Foreign Nationals in Michigan Prisons:

an examination of the costs

Prepared by Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending
April 2006

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons
– an overview
Michigan prisons currently house hundreds of
people who are citizens of other countries at a cost of
$30,000 each. While some were in the United States
legally and others were not, because of their felony
convictions virtually all are now subject to deportation.
The question that arises, then, is why Michigan taxpayers
are paying to keep them here.
A Department of Corrections list dated February
3, 2006 identifies 731 foreign nationals still in
Michigan prisons. Of these, 138 have served their
minimum sentences and are being denied parole, most
on the rationale that they are considered a risk to the
community. Their crimes range from motor vehicle code
violations, drugs and larceny to assault, sex offenses and
murder. Twenty-nine are currently housed at higher
security prisons, indicating they have exhibited behavior
problems in prison. However, 75 percent are at lower
security facilities. Some don’t speak English well enough
to participate in group therapy or educational programs
or to communicate fluently at parole board interviews.
Forty-four are from countries where repatriation may not
currently be possible, including Cuba, Iraq, Vietnam,
Laos and the former Yugoslavia.
The number of years these foreign nationals are past
their earliest release dates ranges from .05 to 14.73. The
median is 2.36 years. This group includes several people
profiled in this report: Krzysztof Tubisz, who has been
parole-eligible on an assault conviction for five years
and will be deported to Poland; Chol Kon Kim, who
has been parole-eligible on a murder conviction for over
four years and will be deported to S. Korea; and Gabriel
Christ, a German national who has been refused parole
six times because he denies that he sexually assaulted
his wife. Just keeping these three men incarcerated
past their minimum terms has so far cost Michigan
taxpayers $427,500.
An additional nine people sentenced to parolable
life terms have served the time required by statute and
are also eligible for release. These include two profiled
here: Ali Sareini, who has been parole-eligible on a

second-degree murder conviction for more than seven
years and will be deported to Lebanon and Delfino
Moreno, a Mexican national who has been eligible for
parole on his second-degree murder conviction since
1993. Just keeping these two men incarcerated since
they became parole-eligible has so far cost Michigan
taxpayers $620,000. Another fourteen people who
have served at least 15 years for drug delivery may also
be eligible for parole, depending on their individual
circumstances.
Another 121 foreign nationals will become eligible
for parole in 2006. Parole decisions have already been
made in 33 of these cases. Parole was granted in 23; it
was denied for “risk to community” in 10. Another 86
will become eligible in 2007.
The decision whether to continue the incarceration
of foreign nationals is more complex than might first
appear. The cost savings of deportation must be
balanced against the social value of requiring those who
have committed crimes against Michigan citizens to serve
their punishment under Michigan law. But how should
that value be defined? Numerous questions arise:



Should some people, such as non-violent
offenders, even be required to serve their
minimum prison terms or should they be turned
directly over to immigration authorities?



Even for assaultive and sex offenses, where
victims might understandably demand a measure
of American punishment, should people who
will be deported ever be kept once they have
served their minimum sentences and become
eligible for parole?



How do Michigan citizens benefit from having
someone who is five years past his earliest release
date continue to sit in a Michigan prison instead
of being returned to Poland, Lebanon, Korea

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

3

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

or Mexico? Is the Michigan parole board
responsible for protecting the citizens of other
countries from possible future harm?


How often do judges impose relatively short
minimum sentences in order to save tax dollars
in the belief that the parole board will release
people for deportation?



What role should the person’s conduct in prison
play in deportation cases?



For various reasons, some people eligible by law
for deportation do not actually get removed from
the U.S. How certain must the parole board be
that someone will actually be deported? Should
someone who has served his minimum sentence
be kept in a Michigan prison for years because a
country like Cuba will not take him back?



4

Should we be doing more, under international
treaties, to return people who have not finished
their minimum sentences to their home
countries so they can serve their time there?



Where no transfer treaties exist, should we
commute sentences in order to make people like
Kinnari Sutariya (see profile below) eligible for
deportation?

All these questions bear thoughtful examination. And
the case of each incarcerated foreign national should be
given careful individual consideration. To help ensure that
this occurs, Senator Michael Switalski (D., Roseville) has
introduced SB 1008, which would require that:

“A prisoner who is an alien and who is subject to an
order of deportation upon release from incarceration shall
be interviewed by 1 member of the parole board each
year until the prisoner is paroled or discharged.”
While this process would not require that any particular
prisoner be released, it would certainly focus the parole
board’s attention on the question whether Michigan
taxpayers have anything to gain by continuing to
imprison non-citizens who might just as easily, and far
more cheaply, be returned to their countries of origin.

Barbara R. Levine
Executive director
CAPPS

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

Who exactly is deportable?
By Maia Justine Storm, J.D.
Michigan prisoners who are citizens of other countries have a second bureaucracy to encounter besides the
MDOC: DHS, or the Department of Homeland Security. Only those who became naturalized citizens before
their conviction can be sure of escaping its grasp. The
process starts with an interview by an agent from a DHS
subdivision, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (BICE), usually during initial processing
at Reception and Guidance. Some prisoners have never
been legal in this country; some have been legal at one
time, but have overstayed their visas; some have obtained
legal permanent residency (“green cards”). BICE is interested in all such “criminal aliens,” and will put detainers in their file. This detainer is an immigration hold,
so when prisoners are discharged, either by parole or by
serving their maximum, immigration takes them immediately into custody.
When these prisoners see an immigration judge, most
will be charged as “aggravated felons”. This is a term specific to immigration law; it is not found in criminal statutes. Defined in the federal statute INA § 101 (a) (43)
[Immigration and Naturalization Act], it covers roughly
50 crimes and also covers attempts and conspiracy.
Aggravated felonies include: firearms trafficking; drug
trafficking; possession of over 5 grams of cocaine base;
murder; rape; sexual abuse of a minor; money laundering over $10,000; fraud or tax evasion if the amount
was over $10,000; and the following crimes for which a
person receives a sentence of one year or more, whether
served or not: theft; burglary; a crime of violence; obstruction of justice; forgery; trafficking in stolen vehicles
with altered VINs; certain gambling crimes, if a second
conviction.
Because there are no court-appointed attorneys in
Ms. Storm is an immigration lawyer
practicing in Kalamazoo who
specializes in representing criminal
aliens.

Immigration Court, itself a creation of the Department
of Justice and the DHS, many prisoners do not have the
financial resources to secure legal representation. In any
event, aggravated felons have very few remedies to pursue. These include getting their criminal case overturned;
getting a full gubernatorial or presidential pardon;
successfully claiming U.S. citizenship through a parent.
Some aggravated felons may be eligible for waiver relief,
depending on the individual circumstance; some may be
able to apply to have their removal stayed because of the
political situation in their home country. Although difficult to win, a Convention Against Torture (CAT) claim
may be filed with the Court, if a prisoner can show the
possibility of being tortured upon removal.
In general, however, most state prisoners who are doing a minimum of one year for an aggravated felony can
count on being ordered removed to their home country.

Is Removal Possible during Incarceration?
The United States has treaties with many foreign
countries that allow for the transfer of prisoners. In
1980, Michigan enacted a statute (MCLA 791.265) authorizing the governor or designee to approve a prisoner
for transfer to a prison in his/her home country. The
MDOC has established requirements for a prisoner to
be eligible for transfer (Operating Procedure OP-BCF34.03) This is one avenue to explore for prisoners who
are not parole eligible. An alternative option for those
with long sentences is commutation. Commutation does
not expunge the underlying crime, but makes the prisoner available for detention and removal.
BICE does not, on its own initiative, remove people
who are still imprisoned for their conviction, although it
can and certainly does remove people who are on parole,
supervised release, probation, or simply under threat of
future arrest or imprisonment. However, immigration
law does permit governors to ask the Attorney General
to remove an imprisoned alien, if he or she is doing time

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

5

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

for a nonviolent crime, excluding any of the following offenses: alien smuggling or harboring; drug trafficking; firearm trafficking; certain child pornography
crimes; certain crimes involving national defense. INA §
241(a)(4)(b)(i)(ii). This is a possibility that apparently
has gone unexplored in Michigan.

Parole Board Considerations
Parole Board members do not seem fully aware of
the consequences of an immigration detainer. They may
approve a parole placement in the community with a
family member, when, for example, an aggravated felon
from Mexico or Ghana or the Czech Republic is going
to go straight to immigration detention and then back to
his/her home country. Or they may deny parole – without realizing that approval would mean removal of the
parolee from the United States.
Only those prisoners from countries that no longer
exist (Yugoslavia); that have no repatriation agreement
with the United States (Viet Nam, Laos); that no longer
have any records confirming the individual’s identity; or
that are currently dysfunctional (e.g. Iraq, Somalia), will
not be removed from the United States. These individuals are given a post-order custody review after 90 days
in detention to determine if they can be safely released
into the community until such time as removal becomes
possible.
Often BICE is resistant to releasing such detainees, especially if they have a long criminal history. The
Supreme Court has consistently ruled that indefinite
detention, defined as six months without a removal date
in the reasonably foreseeable future, is unconstitutional
(e.g. Zadvydas v. INS, 121 S. Ct. 2491) This dilemma
is resolved by the ability of BICE to condition release
as tightly as it chooses, by, for example, requiring the
detainee to get mental health or substance abuse therapy
and reporting to an immigration officer on a frequent
basis. Those who violate their supervision conditions
may be arrested and returned to detention.
In most cases, however, parole means removal to the
home country as soon as travel documents are secured.
In fact, if the detainee was illegal in this country at the
time of incarceration, he or she will be removed by an

6

administrative order and will not even see an immigration judge.

An examination of this entire process reveals several
ways to open up prison beds and save taxpayer money.
1. The Parole Board needs to establish a liaison
with the BICE office in Detroit, so information
about individual prisoners can be shared and
members can become comfortable with the process.
Consequently, when prisoners with existing
Removal Orders have done their minimum time,
and are from countries currently taking back their
nationals, the Parole Board should grant their
release.
Those from countries not currently accepting
removals should be looked at on a case-by-case
basis. Some Cubans, for example, will be accepted
back by Castro because of a limited list generated
in the 1980s, even though Cuba and the United
States do not have a general Repatriation Treaty. It
would be useful for the Parole Board to know if any
Cubans currently in the MDOC are on this list.
2. When qualified prisoners request a transfer
to their home country, and their home country
accepts them, the MDOC should promote the
transfer.
3. The Governor should appoint an independent panel to review all alien prisoners, making
recommendations for commutation and culling
those who are eligible for removal before serving
their entire sentence. The Governor should then
request their removal. If authorizing legislation
needs to be passed to facilitate these removals,
the Governor should make this request of the
legislature.

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

Gabriel Christ, No. 285326
Home Country: Germany
Offenses: Criminal sexual conduct, 3rd
degree: 2 - 15 years
Assault with intent to do great
bodily harm: 1 - 10 years
Earliest parole date: Nov. 18, 2000
Although his crime has been described as situational
by state screeners and he would be deported to
Germany upon parole, Gabriel Christ has been turned
down for parole six times, apparently because he
continues to deny the sexual offense while admitting
the assault.

Gabriel Christ, a German
citizen living in the United States,
was 51 years old when, in October
1998, he came home to Detroit
from a six-month stint as a chef
on a cruise ship. He and his
American wife had been married
for nine years but, because of his
job, they were apart for half of every
year.
Christ’s convictions arose from a domestic dispute.
Each spouse thought the other was being unfaithful.
When his wife said she wanted a divorce, Christ began
drinking and became abusive. He admittedly beat his
wife and threatened to pour gasoline on her and set
her on fire. His wife claimed he also forced her to have
intercourse. Christ maintains the sex was consensual.
He was convicted at a bench trial of assault with intent to
commit great bodily harm less than murder, for which he
was sentenced to serve 1-10 years in prison, and thirddegree criminal sexual conduct, for which he received a
2-15 year term.
Christ has no prior criminal record and no history of
substance abuse, nor were there any prior complaints of
domestic violence. The MDOC’s own parole guidelines
note that this was a situational offense, unlikely to recur,
and score Christ as having a high probability of release.
He has not received a single misconduct citation while
in prison, is now 59 years old and would be immediately

detained by immigration for removal to Germany.
Nevertheless, the parole board has turned Christ
down for parole six times, four times for 12 months,
once for 18 and, most recently, for 24 months. Board
decisions have always been premised on Christ’s refusal
to admit guilt of the sexual assault. Although he has
repeatedly attempted to enter recommended sex offender
programming, he has been refused admission to treatment because he denies committing a sexual offense.
Now more than five years past his first parole eligibility date, Christ says: “These continuances of incarceration . . . are senseless and a waste of taxpayers’ money. . .
I only wish to be returned to Germany now that I have
completed my minimum sentence in the state of Michigan.”

Ali Hassan Sareini, No. 203519
Home country: Lebanon
Offense: Second-degree murder
Sentence: Parolable life
Earliest parole date: Nov. 24, 1998
The judge deliberately imposed a sentence that made
Sareini eligible for parole in 10 years because he knew
Sareini would be deported. The board, however, continues to deny release even though Sareini has completed
many prison programs and psychologists have noted his
maturity.
Ali Sareini came to the United States when he was
nine years old. His family emigrated from Lebanon and
settled in Dearborn. Sareini had no behavior problems
as a youth and graduated from high school. However,
in February 1984, when Sareini was 19, he and a codefendant robbed a gas station and Sareini killed the
attendant.
Sareini fled to Lebanon but returned to the States in
late 1985. No charges were pending against him at the
time and he joined the Army, serving in the Airborne

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

7

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

Division as a paratrooper. Stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C.
until his arrest in 1988, Sareini also completed two years
of a bachelor’s degree in economics.
Sareini pled guilty to second-degree murder. Under sentencing guidelines, the judge had the option of
imposing a minimum sentence as high as 25 years
or a life term that would
make Sareini eligible for
parole after serving 10
years. Recognizing that
Sareini would be immediately deported upon
release, the judge chose
parolable life expressly to
give the parole board the
chance to exercise its discretion. He noted on the
judgment of sentence that
he would have no objection to parole.
A Department of Corrections psychologist who
evaluated Sareini in 1989 concluded that he had matured
a great deal since the offense and had high academic
achievement and intellectual ability. Sareini has lived up
to that assessment. He completed his bachelor’s degree and several vocational courses and tutors prisoners
working to earn their GEDs. An independent psychologist observed in 1998 that Sareini’s offense had resulted
from youthful impulsivity. He concluded that Sareini’s
assumption of responsibility and lack of a pattern of
criminal behavior indicated a low risk of recidivism.
Sareini himself says he was “a stupid ignorant young
man who thought the world owed him the good life just
because he was born and came to America.” He continues, “I feel a great sense of shame, not just for what
I did more than 20 years ago, but for what I could have
done with my life.” Regarding the INS detainer lodged
in 1997, Sareini notes, “The older I get the harder it will
be for me in Lebanon. I am 41, and the disadvantages
I have from being incarcerated for so long will not be
lessened by adding old age to them.”

8

Krzysztof Tubisz, No. 206435
Home country: Poland
Offense: Assault with intent to do great
bodily harm
Sentence: 3½ - 15 years
Earliest parole date: Aug. 25, 2001

Although Krzysztof Tubisz has been parole-eligible for
nearly five years, has extensive health problems and has
a final order for deportation to his native Poland, the
parole board continues to deny him release.
Krzysztof Tubisz moved with his family from Poland
to the United States in 1973 when he was nine years old.
He has a congenital heart condition which required three
major surgeries when he was in his teens. Because of his
many health problems and frequent hospitalizations, he
rarely held a conventional job but worked in his family’s
businesses from a young age.
In 1989, Tubisz was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for stabbing to death a man with whom he had
lived for six years. He was released in 1994 after serving
his five-year minimum sentence and successfully completed his parole.
In 1998, Tubisz was
involved in an altercation in a Royal Oak
bar with a former lover
who, Tubisz claimed,
took clothing, electronic
equipment and $1,500
in cash from his home.
After the initial scuffle,
Tubisz approached the
man from behind and cut his face. The cut was superficial and the man required no medical attention. Because
of his prior offense, however, the judge sentenced Tubisz
to 3½ - 15 years in prison.
Tubisz successfully completed the year-long Assaultive
Offender Program in August 2000. The therapist said he
made significant progress and accepted responsibility for
his offense.
Also in 2000, Tubisz had a pacemaker implanted

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

due to complete heart blockage. Since then, it has been
replaced twice. Tubisz has several appointments with
medical specialists each year, not only to monitor his
heart condition but for other health problems, including
diabetes. He takes numerous medications.
When Tubisz became eligible for parole in 2001, his
score on the parole board’s guidelines indicated “high
probability of release,” but the board continued him
in prison for 12 months. It cited his “history of violent
relationship behavior” and found, despite his positive
therapy report, “no evidence documented in his file to
demonstrate that he has gained meaningful insight into
his violent criminal behavior.”
Tubisz continued participating in treatment programs, completing courses in anger management and
domestic violence prevention. Nonetheless, following
each of his next three parole interviews the board continued his incarceration for an additional year.
In September 2004, just one month into his fourth
continuance, Tubisz had an immigration hearing in
prison and the judge signed a final order of deportation
to Poland. Believing Tubisz would be released within 30
days, his mother and brother flew to Poland to find an
apartment for him.
The board re-interviewed him in March 2005. In
April, it decided to continue his incarceration again, until
at least August 2006.

Delfino Moreno, No. 173211
Home country: Mexico
Offense: Second-degree murder
Sentence: Parolable life
Earliest parole date: Dec. 6, 1992
Even though the sentencing judge supports release, saying
Moreno has served adequate time in prison, and though
his prison record has been excellent and he has completed
many programs, the board continues to deny parole.

Delfino Moreno was 13 when his family left Mexico
for West Michigan. He had difficulty adjusting and a series of property offenses led to repeated contacts with the
juvenile court and one adult conviction for attempted
breaking and entering.
In 1982, at age 17, Moreno was charged with killing
a man who was found stabbed and bludgeoned in a car.
Moreno has consistently maintained his innocence but
was convicted at trial of second-degree murder, in part
on the testimony of a 28-year old co-defendant who pled
guilty to manslaughter. The co-defendant was sentenced
to prison for 10-15 years and released in 1994. Moreno
was sentenced to a life term that made him eligible for
parole after serving 10 years.
Now age 40,
Moreno has done well in
prison. He completed his GED and
courses in electronics
and horticulture.
He had excellent
work reports
at a variety of jobs
and received
2,200 hours of training
as an industrial fabric cutter for
Michigan
State Industries. He also
completed
group counseling and an
anger
management program.
An immigration detainer
was first filed when Moreno
was still awaiting trial. Additional
notices were filed in 1984 and 1997.
If released, Moreno would be immediately
deported and live with a brother in Mexico. At Moreno’s
request, his sentencing judge – Hon. Calvin L. Bosman
of the Ottawa County Circuit Court – told immigration
officials in a 2000 letter that he believed Moreno “has
served adequate time in the state prison for his crime and
nothing more will be gained for either him or the people
of the State of Michigan by continuing his incarceration.”
However, the parole board apparently disagrees. After
interviewing Moreno in 1992 and 1997, it issued notices
stating that it had “no interest” in proceeding in his case.
In 2002, the board did not even see Moreno personally.
It simply reviewed his file, then continued his incarceration for another five years.

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

9

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

Hanna Nasr, No. 210741
Home Country: Canada
Offenses: Conspiracy to deliver and
delivery of 650 grams of heroin.

in February 2006, the board notified Nasr that it had
recently reviewed his sentence and determined that he
had another conviction for a serious crime that actually
made his first parole eligibility date Sept. 1, 2006. There
is no indication on what crime the board is relying.

Sentence: Parolable life
Earliest parole date: Sept. 1, 2006
Hanna Nasr was found guilty of trying to sell a kilo of
heroin to an undercover officer in 1989. He received two
life sentences under Michigan’s mandatory 650 drug lifer
law, but was eligible for parole in 2004, until the parole
board amended the date.
Born in Lebanon, Nasr went to Canada in 1976 and
became a Canadian citizen. He worked steadily at several
jobs, including as an assembly worker for the Chrysler
Corporation in Windsor, Ontario, and as a punch press
operator. His pre-sentence report states that he has no
prior convictions -- adult or juvenile. He completed
high school and two years
of college in Lebanon.
Since coming to prison, Nasr has
had only one misconduct, has
been housed in a low
security level prison and
completed a building
trades program.
Because a Final
Administrative Order
of Removal was entered in
2001, upon his release Nasr will be
immediately deported to Canada. He maintains family
ties with a cousin in Ontario who visits him monthly.
His brother, brother-in-law and a nephew have offered
him a home and support when he returns.
In December, 2003, the parole board notified Nasr
that, based on the trial court’s finding of cooperation
with law enforcement, he would be parole-eligible on
March 1, 2004. On April 23, 2004, the board voted preliminary interest in proceeding to a public hearing and
ordered a psychological report. A month later, although
no 2004 psychological report exists in his department
files, the board changed its mind and voted “no interest.” Nasr’s next review was scheduled for 2009. Then,

10

Chol Kon Kim, No. 234936
Home Country: South Korea
Offense: Second-degree murder
Sentence: 10-60 years
Earliest parole date: Dec. 3, 2001
Although Kim has been parole-eligible for more than
four years, has been rated as a good parole risk and will
be immediately detained for deportation to South Korean, the board continues to keep him in prison.
Chol Kon Kim came to the United States from South
Korea with his family in 1985, when he was 27. He
spoke very little English and worked as a cook in Korean/Chinese restaurants. Although he had no criminal
record, Kim did have a history of mental illness that
resulted in violent outbursts. In the spring of 1991, he
spent two weeks in a Grand Rapids psychiatric hospital.
He was diagnosed with schizophreniform disorder, alcohol abuse and intermittent explosive disorder and placed
on various medications.
Kim was befriended by a woman named Lee Buitehuis who allowed him to sleep in her basement and gave
him occasional work at her laundromat. On Sept. 19,
1991, Kim argued with Ms. Buitehuis about money. He
was drunk and on medication. When she threatened to
call the police if he didn’t leave, he strangled her. Kim
was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to
serve 10-60 years.
When Kim first went to prison his explosive behavior
frequently got him into trouble. In the first three years,
he accumulated 10 misconduct citations, mostly for
fighting and assaults on staff. However, from September 1994 to July 1995, Kim participated in a residen-

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

Foreign nationals in Michigan prisons: examining the costs

tial treatment program that apparently had a dramatic
impact. Subsequent reports from his work and housing
unit are quite positive.
Because Kim cannot speak or write English well
enough to communicate effectively, he has been excused
from completing a GED and from participation in Assaultive Offender Therapy. However, his score on the
MDOC’s parole guidelines indicates that, statistically, he is a good
risk for release. In computing
the score, parole board staff said
the crime was situational and not
likely to happen again.
Kim is now 47 years old.
When he leaves prison, he will be
immediately detained by immigration for deportation to South
Korea. He has been eligible for
parole for more than four years. Nonetheless, the parole
board continues to deny release. Although the board did
not provide Kim with an interpreter at his 2004 parole
interview, it concluded: “Inmate minimizes the crime
and there is nothing in his file to indicate that he has
gained insight into the nature of his assaultive behavior.
The parole board lacks the reasonable assurance necessary to cause a release at this time.” His next review is
scheduled for December 2006.

Kinnari Sutariya, No. 316863
Home Country: India
Offense: Second-degree murder
Sentence: 11 - 20 years
Earliest parole date: Jan. 21, 2011
Shortly after her arranged marriage to a man she barely
knew, Sutariya killed her new husband because, she said,
he persistently coerced her into sexual activities she found
uncomfortable and humiliating.
Kinnari Sutariya was 20 years old in January 2000,

when she came to the United States from India with the
husband she’d married only a few weeks earlier and his
family. She knew no one else.
She had married Ramesh Sutariya in a civil service
in India a year previously, talked to him several times
on the telephone, but had not lived with him until she
married him in a religious ceremony immediately before
moving to the United States. Because it was a traditional
arranged Indian marriage, she met him only once before
they were engaged.
Twelve days after the couple
came to the United States, the marriage ended in disaster. Sutariya
said her new husband had forced
her into increasingly frequent
sexual activities since their marriage, including sodomy and fellatio, in which she felt very uncomfortable participating. After trying
to thwart another sexual advance,
Sutariya stabbed her husband to
death.
She has a bachelor of science in microbiology with
no previous criminal behavior. A psychologist with the
Michigan Department of Corrections who counseled
her because of some initial adjustment difficulties said
he believes she committed the crime in “a brief episode
which is dystonic (incompatible) to her personality.” He
said Sutariya is not a danger to society.
Since she came to prison in 2000, Sutariya has done
well. She has no prison misconducts and many letters
and notes of commendation from prison staff.
She is a prize-winning artist who writes poetry which
has been published in prison literary magazines. She
has taught Yoga to other prisoners and has taken classes
in business education technology for which she now tutors. She participated in group therapy on dealing with
domestic violence.
Sutariya has currently served more than six years. The
sentencing guidelines recommended a minimum term
between 7 ½ and 12 ½ years. Because the judge imposed
a minimum of 11 years, her earliest release date is Jan.
21, 2011. Since India has no prisoner transfer treaty with
the United States, she would need a commutation from
the governor to be released before then. Whenever she is
released, she will be immediately detained by immigration for removal to India.

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending -- April 2006

11