This could result in her being able to get asylum in the U.S. -- or it could end up causing her to be sent back to Sri Lanka, where she could be murdered or institutionalized.
Last Tuesday there was yet another hearing for Rifqa Bary, the girl who converted from Islam to Christianity and fled to Florida from her family in Ohio after saying that her father threatened her life.
It was agreed that Ohio has jurisdiction in her case. That means Rifqa is ultimately to be returned to Ohio, but not so fast: the Florida court maintains emergency jurisdiction.
And Florida Judge Daniel Dawson is firm: Rifqa will not be returned to Ohio until the family's immigration status is cleared up.
That could take awhile. On Wednesday at my Web site AtlasShrugs.com, I broke the story of the immigration papers of Rifqa's father, Mohamed Bary, running exclusive documentation exposing his immigration status. He is in the United States illegally, and he has committed perjury to stay here.
That explains why for several months the attorneys for Rifqa Bary's parents have been promising to produce but failing to deliver their immigration documents.
Judge Dawson even threatened Mohamed Bary's lawyer, Shayan Elahi, with contempt of court last week for continuing to fail to produce them. The Barys were given 10 days before they will be held in contempt of court. My money says they are going to say the documents are lost.
But they are not lost. They are damning.
Mohamad Bary has sworn entirely contradictory things in his two applications to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.
He has claimed that he entered the country illegally around 1981 or 1982, and that he lived here five years -- a claim he had to make in order to qualify for the old Reagan-era immigration amnesty of the 1980s, for which he did belatedly apply.
But Mohamed Bary was not here in the 1980s. We know that because he himself said so in a different immigration filing.
In an application for temporary entry into the United States, he claimed that in the three years before his application, he had lived outside the U.S. for at least one continuous year.
This contradicted his amnesty application, in which he claimed that he had resided continuously inside the United States since on or before Jan. 1, 1982.
He could not have lived outside the United States for one year during the same time period in which he had claimed to be living continuously inside the United States. He maintained these contradictory claims as necessary elements to file his applications under the differing statutes -- one governing the issuance of an entrance visa, the other governing the granting of amnesty for continuous illegal presence.
He obviously committed perjury.