Opinion ID: 2998728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kind of the—I was watching them shoot some

Text: people and some of them [came] out and [ran] away again. There was hurt [sic] and not enough so [they] still convulse[d], some of them, you know. That’s what we ha[d] to watch. . . . Some people [were] shot and not good enough so they [were] still able to move, you know. That’s what we ha[d] to watch outside so that they [would] go no place. Kumpf Dep. at 73-74. He reiterated this same scene later in his deposition: ”. . . some of them move[d]. I say what we ha[d] to [do was] watch, they say some of them are still half way alive and they run out. So—[ ] if somebody come[s] like that, shoot them to kill, shoot to kill. I didn’t have to shoot [any]body.” Id. at 88. No. 05-2972 9 Kumpf emphasizes in his brief that he “never personally harmed any individual” and never “aimed or discharged his weapon at anyone.” He argues that his limited conduct cannot constitute personal assistance in persecution. This lack of affirmative acts, however, does not undermine the fact that he fulfilled his role as a guard. The Refugee Relief Act’s parameters are not limited to personally harming or personally shooting individuals; the language instead addresses personal assistance. Kumpf’s personal presence functioned to discourage escape attempts and maintain order over the prisoners. His participation was not through monetary contributions, mere membership, or other indirect actions. Rather, he presided over and witnessed the torture and murder of helpless people. Because no one tried to escape during his watch, he claims he did not have to shoot anyone. Nevertheless, his personal presence as an armed guard clearly assisted in the persecution of the prisoners. As the Eighth Circuit explained, “[t]he pertinent question is [ ] whether Friedrich ‘personally assisted’ on persecution, not whether he engaged in direct persecution.” Friedrich, 402 F.3d at 845. The Eighth Circuit concluded that “[b]y guarding the perimeter of the [ ] concentration camps to ensure that prisoners did not escape from these unspeakable conditions, Friedrich personally assisted in the persecution that occurred in those camps.” Id. at 846. We agree with this reasoning. While the precise parameters of personal assistance under the Refugee Relief Act have not been delineated by the courts, Kumpf’s own actions clearly constitute personal assistance in persecution. His claim of no affirmative or direct acts of harm does not alter this conclusion. Kumpf next argues that his service in the Waffen SS was involuntary. He submits that the involuntariness of his service should be considered in determining his eligibility for a visa under the Refugee Relief Act. Even assuming that 10 No. 05-2972 Kumpf served involuntarily, the Refugee Relief Act does not require a person to assist voluntarily in persecution. In the context of the Displaced Persons Act, courts have held that the voluntariness of the service is irrelevant. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 513 (“an individual’s service as a concentration camp armed guard—whether voluntary or involuntary—made him ineligible for a visa.”); Wittje, 422 F.3d at 489 (“there is no voluntariness requirement in the plain language” of the Displaced Persons Act). Similarly, the plain language of the Refugee Relief Act lacks a voluntariness requirement. Relatedly, Kumpf next relies on two memoranda: a 1951 memorandum of the Displaced Persons Commission and a 1985 government memorandum of an interview with Richard Bloomfield, a visa officer at the time of Kumpf’s visa issuance. These memoranda, Kumpf argues, demonstrate that visa officers considered the voluntariness of SS service in determining visa eligibility. Kumpf suggests in his brief that the government bears the burden of proving that his visa was not issued “with full knowledge of his service in the Waffen SS and in consideration of his involuntary conscription.” Against this, in his sworn deposition taken for this case, Ambassador Bloomfield clarified that a watch tower guard at a concentration camp who was compelled into service would not be eligible for a visa. Furthermore, Kumpf himself testified that he did not disclose to the visa officers anything about his service with the Waffen SS. Regardless, the plain language of the Refugee Relief Act does not provide for a consideration of voluntariness in assessing whether an individual personally assisted in persecution. The statute is not ambiguous, and therefore we do not need to address the agency’s construction of the statute. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat’l Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). Finally, to the extent that Kumpf claims that the federal courts cannot No. 05-2972 11 “reverse the decision to grant Mr. Kumpf’s visa” based on his involuntary service, this argument simply recharacterizes his jurisdictional argument discussed above. Given Kumpf’s candid recitation of his service, even if such service were compelled, we conclude that through his actions he personally assisted in persecution, and was therefore ineligible for a visa. Accordingly, his visa was invalid, making his admission to this country unlawful and his citizenship illegally procured. The district court therefore properly revoked Kumpf’s citizenship. Kumpf’s final argument is that his denaturalization would violate his right to equal protection under the law. Kumpf argues that two individuals with identical past service would face different results under the immigration laws if they entered the country at different times, under different immigration acts. This court previously addressed the equal protection argument in Wittje: It cannot be seriously disputed that Congress had a rational basis (all that is needed in this case) for such a restriction when it enacted the DPA or even now. Immigration to this country is a privilege, not a right, and certainly there can be no class of persons less deserving of that privilege than those who are, or were, a member of a group hostile to this country, particularly a well-armed and organized group that had helped oversee a reign of terror and murder on a then-unprecedented scale. That Congress let this restriction expire with the DPA or enacted new legislation (the INA) that did not contain a restriction or significantly modified the restriction does not make the original restriction any less rational. Wittje, 422 F.3d at 486-87. The fact that Kumpf entered the country under the Refugee Relief Act instead of the Dis12 No. 05-2972 placed Persons Act does not affect the reasoning in Wittje. Kumpf’s equal protection argument therefore fails. Finally, we note that in his statement of issues, Kumpf also lists a due process violation. Since Kumpf does not develop this argument or cite any cases in support of it in his brief, he has waived it. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A); Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 285 (7th Cir. 2003).