A10 305 336
Lithuania and Estonia. 7/ Finally, we are impressed by the testimony of Mr. Hartman, who was a crucial witness in these proceedings.
Therefore, we conclude after examining the voluminous record before us that it does not amount to clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence of the respondent's deportability. We reach the same conclusion as the Immigration judge below, based on our de novo review. Consequently, we need not reach the motion to recuse issue. The appeal is dismissed.
Similarly, we will deny the Service's motion to reopen and remand. The proferred evidence adds nothing substantive to the record. The respondent has consistently testified that his military unit was under the Waffen S.S. command, and that he received military decorations for his combat activities. That is precisely all that can be gleaned from the copy of the military commendation proferred by the Service.1 The witnesses testified profusely as to the differences between the Waffen S.S. and the Allgemeine S.S. The respondent's photograph also proferred adds nothing to the evidence, since we assumed for purposes of this appeal that a photograph of the respondent was identified by the Service's witnesses. The motion to reopen is denied.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
FURTHER ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied.
Chairman
| 7/ | See Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1979, 689, U.S. Department of State (1980). |
27
| 1 | This would be Hāzners's having been awarded the Iron Cross. |