How Can Huntsman Be President When He Allowed His Consular Officials (Chengdu China) To Commit Fraud On Chinese Students?
While Huntsman was serving as U.S. Ambassador to China his Consular Officials (Chengdu in particular) committed fraud on Chinese students applying for visas.
A fee was charged - - and certain documents were required. It was implied (if not actually stated) that Consular officials would look at the required documents before making a decision on visa. Many times two minutes or less were used in conducting the "visa interview" without any notice/discussion regarding documents.
Students denied a visa were told they could re-apply - - and, of course, pay more fees. The re-application interview with even more documents would go the same way as the first - - mere seconds and then denied again.
This treatment was reported (A) to Ambassador Huntsman with details (B) provided separately.
In answer to my query to the State Department, a Mister Harold Woodley replied,(C) "Consular officers examine each application individually to determine whether the applicant qualifies for visa issuance according to U.S. immigration law and regulations, and the interview consists of sufficient questions to allow applicants to present their circumstances. In doing this, the officer takes into consideration an applicants' entire situation, including family, community, professional, property, and economic ties to the applicant's home country as well as prior travel history and any ties to the United States." There is no way all that could be examined in a two-minute interview - - and without even looking at all the documents.
This fraud was reported to the Embassy (GAO FraudNET) and assigned Control Number 56155.(D) A reply on 25 Oct 2011 stated, "We reviewed your information and found that the situation you describe is not within the scope of any on-going GAO work." Further info re: fraud contained in (E) One legal opinion: Torts. When facts are sucessfully established ( by indirect evidence/ by way of Res Ipsa Loquirur in such a denial when strict adherence, not just by the Chinese citizen applicant, but here by a U.S (honorable status) citizen, then under Federal Torts Claim Act it is reasonably foreseeable that the U.S. District Court would rule the individual consulate liable. The U.S. Embassy here is NOT OFF the HOOK just yet, under the Doctrine of Respondeate Superior, the Embassy may be found vicariously liable for the conduct performed by its employee. It is often so ruled, in circumstances where the employee was found to have acted with the intent to benefit his employer, even if the method he chose was not wise, or even forbidden by his employer, such conduct still found to be imputed to the master for whose interest he served. Thus both employer-the embassy, and the employee—the U.S. consulate in question would be found liable.
So if Mister Huntsman allowed all this to happen while he was in charge, how can he be qualified to be President of the United States??
The writer is a U.S. citizen, former US Navy (SEAL) officer - medically discharged as Lieutenant Commander. Currently living in Kunming, Yunnan, China.
Building 17 # 702
Feng Huang Cheng
Bei Chen Xiao Qu
Kunming, Yunnan 650224