(UDI Paperwork-That Norway, Refused To Translate-
For An Entire Year Now, Into English For Me. My First
Language, As Clearly Indicated-On Political Asylum
Application Materials To Norway-Is English Alone):
6-15-2017
To Whom It May Concern:
I have begun to translate my legal documents from the Norwegian Government,
in regards to my application, for political asylum, from: June 17-18, 2016. I have
contacted-over the past year, a number of Norwegian Embassies, requesting, that
they assist me, with the translation, of the official UDI documents, from Norwegian, to English, and all have
refused to assist me: Norwegian Embassies: Washington, DC, London, UK, and Mexico City, MX.
My situation in the US-worsens, and-the population, of America, specifically of: Boston, MA-where
I am presently located, has left me outside, with no services for the homeless again, to die. I have normal
human needs. Others, here in Boston, MA-have access, to services provided for the homeless population-
while, I am always left with nothing. It is not just, the complete absence, of services for the homeless-
I have no easy, or real access, to even: toilet, or water.
The treatment I receive, is more than simply in humane-the people walk by me,
and see me starving, and filthy, and thirsty-with no access, to: a shelter, or a shower, or
a washing machine-or even to: water or a toilet, and they stare, and laugh, and make-fun, and
then, they try to steal my belongings-when I need sleep-like every other normal
human being. I am left outside, with broken, and painful legs, and ankles, in freezing rain,
and even snow-when I can barely walk, or even sit, or stand, from the pain, and then-when I am
desperate for help, and need to contact intelligence networks overseas-the free public WiFi is illegally cut.
This is a community, of mean spirited, and retarded terrorists-who have refused me, all access,
to all free services-that are legally due, and legally required-to be provided, to any homeless, in the US-
regardless, of the: race, religion, political affiliation, cultural or educational background-and I, have been
denied-almost every service-not only, in Boston, MA-anywhere in America, that I have traveled to, in
the past 7 1/2 years, in wanton need, of emergency assistance.
America, is a crazy nightmare-which is being over-run, by immigrants, who will never
learn to respect Americans, or US law. My application, for political asylum, that I began, in June,
of 2016-to Norway, is still genuine, I am in more need now-than, I have ever been before! Everyday,
every hour, and every minute, that I am left-with no resources, in the US-for, my fundamental needs,
for survival-especially: food, water, and toilet-my life, is in immediate danger, even before, the
continued inappropriate, and violent acts, of people around me-are considered, and-even
before the consideration, of the persecution-by US police, and the continued,
inclement weather-with no shelter ever available to me.
I require, your immediate and emergency assistance. I can do, only soo much, to assist myself.
"No man is an island." --John Donne Thank you, for continuing, to receive my email communications.
Please respond to my email statements, in a concerned, and timely manner. I eagerly
await, your help, and prompt response-via email, or in any other ways, that you deem-both:
necessary, and possible. Thank you again!
Sincerely,
Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS
Email: mumbaibayo.cary@yandex.com
I have no cell phone-available to me, not even, the US free "Obama" cell phones.
(Beginning of Translation of Legal Document, From UDI in Norway,
Regarding, My June 17-18, 2016, Application For Political Asylum.)
Vedtak on utvisning og innmelding i Schengen informasjonsystem (SIS)
Utlendingsdirekoratet (UDI) utviser utlendingen fra Norge, jf. utlendingsloven
annet ledd bokstav b.
Google Translate:
(The decision on expulsion and enrollment in the Schengen information system (SIS)
Utlendingsdirekoratet (UDI) exercise the foreign national from Norway, cf. the
Immigration Act other paragraph, LITRA b.)
Innreiseforbudget er 1 ar, jf. utlendingsloven
70 annet ledd.
UDI melder ogsa inn opplysningene om at utlendingen er utvist i Schengen
informasjonssysten, jf.
SIS-loven
Utlendingen gis ikke en utreisesfrist, og plikter a forlate Norge og Schengen-
omradet umiddelbart, jf. utlendingsloven
femte ledd bokstav f.
Google Translate:
(Innreiseforbudget is 1 year, jf. the Immigration Act
70 the second paragraph.
UDI reports in the information that the foreign national
is expelled in the Schengen informasjonssysten, jf.
SIS-the law.
The foreign national is not given a deadline and be brought out, the
duties to leave Norway and the Schengen
the area immediately, jf. the Immigration Act
fifth paragraph of the letter f.)
Forhandsvarsel
Utlendingenn skal forhandsvarsles for a gi ham eller henne muliget
til a uttale seg for UDI fatter vedtak i saken, jf.
forvaltningsloven forste ledd.
Utlendingen er forhandsvarslet.
Vi viser til forhandsvarselet av: June 18, 2016. Vi har mottatt tilsvar
til forhandsvarselet i brev av : June 19, 2017 fra advokat Trygve Tveter.
Google Translate:
(Prior notice
Utlendingenn to read prior to vars give him or her muliget
to make a statement for the UDI grasps the decision in the case, cf.
administrative law first paragraph.
The foreign national is prior notified.
We refer to prior notification of: June 18, 2016. We have received the response
to prior notification in letters of: June 19, 2017 from lawyer Trygve Tveter.)
Defense:
(No I never agreed,to the legal services, of: Trygve Tveter.
I informed him of such, at: UDI-and in front, of UDI staff. I made it
perfectly clear, to: UDI, and all other interested parties-that, I would
obtain legal representation-elswhere, when, I was advised by UDI-that, I had
the legal right, as an applicant for political asylum in Norway-to do so.
I secured the services, of a free legal representative, and Norwegian
Bar Association member, on the very day-that I was deported.
Never, did I agree to the legal services, of: Trygve Tveter-
he never spoke to me, at length, in regards, to my legal situation, or my needs,
and presentedhimself to me, as both: distant, and uncaring. Trygve Tveter, was hired
by UDI-and, never spoke to me long enough, to have any insight, in to
why-my needs, as an American citizen, differed drastically-as compared, to
anyone from the United States, who may have applied, for political asylum,
to Norway-before me.
The legal paperwork, filled against me, through: UDI
by Trygve Tveter-was never authorized by me, I was never privy-to what he
he filled, and, there is no way I could agree-with any legal
representation, by: Trygve Tveter. I never agreed to work with: Trygve
Tveter-and yet, he still felt comfortable, in fully mis-representing
my political asylum case, to: UDI, and, in spending, all the funds,
that were allocated to me, by UDI-as a sincere applicant, for
political asylum, to Norway, who-is still in need, of legal
representation. My civil, and human rights, have been eggregiously
violated, by: Trygve Tveter-I complained at length, to both:
Amnesty Intl Norway, and to the Norwegian Bar Association-prior
to my deportation, from Norway.
I have had to wait, an entire year, with no access, to an English
translation, of the legal paperwork, handed to me-by UDI, before, I
was able, to begin, fixing the illegalmess, that Trygve Tveter has made-
of my still necessary, political asylum application, from the US, to Norway.
I have kept in touch, with UDI-through both: email, and online
submissions forms, in regards to my continuing application, for political
asylum, to Norway.
My circumstances in the US, have improved none, with the election
of President Donald Trump. My UNE appeals paperwork-has never been
filed by a lawyer, of my choice. I was informed-at the beginning,
of my political asylum application process to Norway-that, I would
deffinitely have the right to both: choose my own advocate, and,
the opportunity, to have an appeals hearing-with the advocate-of
my choosing, through: UNE-which, has never occurred for me.
I am returning to Norway, to complete-my political asylum application,
and to finish the complaint process, against: Trygve Tveter-for
illegally representing my political asylum case, to UDI-and, without
my consent, or my knowledge, for filing immigration paperwork, against
me-that I have never been privy to, or received access to, and-for
illegally spending, the pithy amount, of funds, allocated to me-as a
genuine political asylum applicant, to Norway, from the US-by UDI,
and for refusing to translate, my legal paperwork, from UDI-from
Norwegian, to English.
The issue, is that a legal translation, of paperwork from Norway-
will necessarily, in some ways differ, from what I as an American-who
can read some Norwegian, will understand,
and-it will necessarily differ, in some ways, from what is normally,
in the coloquial Norwegian communications-that, are not a stringent
and legal means-"legalese," of communicating.
I traveled, to the Norwegian Embassy, in Washington, DC-I requested
for the English translations, of the Norwegian UDI legal documents-be returned to me,
by email several times-after, the staff at the Salvation Army, Norwegian
Deportation Prison-refused, to obtain a copy, of the legal translation, of
the UDI paperwork for me-prior to my deportation.
After-I received no response, and then no help-from the Norwegian
Embassy, in Washington, DC-in regards to a legal translation, of the UDI paperwork-
I then called around the work, to other various: Norwegian Embassies-to see, if any of
the other, Intl locations, might be willing to assist me, and London, UK,
and Mexico City, MX-both replied in the affirmative. However, when first I
arrived at Gatwick, in London, UK-the Norwegian Embassy there-changed
their mind, they were no longer willing to assist me, with the English
translation, of the legal paperwork, handed to me, by UDI.
Then, the same situation occurred, when I arrived next-at the Norwegian
Embassy in Mexico City, MX-although, over the phone, I had been
invited to speak with a representative there-when finally, I arrived in
person, I was refused all services, and for reasons-that confounded-
referred, to the Danish Embassy, in Mexico City, MX-instead.
I was told by the representative, to whom I spoke, at the Norwegian Embassy,
in Mexico City, MX-that, not only, was she completely unwilling to
assist me, with an English translation, of the Norwegian legal
paperwork-from UDI, I was also told by her, that Norwegian Embassies,
are no longer processing: Visa applications for visit, or-"Permission for re-entry,"
Visa applications. After my conversations, with the Norwegian Embassy
staff, in Mexico City, MX-my impressions were, that the staff-of mostly
Mexicans, were working, in the interests of Mexico itself, and not-in the interests
of Norway.
In fact, it was clear to me, that even the staff-who completely refused
to help me-with anything at all, at the Norwegian
Embassy, in Mexico City, MX-may have all been Mexicans-there might
not have been, a single Norwegian among them-and, that would
certainly explain, the continued refusal, to translate my legal
documents, from UDI in Norway-from Norwegian, to English.
When seeking, an alternate attorney, to represent me, in my
political asylum application-to Norway, the task, was almost
impossible, because: Trygve Tveter, had illegal spent-on legal
actions and paperwork-not warranted or approved by me, all
the funds, that were allocated to me, by UDI-because, I am,
the applicant, for political asylum.
The lawyer, of my choice, in regards, to my application, for political
asylum, to Norway, must be concerned about my health, and well being, and must
honestly represent-my best interests.)
Utlendingen er forhandsvarslet. (Cont.)
Det bemerkes i tilsvaret at utlandingen har trukket sin soknad idet vises
det vises til brev datert: June 19, 2016.
Google Translate:
(The foreign national is prior notified. (Cont.)
It should be noted in response that the utlandingen
has drawn its soknad as will be shown
It will be shown to the letter dated: June 19, 2016.)
Ressponse Defense:
(My negative reaction, to soliciter Trygve Tveter, began-when first
upon meeting him, although-we had never spoken at length, in regards
to my impossible, and life threatening circumstances-in the US, the
representative, hired by UDI for me-expressed no concerns at all, for my
valid needs, for immediate political asylum, from the US, to Norway.
My second, negative reaction to Trygve Tveter, was a result, of his
close and too friendly relationship, with working UDI staff. My
impression was that, soliciter Trygve Tveter, was only concerned,
about supporting a UDI decision against me-to maintain, his comfortable
and continuing friendships, and work situation-with UDI-instead, of
having any interest, or non-biased concerned-for my actual situation, here
in America, as a tortured human being, who is constantly living, in a life
threatening situation, and-who, is in immediate need, of political
asylum, in Norway-or elsewhere.
The legal docuementation, presented to me, by
UDI, was too damning, and restricting, and placed my life-in too
much danger, by refusing to acknowledge, the high levels of danger, that
I face-as an American, living in my own country, with no access-to
almost every resource, that I require, to stay alive, almost all of the
time: shelter, housing, social services, medical services, medicine,
transportation, food, food assistance, clothing, shower, water, toilet,
etc.
While, at the very same time, my life-my very existance, is being
illegally, and constantly threatened, by US police-who: stalk after me, to
threaten my life, with: beatings, false arrest, rape, trespass from services,
and or shelters-that I require, and-by leaving me out, in the freezing cold,
or stifling hot clime and elements, with no realistic defenses, to maintain,
my personal health, or well being.
I have, no alternative resources, in the US. I was illegally: "Blacklisted,"
in 2008. With, America, refusing tohire me-for anything at all, and only a
small wellfare check-that covers, none of my expenses, or fundamental needs,
and then-having almost no access to social services, and having no family
or friends in the US-I am left outside, in the cold, or in the excruciating heat-to die.
America, and Americans, are trying to kill me, by depriving me,
of all necessary resources, for a healthy life, and, for all fundamental
well-being. I have almost no one to reach out to, and no one in the
Americas, cares about my Intl civil and human rights complaints. I
have been excluded, from all of my American civil and human rights,
that should give me access, to the US legal system, for recourse-
it does not.
I have no access, to any support in the US, from: friends,
from family, from social services, from law enforcement, or from:
the legal processes, to complain about, or to try a violation:
of my civil and human rights-through the US courts systems. I have been
brutally abused, and tortured in the US-as an individual-I can not speak for
for anyone else, other than my own 3 children, because we have
the same adopted family, and therefore-similar circumstances.
I have been tortured and homeless in the US, for almost
8 yrs now, because-due to politics, America, has illegally refused,
to hire me. With almost no money, and almost no resources, and
almost no support or care from other Americans-I
have no way, to realistically, survive-and to continue my existance.
I am continuing, to request political asylum, from Norway-because it is necessary,
for me.
My life, is always in danger, in the US, and no one here-
cares about me, or my circumstances enough, to adequately respond,
to any of my fundamental needs. I worry about my health, and well-being,
on a daily basis-here in the US. I am a healthy competent adult. I know
that I have physical needs, and, Americans, are such an impediment
against me-that, I can barely meet, my own needs-even, when I
am over-exerting, all of my efforts. America, is literally, trying
to kill me, by illegally denying me employment, and, by
leaving me homeless-with no resources, to access, for any of
my needs.)
Begrunnelse
Grunnlag for utvisnig
UDI skal utvise en lending uten oppholdstillatelse nar utlendingen
ikke er gitt en frist for frivillig retur fordi en en soknad er avslatt
som apenbart grunnlos, utlendingsloven annet ledd bostav b, med mindre det vil
vaere et uforholdsmessig tital jf. utlendingsloven.
Google Translate:
(Justification
The basis for the utvisnig
UDI to expel a lending without a residence permit when the
foreign national has not been given a deadline for voluntary return because a a soknad is avslatt
Obviously, that the Immigration Act grunnlos subsection bostav b, unless it will
be a disproportionate tital jf. the Immigration Act.)
Vilkarene er oppfylt.
Vi viser til at UDI har avslatt utlendingens soknad om beskyttelese i vedtak
av: June 18, 2016. Utlendingens anforsler knyttet til at hun hadde et
behov for a soke beskyttelse i Norge ble vurdert nevnte vedtak samtidig som
det ble foretatt en vurdering av utlendingens behov for en tillatelse etter
utlendingslovens. I vedtaket unnlot UDI a gi utlendingen en frist for
frivillig utreise under henvisning till at soknaden ble avslatt som
apenbart grunnlos. Det vises til nevnte vedtak for vurderinger og begrunnesler.
Google Translate:
(The terms are met.
We refer to that the UDI has avslatt foreign national soknad about
beskyttelese in the decision by: June 18, 2016. Foreign national anforsler related
to that she had a need for a soke protection in Norway was considered the decision
as mentioned at the same time an assessment was made of the foreign national
needs a permission under immigration. In the decision failed to give the foreign
national UDI a deadline for voluntary departure under reference soknaden avslatt till that was as
Obviously grunnlos. It appears to the said decision for reviews and begrunnesler.)
Utlendingen skal defor utvises i medhold av utlendingsloven annet ledd bokstav
b med mindre dette vil vaer et ufirholdsmessig tiltak ovenfor utlendingen, jf.
utlendingsloven 70.
Forholdsmessighetsvurdering
Selv om grunnvilkarene for utvisning er oppfylt kan ikke UDI utvise dersom det
etter en vurdering av forholdets alvor og utlendingens tilknytnig til Norge vil
vaer et uforholdsmessig tiltak overfor utlendingen selv eller de naermeste
familiemedlemmene, jf. utlendingsloven 70.
Google Translate:
(The foreign national should therefore be taken in pursuance of the Immigration Act the second paragraph letter
b unless this will be a ufirholdsmessig measures above the foreign national, cf..
the Immigration Act 70.
Forholdsmessighetsvurdering
Even if the reason the guys for expulsion are met can not expel the UDI if
After a review of the forholdets seriously and foreign national relation to Norway will
be a disproportionate action against the foreign national himself or the nearest
the family members, cf. the Immigration Act 70.)
Etter utlendingsloven 3 skal loven anvendes i samsvar med internasjonale regler
som Norge er bundet av nar disse har til formal a styrke individets stilling.
Gjennom menneskerttsloven 2 er Den europeiske manneskerettskonvensjonen (EMK)
og FNs konvensjon om barns rettighetter (barnekonvensjonen) direkte inkorporert
i norsk rett. EMK artikkel 8 beskytter retten til et etablert privatliv
og familieliv. UDI kan ikke gjore inngrep i denne retten med mindre inngrepet
er i samsvar med loven og er nodvendig i et demokratisk samfunn av slike
hensyn som er nevnt i EMK artikkel 8 nummer 2. Norske domstoler har lagt
grunn at det som skal vurderes etter EMK artikkel 8 er omffattet av
forholdsmessighetsvurderingen i utlendingsloven 70.
Google Translate:
(After the immigration laws are applied 3 shall in accordance with the international rules
as Norway is bound by when these have to formal a strength of the individual's position.
Through the menneskerttsloven 2 is the European manneskerettskonvensjonen (EMK)
and the UN Convention on children's rettighetter (the children's Convention) directly incorporated
in Norwegian law. EMK article 8 protects the right to an established privacy and family life.
UDI can't do surgery in this Court unless the procedure
is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society of such
considerations that are mentioned in article 8 2 EMK number. Norwegian courts have added
reason that it to be considered by EMK article 8 is omffattet of
proportionality test in the Immigration Act 70.)
UDI bemerker at EMK (jf. artikkel 8 annet ledd) og barnekonvensjon (jf.
artikkel 3 og 9) ikke anses a gi sterkere vern enn det som folger av
utlendingsloven 70.
Forholdets alvor
Utlendingens soknad om beskyttelse ble avslatt av UDIs vedtak pa bakgrunn av
at den var apenbart grunnlos.
A soke om beskyttelse nar det er apenbart at det ikke foreligger et beskyttelsesbehov
innebaerer at asylinstituttet misbrukes og at soknaden om beskyttelse gjennomgar
en uberettiget asylsaksbehandling. Ressursene som har blitt bruk pa a behandle
utlendingens soknad om beskyttelse kunne saledes ha blitt benyttet til a behandle
velbegrunnede soknader om beskyttelse. Utlendingens adferd her saledes hatt konsekvenser
ut over hennes egen sak.
Google Translate:
(Remarks that UDI EMK (cf. Article 8 second paragraph) and the children's Convention (cf.
Article 3 and 9) is not considered to give stronger protection than that which the folger of
the Immigration Act 70.
Forholdets seriously
Foreign national soknad on the protection of the Foreign Ministry's decision was
avslatt on the basis of that it was obviously grunnlos.
A petition for protection when it is obvious to me that there is a need of protection
significance of the asylum Department misused and that soknaden on the protection gjennomgar
an unjustified asylum proceedings. The resources that have been used to treat
foreign national soknad on the protection could have been saledes used to treat
well-founded soknader about protection. Foreign national behavior here saledes had consequences
out of her own case.)
UDI ser folgelig svaert alvorlig pa at utlendingen har sokt om beskyttelse i Norge
nar det er apenbart at utlendingen ikke har behov for beskyttelse.
Utlendingens tilknytning til Norge
Utlendingen har ingen tilknytning till Norge. UDI mener pa denne bakgrunn at et vedtak
om utvisning ikke vil vaere et uforholdsmessig tiltak overfor utlendingen selv,
forholdets alvor tatt i betraktning.
Innreiseforbudets Lengde
Etter en konkret helhetsvurdering settes inneiseforbudet til 1 ar, jf. utlendingsloven
71 og utlendingsforskriften 14-2. Vi viser till at dette er trad med fast praksis,
set hen til forholdets alvor og utlendingens tilknytning til Norge.
Google Translate:
(UDI looks therefore very seriously that the foreign national
has to get custody based on the protection in Norway
When it is obvious to me that the foreign national does not
have a need for protection.
Foreign national association with Norway
The foreign national has no connection to Norway.
UDI mean on this background that a decision
about the expulsion will not be a disproportionate action
against the foreign national himself, forholdets seriously taken into account.
Enter Our Prohibition Length
After a concrete overall rating is set inneiseforbudet to 1 ar, jf. the Immigration Act
71 and the immigration 14-2. We show till this is trad with fixed practice,
set to forholdets seriously and foreign national association with Norway.)
Vern mot utsendelse
UDI har vurdet om personen er vernet mot utsendelse til USA etter utlendingsloven
73.
Vi viser til at UDI har avslatt utlendingens soknad om beskyttelse og opphold
pa grunnlag avsterke menneskelige hensyn og saerlig tilkntning til riket vedtak
av: June 18, 2016. Det vises til nevnte vedtak for vurderinger og begrunnelser.
Det foreligger ikke nye opplysninger om personer i Schengen informasjonssytem
(SIS) dersom disse er utvist fra Norge etter utlendingsloven 66 forste ledd
bokstav a, b, c eller annet ledd, 67, 68 eller 126 annet ledd. Dette folger
av SIS-loven 7 forste ledd nummer 2.
Google Translate:
(Protection against the issue
UDI has vurdet if the person is protected against the issue to
the United States after immigration law 73.
We refer to that the UDI has avslatt foreign national soknad about protection and stay
on the basis avsterke human attention and very tilkntning to the Kingdom decisions
by: June 18, 2016. It appears to the said decision for reviews and justifications.
There is no new information about people in the Schengen informasjonssytem
(SIS) if these are expelled from Norway after the Immigration Act 66 first part
letter a, b, c, or other joints, 67, 68 or 126 second paragraph. This folger of
the SIS Act 7 first paragraph number 2.)
Vi viser til at utlendingen er utvist av vart vedtak av i dag. Det foreligger ikke
opplysninger som tilsier at adgangen til innmelding ikke bor benyttes i dette
tilfellet. De samme allmennpreventive og individualpreventive hensyn som taler
for utvisning gjor seg ogsa gjeldende for a melde inn i SIS.
Utlendingen meldes defor inn i Schengen informasjonssystem. Registreringen i SIS
innebaerer at ogsa ovrige land i Schengen-omradet vill kunne nekte utlendingen
innreise i den perioden registreringen gjelder.
Google Translate:
(We show that the foreign national is expelled by our decision of today.
There is no information that suggests that the access to enrollment do not live in this
case. The same considerations that certain penal allmennpreventive and speeches
for expulsion getting too current for a report into the SIS.
The foreign national be reported in into the Schengen information system. Registration in the SIS
involve the country in the ovrige too the Schengen area will be able to deny the foreign national
entry in the period in which the registration applies.)
Konsekvenser av vedtak
Vedtaket om utvisning og innmelding i SIS betyr at utlendingen ma forlate Norge
og Schengen-omradet, og at det vil vaere forbudt a reise sa lenge innreiseforbudet
gjelder.
Dersom det offentlige blir pafort utgifter ved a matte uttransportere
utlendingen, har utlendingen plikt til a dekke disse utgiftene, jf.
utlendingensloven 91. Dersom utgiftene ikke blir dekket, kan utlendingen bli
bortvist ved senere forsok pa innreise, jf. utlendingsloven 17 bokstav k.
Google Translate:
(Consequences of the decision
The decision on expulsion and enrollment in the SIS means that the foreign national must leave Norway
and the Schengen area, and that it will be forbidden to travel as long as the travel ban
apply.
If the public is being applied to expenses by uttransportere
the foreign national, the foreign national duty to cover these expenses, jf.
foreign national law 91. If the expenses are not covered, the foreign national
can be expelled by the later attempts in travel, jf. the Immigration Act 17 letter k.)
Utlendingen er i Norge og/eller i Shengen-omradet. Innreiseforbudet gjelder
fra den datoen utlendingen forlater Norge og Schengen-omradet.
SIS-innmeldingen gjelder sa lenge innreiseforbudet gjelder. Selv om utlendingens
SIS-innmeldingen opphorer fordi vedkommende far tillatelse i et annet
Schengen-land, gjelder fortsatt innresiseforbudet til Norge.
Dersom utlendingen overtrer innreiseforbudet, kan han eller hun bli straffet
for dette, jf. utlendingsloven 108 tredje ledd bokstav e, jf. 71 annet
ledd.
Strafferammen for overtredelse av innreiseforbudet er inntil ars fensel.
Google Translate:
(The foreign national is in Norway and/or in the Shengen area. The travel ban applies to
from the date the foreign national leaving Norway and the Schengen area.
The SIS signing up applies as long as the travel ban applies to. Even if the foreign national
The SIS signing up opphorer because the person father permission in another
The Schengen countries, still applies to innresiseforbudet Norway.
If the foreign national contravenes the travel ban, he or she can be punished
for this, cf. the Immigration Act 108, third paragraph, letter e, jf. 71 other
joints.
Penalties for violation of the border entry ban is up to ars fensel.)
Klagemuligheter og begjaering om utsatt iverksetting avdtaket
Utlendgen kan klage pa vadtaket om utvisning jf. forvaltningsloven
28. Fristen for a klage er 3 uker fra det tidspunktet meldingen om vedtaket
kom frem til utlendingen eller den som respresenterer utlendingen, eventuelt
da vedkommende fikk eller burde skaffet seg kjennskap til vedtaket. Dette
folger av forvaltningsloven 29. Klagen kan fremsettes overfor UDI
via politiet eller utenriksstasjonen.
Utlendingen har som hovedregel rett innsyn i dokumentene i saken etter
forvaltningsloven 18, jf. 19.
Google Translate:
(The complaint possibilities and begjaering deferred implementation avdtaket
Utlendgen can complain on vadtaket about the expulsion. the administrative law
28. The deadline for a complaint is 3 weeks from the time the message about the decision
came forward to the foreign national or the foreign national, or respresenterer
When the person got or should obtained knowledge of the decision. This
Folger of administrative law 29. The complaint can be filed against UDI via police or foreign station.
The foreign national has as a general rule the right insight into the documents in the case after
administrative law 18, cf. 19.)
Utlendingen har ike oppholdstillatelse i Norge, og vedtaket kan defor
iversettes for det er endelig, jf. utlendingsloven 90 forste ledd.
Utlendingen gis ikke en utreise, og plikter a forlate Norge og
Schengen-omradet umiddelbart, jr. utlendingsloven 90 femte ledd bokstav
f.
Utlendingen kan begjaere utsatt iverksetting av vedtaket, jr.
forvaltningsloven 42. Dersom UDI gir utsatt iversetting, kan utlengen
oppholde seg i Norge til Utlendingsnemnda (UNE) har behandlet klagen.
UDI kan sette vilkar for utsatt iverksetting, jr. forvaltningsloven
42 annet ledd. Dersom utlendingen ikke far utsatt iverksetting, ma han
eller hun forlate Norge.
Google Translate:
The foreign national has a residence permit in Norway ike, and the decision can therefore
It is finally taken, jf. the Immigration Act 90 first paragraph.
The foreign national is not given a departure, and duties to leave Norway and
The Schengen area immediately, Jr. immigration 90 fifth paragraph, LITRA
f.
The foreign national may begjaere exposed implementation of the decision, jr.
Administrative Law 42. If the UDI provides exposed iversetting, utlengen reside
in Norway to the Immigration (UNE) has dealt with the complaint.
UDI can set terms for deferred implementation, jr. administrative law
42 the second paragraph. If the foreign national does not father prone implementation, he must
or she leave Norway.)
Soknad om a fa opphevet et innreiseforbud
Dersom nye eller saerskilte omsetendigheter foreligger, kan utlendingen
soke om opphevelse av innreiseforbudet, eller om kortvarig besok til Norge
selv om innreiseforbudet fortsatt gjelder, jr. utlendingsloven 71 annet
ledd. Soknad ma fremmes fra en norsk utenriksstasjon, jr.
utlendingsforskiften 14-4.
Utlendingsdirektoratet
Google Translate:
(Soknad about to get lifted a travel ban
If new or saerskilte omsetendigheter is, the foreign national
Soke on the abolition of the travel ban, or about the short term
visit to Norway even though the entry ban still applies, Jr. immigration law 71 other
joints. Soknad have to be promoted from a Norwegian foreign station, jr.
utlendingsforskiften 14-4.)
Immigration
Laura M. Pedryc
radgiver m/ spesialistkompetanse
Dokumentet er godkjent elektronisk.
Du kan pa foresporsel fa en underskrevet versjon av dette dokumentet.
(Official Stamp of Norwegian Government Approval):
DUF nr: 2016 108981 09
Underrettet for (utlendingens navn): Cary, Bayo Elisabeth (My middle name
spelled wrong.)
Sted:, Dato:, KL: (The information is missing.)
Underrettet av (navn/tj. nr.): ESO 026
Google Translate:
(The document is approved electronically.
You can on request get a signed version of this document.
(Official Stamp of Norwegian Government Approval):
DUF nr: 2016 108981 09
Advised for (foreign national name): Cary, Elizabeth Bayo (My middle name
spelled wrong.)
Location:, date:, at: (The information is missing.)
Advised by (name/tj. Nr.): ESO 026
Ved hjelp av tolk/tolkenr: (The information is missing again.)
Sprak: Engelok (I was only given a Norwegian language copy,
of the UDI legal document-and, I have never been able to obtain-
through all of my excessive efforts, a translation-from Norwegian
to English, from: a Norwegian lawyer, or, from anyone-who even
speaks, or writes, the Norwegian language.)
Klagefrist: 3 uker
Frist for a begjaere om utsatt iversettelse: 2 timer
Innholdet forsatt; utlendingens sign: (The information and
the signature-is missing from the official, Norwegian
Government stamp of approval-again.)
Tjenestenmann/kvinnes underskrift: (The information, and the
official signature, and the approval, of the Norwegian
government-is missing, yet again.)
Google Translate:
(With the help of an interpreter/tolkenr: Language: Engelok
Complaint deadline: 3 weeks
The deadline for a begjaere deferred the implementation: 2 hours
The content still; foreign national sign: the service man/woman's signature:)
(Re: Final holding, in my political asylum application, from:
June 17-18, 2016, that was submitted-by an unauthorized attorney,
and a member, of the Norwegian Bar Association-to UDI, in Norway-
as a position paid, by: UDI, and-without any approval, conversation,
cognizance, or agreement-by me: Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS.
I never agreed, to be the legal client, of advokat Mr. Trygve Tveter.
I spoke to several other legal bodies, and representatives, in Oslo,
Norway: Noas, Amnesty International, JussBuss-before-within a reasonable
time frame-I was able to secure, the free legal services office, and
their attorneys-in downtown: Oslo, Norway. Mr. Trygve Tveter-was well
aware of the fact, that I did not seek, or desire to retain his
legal services-in regards, to my application, for political
asylum, in Norway-not at any given point in time. Norwegian police-
deported me from Oslo, Norway-on the very date-that I had
scheduled, a pre-arranged appointment, to meet with the
advokat of my choice, and my prior approval, from the
free legal services offices, in Oslo, Norway-at:
Stargata 19-in downtown Norway. I did retain, a copy, of my
appointment certificate-which, does clearly indicate-the date
on which, I am to be seen, by my lawyer: Egil-who was at that
time, working with impoverished clients in Oslo, Norway-
and providing-free legal services, for those in Norway,
who cannot, for any given reasons, afford to pay, for the
legal services required-even after having been rendered.)
(Final Holding From UDI Printed In Official Norwegian
Governmental Stamp.)
Utlendingen ble informert om: 1 ar (this information, is written in,
with an ink pen) innreiseforbud til Norge, og at brudd
vil kunne medfore fengsel i inntil 2 ar.
Google Translate:
(The foreign national was informed of: 1 ar (this information, is written in,
with an ink pen) entry ban to Norway, and that breach
will be able to medfore prison for up to 2 years.)
(End, of UDI-Norwegian government, legal document, regarding,
my: June 17-18, 2016 application-for political asylum, to:
Norway.)
No comments:
Post a Comment