality is simply being a citizen of two countries. The United States allows dual citizenship. Dual citizens can carry two passports and essentially live, work, and travel freely within their native and naturalized countries. Some dual citizens also enjoy the privilege of voting in both countries, owning property in both countries, and having government health care in both countries. Dual citizenship is becoming more common in our increasingly interconnected, global economy. Many countries are now seeing the advantages of dual citizenship and are liberalizing their citizenship laws (India, the Philippines, and Mexico are recent examples). Dual citizenship has the advantages of broadening a country’s economic base by promoting trade and investment between the dual citizen’s two respective countries. In a developing and transforming nation such as ours, it is prominent that Nepal allows dual citizenship, keeping in mind NRN investments in place of foreign investment in the restricted investment areas, providing voting rights ensuring complete participation of Nepalese in nation-building, property ownership and real estate development in global standard, participation in politics etc are some areas which should not restrict a NRN from participating.

What are your future plans? Are you planning to return to Nepal?
- I am definitely returning possibly within 3-5 years.
- I want to become an attorney first and get a professional experience of being an attorney for Nepalese community in the west coast of the United States.
- I want to develop my legal knowledge in areas of transnational corporate law, international trade, multinational corporations and immigration law. I want to be established as a transnational lawyer practicing in multiple jurisdictions.
- I am confident that the IT industry in Nepal will get its boom sooner or later because of increasing number of IT professionals in Nepal and the infrastructure currently developed such as optical-fiber, IT Village and broad IT legislation. There is much to accomplish but the basic requirements have been set. I want to serve as a legal liaison for the Nepalese IT companies and its professionals and the US IT corporations such as Yahoo, AMD, Webex, and Google which are based in the Silicon Valley. Business Immigration law, Intra-company Transfers, Immigrant Visas, Specialty Occupation Visas, Establishment and Stockholding of Branch or affiliate companies are some of the areas to name a few.
- Politics has always been an area of prime interest for me and I would definitely enter the arena in future. I was born and raised in a rural village Parsa Dewad in Mahottari and in Dhanusha district. I have been a resident of Kathmandu since 2042 BS. The rights of the people of Terai has been infringed since hundred of years and are continuously suppressed. I would follow the non-violent path of politics rather than a violent one.
- A possible career in the judiciary is also my area of interest.

Fact, figures and data presented have been derived from the sources (in part and in full) from www.uscis.gov, www.usimmigrationsupport.org, www.newcitizen.us, www.santosgere.wordpress.com, www.anlus.wordpress.com


Wednesday, January 2, 2008

बिचारबिहिनताको राजनीतिले लोकतान्त्रिक प्रकृयालाई अगाडी बढाउन सक्दैन

दिनेश त्रिपाठी एउटा सकृय युवा कानून व्यवसायीको नाम हो । उहाले संवैधानीक तथा विकास कानूनमा त्रिभुवन विश्वविद्यालय र वाल्टिमोर विश्वविद्यालय (अमेरीका )बाट स्नातकोत्तरको अध्ययन गर्नु भएको छ । नेपालको सर्वोच्च अदालतमा सार्वजनिक सरोकारका धेरै मद्दा दर्ता गर्नदेखी बहस पैरवी गर्नसम्म उहाको सकृय योगदान छ । मानव अधिकार र कानूनका बिषयमा देश बिदेशमा पत्र-पत्रिकामा उहाको लेख रचना छापिएका छन । अमेरीकामा रहदा उहाले कोलम्बिया, जर्जटाउन, र्बक्ले, जोनहकिन्स जस्ता नाम चलेका विश्वविद्यालयहरुमा अतिथिवक्ताको रुपमा प्रवचन दिनु भएको थियो । त्यसै गरी National Lawyer guild,Lawyer's Without Border जस्ता प्रतिष्ठित संस्थाहरुको निमन्त्रणा स्वीकार गरी प्रवचन दिनु भएका थियो । हाल उहाँ नेपालमा कानून व्यवसायको साथसाथै मानव अधिकार, सामाजीक न्याय र कानूनी शासनका लागी विभिन्न गोष्ठि र छलफलहरुमा सकृय पुर्वक संलग्न रहेको भेटिनु हन्छ । उहा एक प्रेरणादायक व्यक्तित्व भएको र उहावाट केही कुरा सिक्न र जान्न उपयोगी ठानी उहासंग अन्तरवार्ता लिएको छु । यस अन्तरवार्ता लिन मलाई मेरा मित्र अधिवक्ता बिनोद कार्किले सहयोग दिनु भएको छ ।
तपाई संवैधानिक कानून र राजनीतिको ज्ञाता हुन हुन्छ । अब हामीलाई वताई दिनुहोस नेपालको वर्तमान संकट विचाधाराको संकट (Ideological crisis) मात्र हो कि सामाजीक आर्थिक र मनोवैजानिक तत्वहरुको पनि संकट हो
यसमा दुवै कारण छ । धेरै कुरामा हाम्रो नेतृत्व वर्गमा वैचारीक स्पष्टताको पनि अभाव छ । एउटा परिवर्तित राजनीतिक परिस्थीतिमा राजनीतिक विचार धारामा जुन किसीमको पुर्नव्याख्याको आवश्यकता पर्दछ त्यसको पनि व्यापक अभाव छ । राजनीतिक विचार कुनै जड् प्रकृया होईन । परिवर्तित परिस्थीति अनुसार यसमा व्याख्या र पुर्नव्याख्याको आवश्यकता पर्दछ । अहिले विश्वमा प्याराडाइम सिफ्ट भइरहेको छ । तर हामी काहाँ राजनीतिक जडसुत्रवाद हावी छ । एउटा व्यापक राष्ट्रिय एवं अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय परिस्थीति अनुसार नया भिजन विकसीत गर्नु पर्ने आवश्यकता नेपाललाई छ । तर नेपाल विस्तारै सिद्धान्त विहिन हुदै गएको छ । विचार विहिनताको संस्कृति नेपाली राजनीतिमा हावी हुदै गई रहेको छ । राजनीतिक दल/राजनीतिक पात्रहरु वीचको मतभेद कुनै सैद्धान्तीक प्रश्नमा भन्दा व्यक्तिगत स्वार्थ र महत्वकांक्षामा हुने गरेको छ । विचार विहिनताको राजनीतिले मूलुकको लोकतान्त्रीक प्रकृयालाई अगाडी बढाउन सक्दैन । लोकतान्त्रीक संस्थाहरुलाई मजवुत गराउन एवं लोकतान्त्रीक प्रकृयालाई घनीभुत गराउन सिद्धान्त एवं विचारको राजनीतिक आवश्यकता छ । राजनीतिलाई एउटा निश्चित मूल्य र मान्यता संग पनि जोडनु आवश्यक छ । एउटा मूलकको रुपमा हाम्रो भविष्य लोकतान्त्रीक करणको प्रकृयासंग पनि गासीएको छ । लोकतान्त्रीक करणको प्रकृया असफल भयो भने एउटा राष्ट्रको रुपमा पनि हामी असफल हुने छौ ।

नेपालमा मुलधारको नेतृत्वमा तराई र मधेशमूलको नेतृत्व प्रति सधै शंका रहने गरेको छ । हालै उठेको तराई आन्दोलन र संघीयताको वारेमा पनि मुलधारको नेतृत्वमा शंका तथा त्रास उठेको छ । यी कुराहरु हुनमा केही भु- राजनीतिक यथार्थ छ कि खाली मनोवैज्ञानीक संत्रास मात्र हो ?
मेरो विचारमा शंका र अबिश्वासको वातावरणले मूलुकको लोकतन्त्र निर्माणको प्रकृयालाई अगाडी बढाउन सक्दैन । नेपाल एउटा बहुभाषिक बहुसंस्कृतिक र बहुजातिय अर्थात विविधतापुर्ण राष्ट्र हो । यो यथार्थलाई हामीले बुझ्नु परेको छ । यस राष्ट्रमा वस्ने जाति वर्ग र भाषा-भाषीहरु यस राष्ट्रका सदस्य हुन । अर्थात यस राष्ट्रलाई एउटा कम्पनी मान्ने हो भने ती सदस्यहरु यो राष्ट्रको शेयरहोल्डर हुन । यस राष्ट्रको प्रगती र विकासमा सवैको साझा सरोकार छ । यसको प्रगती र विकासमा नै सवैको स्वार्थ अन्तरनिहित छ । नेपालको जटिल भु-राजनीतिको कारणले नेपालमा वस्ने खास किसीमका बासीन्दाहरु नेपालको हित र स्वार्थ चाहादैनन, नेपाल प्रति लोयल छैनन भन्नु वा त्यस्तो विचारको शिकार हनु एउटा संकिर्ण र घातक मानसीकताको उपज हो । कहिन कहि यसमा पुरानो सर्वसत्तावादी पंचायती मानसीकता हावी रहेको छ जस्तो लाग्छ । यस राष्ट्रमा बस्ने सम्पुर्ण नेपालीहरु यस राष्ट्रका सदस्य हुन र वरावरका हिस्सेदार हुन । तसर्थ हामीले समावेशी लोकतन्त्रको अवधारणाद्धारा मात्र यस विविधतापुर्ण राष्ट्रका समस्यालाई सम्बोधन गर्न सकिन्छ । संघियताको अवधारणालाई पनि यसै परिप्रेक्षमा बुझ्न सकिन्छ । जनतालाई अधिकतम अधिकार र स्वायतता प्रदान गरिनु पर्दछ । जनतालाई शक्ति सम्पन्न एंव अधिकार सम्पन्न गराएर कुनै पनि मूलुक आज सम्म टुक्ररिएको छैन । जनता शक्ति सम्पन्न भयो भने मात्र राष्ट्र शक्ति सम्पन्न हुन्छ । जनतालाई अधिकार दिएमा राष्ट्र टुक्ररिन्छ भन्ने अवधारणा अलोकतान्त्रीक र नोकरशाही अवधारणा हो । संघीयताको प्रश्नमा हाल राष्ट्रिय सहमति कायम कायम भै सकेको छ । अब यसवाट पछी हट्न मिल्दैन । हाम्रो जस्तो विविधतापुर्ण राष्ट्रमा स्थायीत्व दिन र लोकतन्त्रलाई सुनिश्चीत गर्न संघियताले एउटा राम्रो उत्तर प्रदान गर्न सक्छ ।

लोकतन्त्र प्राप्ती पछि प्रतिकुल परिणामस्वरुप न्यायपालिका झनझन स्वतन्त्र र सक्षम हुन पर्नेमा उल्टै लाचार र त्रासदीपुर्ण मानसिकतामा छ । हालै तपाई समेत संलग्न संघीयताको मद्दामा प्र. न्या. त्रस्त भै मद्दाको फायल ओपन नै नगरी पन्छीनु भयो भन्ने खवर छ यस सन्र्दभमा केही बताई दिनु हुन्छ की ?
लोकतन्त्रको आधारस्तभ भनेको कानूनको शासन हो र कानूनको शासनको अवधारणालाई यथार्थतामा रुपान्तरण गर्न स्वतन्त्र र सक्षम न्याय प्रणाली अति आवश्यक छ । न्यायपालिकालाई स्वतन्त्र र सक्षम नगराई कुनै पनि लोकतान्त्रीक प्रणालीको परिकल्पना गर्न सकिदैन । किनकि लिखित संविधान भएको मूलुकमा एकातिर संवैधानिक सर्वोच्चताको रक्षा गर्दछ भने अर्कातिर राज्यको अतिक्रमणवाट नागरीक स्वतन्त्रतालाई पनि सुनिश्चीत गर्दछ । तर हाम्रो न्यायपालिका स्वतन्त्र पनि छैन सक्षम पनि छैन । स्वतन्त्र न्यायपालिकाको लागी सेफगार्डको आवश्यकता पर्दछ भने अर्कोतिर न्यायाधिशहरुमा जुडिसीयल भिजनजुडिसीयल स्टेटम्यानशीप को पनि आवश्यकता पर्दछ । तर यसको ठीक विपरित अन्तरीम संविधानले न्यायीक स्वतन्त्रताको अवधारणालाई गम्भीरतापुर्बक आत्मसाथ गर्न सकेको छैन भने अर्को तिर न्यायमूर्तिहरुमा पनि न्यायीक विवेक भन्दा पनि व्युरोकेटीक माइन्डसेट हावी भएको छ । यो एउटा घातक प्रवृति हो । यस्तो स्थितिवाट लोकतन्त्रको प्रतिष्ठामा वृद्धी हुदैन र लोकतान्त्रीक प्रकृया पनि दर्घटनाग्रस्त हुने खतरा हुन्छ । न्यायपालिकाले जनताको हित र अधिकारको रक्षा गर्न सकेन भने कानूनी शासन प्रति जनताको आशा धेरै समयसम्म कायम रहन सक्दैन । न्यायप्रति अनास्था उत्पन्न हुन थाल्दछ । हामीले बुझ्नु पर्ने एउटा मुलभुत तथ्य के हो भने न्यायलय भनेको वकील र न्यायाधिशका लागी मात्र होइन । अपितु आम जनताको लागी हो । कानूनी शासनको अवधारणा अन्तर्गत जनताका अधिकार स्वतन्त्रता र हितका प्रश्न संवोधित हुन सकेन भने लोकतन्त्र दिगो र स्थायी हुन सक्दैन । अहिलेको हाम्रो स्थिती भनेको लोकतान्त्रीक संस्थाहरु प्रति आस्था अभिवृद्धि गराउने हो । किनभने हाल हामीले लोकतन्त्रलाई लोकप्रिय वनाउनु परेको छ । यस सम्बन्धमा हाम्रा लोकतान्त्रीक संस्थाहरुको प्रदर्शन निकै निराशाजनक छ, न्यायलय पनि यसको अपवाद रहेको छैन ।

रोम विधान अनुमोदन गर्न माग

गम्भीर प्रकृतिका मानवता विरोधी कार्यलाई विश्वव्यापी अपराधको रुपमा घोषणा गरी अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय फौजदारी अदालतको स्थापना गर्ने लक्ष्य लिएको रोम विधानलाई नेपालको तर्फवाट पनि सम्मिलन गर्नु पर्ने भनी आवाज बढ्न थालेको छ । यसै सन्दर्भमा पुष १६ गते सोमवार मानव अधिकार तथा प्रजातान्त्रिक मंचले "रोम विधानमा सम्मीलन तथा यातना एवं दण्डहिनता नियन्त्रण गर्ने कानूनको आवश्यकता" विषयक छलफल कार्यक्रमको आयोजना गरेको थियो ।

अन्तरीम संविधान २०६३ को मस्यौदाकार एवं सर्वोच्च अदालतका पुर्व न्यायाधीश लक्ष्मण प्रसाद अर्याल, राष्ट्रिय जनमोर्चाका अध्यक्ष चित्र बहादर के. सी., मानव अधिकार तथा सामाजिक न्याय समितिका सभापति तारा समयाङया, अन्तरीम व्यवस्थापिका संसद सदस्य हर्कमान तामाङ, ने.क.पा.माओवादी अन्तरीम व्यवस्थापिका सदस्य दामा शर्मा लगायतका वक्ताहरुले वर्तमान दण्डहिनताको चर्चा गदै रोम विधानको अनुमोदनले नेपालमा दण्डहिनता अन्त्यको लागि सहयोग पुर्याउने विचार राख्नु भएको थियो । नेपाल सरकारका मुख्य कानूनी सल्लाहकार मानिने महान्यायधिक्ताको पदमा रहनु भएका यज्ञमुर्ति बन्जाडे र सत्तारुढ नेपाली काग्रेसका सांसद एवं अधिवक्ता हरिहर दाहालले विधानको अनमोदनका लागि आवश्यक अध्ययन भैरहेको जानकारी दिनु भएको थियो । सो अवसरमा अधिवक्ता रवीन्द्र भट्टराईले दण्डहिनतालाई रोक्न राष्ट्रिय तहमा संयन्त्र वनाउने दायित्व राज्यमाथि रहनु पर्ने भएकोले यसको अनुमोदन गर्नु पर्ने वताउनु भएको छ ।

Testing Expandable Post Summaries

Here is the beginning of my post. And here is the rest of it.