Somali Man Is Acquitted Of Lies In Citizenship Case

April 1, 2005

A jury acquitted Somali community leader Omar Abdi Mohamed yesterday of charges that he lied during a citizenship interview about his association with terror-linked organizations.

But the jury convicted Mohamed of two less sensational felony charges that he lied in the interview about how many children he has, crimes that could mean up to 10 years in prison and deportation, although prison time probably would be far less. He also could face another trial because jurors deadlocked on five of the nine counts after deliberating for 15 hours.

As the verdicts were read, Mohamed remained stoic, as did 30 Somali supporters and family members in the packed federal courtroom. About 30 more waited in the hallway to show support for the Muslim missionary.

Reaction to the verdicts was subdued on both sides.

"I don't understand; we are not sure what it means," said Mohamed's wife, Haweya Shire.

Any lie during an immigration proceeding that could affect the outcome is considered a crime. The defense will probably challenge the conviction by arguing the lie was immaterial and should not have affected Mohamed's bid for citizenship.

The Mohamed case, which was investigated by members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force and prosecuted by members of the U.S. Attorney's counterterrorism unit, is part of the Bush administration's controversial practice of using immigration laws to "neutralize" and deport people who are considered potential threats to national security.

Mohamed, 43, was not charged with terrorism, but his immigration case was unique because of the legal issues related to terrorism and national security. In pretrial motions, prosecutors and the defense clashed on the disclosure of classified information and whether the word "terrorism" could be mentioned in front of a jury.

Although the judge permitted the prosecution to talk about terrorism, the jury didn't focus on it, according to the foreman.

"It's not that the word didn't come up, but it was not a big issue," said the foreman, who requested anonymity to avoid public scrutiny. "The question was, 'Did he lie?' "

Somali community members said they were disappointed that Mohamed was not able to go home to his family yesterday, but heartened that the jury was not influenced by the terrorism overtones of the case.

"That's huge. That's big," said Jesse Mills, a family friend. "That they unanimously voted not guilty on that, that's the most significant thing in the bigger picture, the attempted connection to the suspicious web of terrorism. That door has been slammed shut with the unanimous verdict on those counts."

Prosecutors John Parmley and Steve Cook and defense attorney Mahir Sherif cannot comment because the judge has imposed a gag order. Cook said only that "the government is considering its option in terms of retrying him on the five counts."

The judge set a status conference for April 29.

During Mohamed's 4½-day trial, the prosecution depicted the defendant as a chronic liar bent on achieving U.S. citizenship through fraud.

The prosecution questioned six witnesses, including federal agents, immigration officials and the imam of the Masjidul Taqwa mosque in City Heights that sponsored Mohamed's religious worker visa, Wali Fardan. They also played two 45-minute videotapes of Mohamed's citizenship interviews, in 2002 and 2004. He was arrested at the second interview.

Prosecutors told the jury that Mohamed lied about four key things during the naturalization process, actions that could have resulted in the denial of his application: He told authorities he had seven children, when he actually had an eighth child in Australia who was the result of an extramarital affair; his religious worker visa was obtained by fraud because he never worked for the mosque that sponsored him; he failed to disclose that he received a monthly salary from the Saudi Arabian government; and he failed to disclose that he received almost $400,000 for his charity from two organizations that were linked to terrorism.

In fact, the government said, Mohamed claimed during an interview that his charity, the Western Somali Relief Agency, was so broke that it couldn't have afforded to send a box of blankets to the needy.

The defense spent a half-day questioning three witnesses, all Somali mothers in San Diego who testified about how Mohamed helped them and their children. The defense said this was proof Mohamed had fulfilled his obligation under the religious worker visa requirements.

Sherif said the government failed to ask direct questions during the citizenship interview about the Global Relief Foundation and the Al-Haramain charity, both of which have been linked to terrorism by the U.S. government. The federal agents set a trap by tricking Mohamed with indirect questions, Sherif said.

In his closing argument, Sherif said his client had been "ambushed" by authorities but stopped short of telling the jury his theory of why, which he discussed before the gag order was imposed: that the government manufactured an immigration case against him because it couldn't prove terrorism.

On the unresolved counts regarding his alleged lies about working for the sponsoring mosque and the Saudi government, jurors deadlocked 11-1 and 10-2 in favor of conviction, the foreman said.

They acquitted on the matter of money from Al-Haramain and the Global Relief Foundation because immigration officials did not ask direct questions of Mohamed about receiving such funds. Mohamed, jurors thought, received that money between 1998 and February 2001 – more than a year before his citizenship interview – and he appeared to be speaking in the present tense about his charity being broke.

"In the first interview, there weren't really any direct questions. You can see how he could have gotten confused," the foreman said.

The case went to the jury Tuesday morning about 10:30.

An hour later, at the government's request, U.S. District Judge John Houston barred Somali community members from the second floor of the courthouse while the jury was deliberating, saying that seeing a vigil for the defendant could influence their decision.

The community, though not barred from hearings, was not happy with the judge's decision. Houston took the unusual step of talking to the Somalis outside the courthouse.

Some Somalis said they appreciated the gesture by the judge, who explained that he took that action to ensure the jury was not compromised.

"Judge Houston came out here very respectfully," said Hamse Warfa, a community member who works for the Horn of Africa, a social services agency.

"He shook our hands and said he never meant to single us out. We appreciate him showing us respect . . . Nevertheless, we still feel we should not have been singled out."

Mohamed's immigration case was one of many investigated by counterterrorism agents. He was arrested 15 months ago.

The government does not pinpoint which cases fall into this category, but according to a Union-Tribune estimate, about 25 people have been arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force since Sept. 11, 2001. Of those, 14 were convicted of crimes other than terrorism and are either facing deportation or have been deported to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan or other countries.

One was acquitted of an immigration crime by a jury; two were convicted of terrorism-related crimes; two left the United States voluntarily; and the other cases are pending.

© Copyright 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.