In addition to demonstrating statutory eligibility for asylum, an alien must also show that he or she merits a favorable exercise of the Court's discretion. There exists no substantial facts which would cause the Court to exercise its discretion negatively. Accordingly, the Court will grant to Applicant [Konanykhine] and Respondent [Gratcheva] the refuge of asylum in the United States in the exercise of its discretion. See Exhibit 2 .

I have been a member of the Bar in Toronto, Ontario, since 1971, and have devoted the majority of my practice to immigration matters during that time.

I understand that the United States authorities have the above clients in detention at this time.

It is my opinion that the above individuals are eligible to make an asylum claim in Canada pursuant to the provisions of our current governing statute, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. My opinion is based on the fact that the claimants can properly identify themselves, have never been recognized as Convention Refugees by any other country to date, and have never been convicted of any offenses by any Court outside Canada.

On December 4, 2003, an appointment was arranged at the Canadian Port of Entry located at the Canadian side of the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada for the above clients to be interviewed for eligibility to make their asylum claim in Canada. This appointment was arranged by me through the Director General of Immigration, Ontario Region, and was booked by Canadian Immigration Officer Annette Tennier of the Refugee Unit at the Peace Bridge Port of Entry, Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada. Annette Tennier's telephone number is 1(905)871-5632. Her colleague, Ms. Tone Lalonde, is also apprised of these facts.

The appointment booked for 8:30 a.m. today. I am advised on today's date by Ms. Toni Lalonde that the clients never showed up for their appointment this morning.

It is my opinion, for the above reasons, that if they were interviewed in the manner described above, the above clients would be routinely allowed to enter Canada as eligible Refugee Claimants, and their cases would be scheduled to be heard by the above-describe tribunal around one year from now. This is an everyday event that occurs at the Peace Bridge and at every other busy Canadian Port of Entry.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the writer.

Yours very truly,

SOMJEN AND PETERSON

/s/

John J. Somjen See Exhibit #5.

2. I have read the letter from Neil R. Acri, Deputy Field Office Director, Washington D.C. Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement dated December 19, 2003 regarding the revocation of my parole.

3. I have never "failed to consistently report to the Assistant Director for Detention and Removal by phone." In fact, I have reported to the designated agent in a timely manner each and every time I was required to, not only because I was required to, but also because my failure to do so, could result in my detention and deportation, two things which I did not want to have happen. The last time I was required to report, was November 22, 2003 and I did report on this date as required. As I am required to report approximately once every two months, I was not required to report again until late-January 2004.

4. I did not "[fail] to request permission to move from [my] authorized residence [in the Washington, DC area] to another state [New York]." In fact, in or before 1999, I was given explicit permission to move from the Washington, DC area to the New York City area, where my wife and I have continuously lived since at least 1999.

5. I did "[change] residence without notifying or requesting permission from the Service this past month." However, my lease of my New York City apartment, located at 170 West 73rd Street, had been scheduled to end on November 30, 2003 for many months. I had planned to rent another apartment in the New York City area prior to the Board of Immigration Appeals decision dated November 20, 2003, but the legal effect of this November 20, 2003 decision made it impractical for me to sign a long term lease of an apartment.

6. From approximately, November 30, 2003 until December 18, 2003, my wife and I stayed with friends or stayed in hotels in the New York City area.

7. Neither my 1997 settlement agreement referenced in the December 19, 2003 letter at issue nor the 1999 amendment to this agreement [which allowed me to move to the New York City area] required me to inform the agent to whom I was directed to report of these temporary residences, since they were not "permanent residences."

8. The next date on which I was required to report to the agent to whom I was directed to report was in late-January 2004.

9. I was "apprehended as [I] was attempting to enter Canada on December 18, 2003. However, neither my 1997 settlement agreement referenced in the December 19, 2003 letter at issue nor the 1999 amendment to this agreement [which allowed me to move to the New York City area] prevented me from doing this.

10. My wife and I attempted to enter Canada on the morning of December 18, 2003 in order to be interviewed by the Office of the Canadian Director General of Immigration at 8:30 a.m. at the Peace Bridge Port of Entry, Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada with regard to an asylum claim to be filed under the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

11. This December 18, 2003 meeting was scheduled in early-December, 2003 by my Canadian attorney, John J. Somjen, Esquire.

12. My wife and I hold current valid passports from Uruguay, but these passports are in the possession of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department and have been since at least 1997. These passports do not expire until 2004.

13. I respectfully request that this Honorable Court issue a stay of my and my wife's deportation and release my wife and I from detention pending the resolution of all appeals of the Board of Immigration Appeals' November 20, 2003 order as stated in the 1997 settlement agreement.

14. Alternatively, I respectfully request that this Honorable Court allow my wife and I to voluntarily depart the United States of America in order to travel to other countries, including, but not limited to, Canada, Mexico and Antigua, in order to pursue immigration and/or asylum claims in these countries.

15. I know that if I am deported to Russia, I will be tortured and die without due process or fair jury trial.

16. I also know that my wife will be tortured and may die if she is deported to Russia.

17. My former business partner, Mikhail Khordokovsky, has been the subject of numerous articles in newspapers around the world due to his recent illegal arrest on, what I believe, are politically motivated charges.

18. Prior to my death, I am sure that I will be tortured in order to produce, from my own mouth, evidence which I know is not true, but which will lead to Mr. Khordokovsky's illegal conviction and execution.

19. After leaving Russia, my wife and I traveled to Germany, Austria, Antigua and Uruguay, in addition to other countries.

20. I am not aware that my wife or I have ever broken any laws of any countries, broken any rules of the Immigration and Naturalization Service or its successors or violated the terms of my 1997 settlement agreement or the 1999 agreement amending the 1997 settlement agreement [except, with the possible exception of minor traffic offenses such as speeding].

21. I also ask that my wife and I be allowed to be present in the courtroom when the instant matters are addressed in order to provide rebuttal and explanation testimony and assistance to my counsel.

I swear and affirm under the penalties of perjury that the statements contained in the instant Motion are true and correct.

/s/
Alexandre Konanykhine
See Exhibit 7.

December 21, 2003
Paterson, NJ

I, Alexandre P. Konanykhine, are [sic] stating under penalty of perjury:

1. On December 18, 2003 my wife and I were arrested by the BICE officers while trying to cross the Peace Bridge for an appointment with Canadian authorities, which was scheduled because my wife had been ordered by BIA to leave the country within 30 days. The arresting officers did not allow my wife or myself to enter Canada, stating that we "were wanted by Russia". We were not allowed to call our attorney and were almost immediately flown to Washington, DC and immediately taken to the Russian Embassy. The accompanying officers explained that they were flying us to Moscow immediately thereafter.

2. The Russian counsul [sic] explained to the INS that he would not be able to issue travel documents the same day because he needed to go through verification of our citizenship. For a period of at least one hour Assistant Deputy Director of the BICE Neil Clark was yelling and screaming on the Russian council [sic] demanding immediate issue of travel documents and stressing that it was paramount that we were sent to Russia the same day, and that senior Russian officials were promised that.

3. The next day we were taken to New York JRK airport for connecting flight to Moscow. We arrived to [sic] Reagan National Airport too late to board the last possible flight through normal means. To secure the seats on that plane BICE officer Green stated to Delta Airlines Representatives and the Airport Police that a federal court ordered that we would be on that very flight. A lot of pressure was applied. We were advised by BICE officers that if the court were still in session at the time of the flight byt [sic] no stay was issued, we would be flown to Moscow. Our baggage was checked in and partially flown to Moscow.

4. It was evident that extraordinary measures were being employed to deliver us to Moscow and that it was caused by a deal with the Russian government.

5. In 1992-1995 I served as Vice President of Mr. Khordorkovsky for International Affairs. Recent arrest of Mr. Khordorkovsky is a major event in Russia and caused major international outcry, including concern expressed by President Bush and pending bill in U.S. Congress requesting removal of Russia from G-8 group of countries. Deputies of Mr. Khordorkovsky has [sic] been jailed as a part of this obvious political persecution. If delivered to Russia, I have no doubt, that I will be tourtured [sic] to make up incriminating statements on Mr. Khordorkovsky and to incriminate myself.

6. I have never committed any crime or immigration violation. In fact, charges of immigration violations have been prooven [sic] wrong and I was cleared of them. The immigration judge also found that "the Russian government fabricated charges against me to conceal its own corruption". That decision caused a lot of international coverage in media. I have no doubt that Russian government will employ tourture [sic] to force me to incriminate myself because of that decision of the U.S. immigration court and the resulting media coverage.

7. My wife has never committed any crimes or violations, nor has she ever been charged. Her only "fault" is that she fallen [sic] in love with me, so now the Russian government requested her to have more leverage on me. Facing threats to her and tourture, [sic] I would most certainly have to falsely incriminate myself and face a show trial following [sic] by sub human condition [sic] in Russian preason [sic] and likely death - as practically all experts agree.

Signed (under penalty of perjury)

/s/
Alexandre Konanykhine
See Exhibit 8

Amnesty International's vision is of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.

In pursuit of this vision, Amnesty International's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of its work to promote all human rights." ROUGH JUSTICE, preamble at page i.

The Bolsheviks came to power in 1917 intent upon abolishing law and the courts altogether. They modified their position when it became clear that a state without law deprives itself of legitimacy. What evolved in the USSR was an 'administered society.' The power to resolve disputes lay not with the courts but with Communist Party and government functionaries. In this context, the courts posed no independent challenge to the ruling system and were little more than appendages to it.

Close to its point of collapse in 1991, the USSR had a population of 260 million people, but only 15,781 judges. This was approximately the same number as in what was then the Federal Republic of Germany, a country with a quarter of the USSR's population. Soviet judges were reputedly the least qualified of the nation's jurists. Membership of the Communist Party was obligatory for judges, and the Ministry of Justice - an arm of the executive - controlled allocation of resources in a way perceived as open to political pressure and thereby undermining independence. Until 1989 the promotion of judges depended on the recommendation of Communist Party officials. From 1989 to 1991 the power to appoint and promote judges was transferred to members of the parliament - the Congress of Soviet People's Deputies - but judges were still not independent. Always predominantly female, the profession became mostly young and inexperienced after the economic deterioration of the mid-1980s left many judges too poor to stay in their job.

The status of Soviet Judges was so low that they commanded virtually no respect. Professionally, they played what has been described as a 'supporting role' in the system of Soviet justice. The state prosecution service - the procuracy - was the body officially charged with ensuring that the law was respected in every area of Soviet life, even to the extent of 'protesting' court decisions it disagreed with. Because administrative solutions were preferred in the USSR, the range of issues that came before the courts was limited compared with courts in many other countries. The incestuous relationship between judges and the Communist Party meant that judges were required to attend party meetings at their place of work, to implement directives from the party apparatus and to place political loyalty above the law. Courts were mobilized behind 'law and order' campaigns and willingly complied with official campaigns to obliterate dissent. All this was monitored and documented by Amnesty International."

Pages 12-13
A wide spectrum of political violence has run alongside the evolution of legal institutions, and fallen outside their reach. Public figures have been assassinated - in the street, in their homes, and at work - including eight members of the federal parliament killed by unknown assailants since the new State Duma was convened in 1994. Journalists investigating stories of regional or central corruption have been another target. Businesspeople have also been murdered, often when shares were being privatized or companies were changing ownership. In most of these cases, those responsible for the killings have never been prosecuted. Some cases have not even been investigated. The number of such unpunished killings since 1991 suggests that brute force pays for certain people - and deeply undermines the rule of law.

Political violence and continuing problems in the justice system show that despite the strides made by the Russian Federation since 1991, much still needs to be done to protect people's fundamental human rights and to ensure that everyone has an effective remedy if their rights are violated.

Page 27
At the close of the Soviet era in 1990, the courts were reportedly acquitting 0.3 per cent of the people who came before them. In France for the same year the acquittal rate was reported to be 10 per cent. Although the scope and caseload of courts in the Russian Federation has grown since 1991, the acquittal rate has stayed the same, according to Ministry of Justice figures for 2001.

Taken a face value, this conviction rate might suggest that victims of crime in the Russian Federation have had almost automatic redress. Legal reformers within the Russian Federation discount this interpretation and attribute the high conviction rate to an intrinsic bias in the criminal justice system and a presumption of guilt stamped through the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) that was in use until July 2002.

Under the old CPC, suspects were invariably deprived of their liberty and could remain in detention for months or even years with no right of access to a court of a defence lawyer until state investigators deemed their case was complete and ready to go to court. During this long pre-trial phase, detainees were exclusively in the hands of the agencies bringing the case against them: the procuracy and bodies such as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which also administered the police cells and remand prisons where the detainees were held. Outside this closed circle, suspects had no right of face-to-face contact with anyone.

Amnesty International and other human rights organizations inside the Russian Federation and elsewhere documented reports of ill-treatment and torture before trial that were commonplace under the old CPC. Since 1998, when control of the prison system was transferred to the Ministry of Justice, Amnesty International has continued to document torture of suspects in police cells, which remain under the control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Under the old CPC, suspects had little chance of release - unless another suspect came to light for the same offence. They also had no remedy through the national courts if they had been wrongfully detained, no matter how long their detention.

Page 30
All male defendants have their heads shaved like convicts. International observers have said such practices prejudice the right to be presumed innocent until convicted by a court.

Page 70
Since 1998 the Ministry of Justice has been responsible for administering the penitentiary system in the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, it has left the control of prison disorders in the hands of riot squads who are outside the prison system and not answerable to it. By abdicating from its responsibility for this aspect of prison management, the Ministry of Justice may be putting unarmed prisoners at risk of extreme, random and gratuitous violence. The remedies available to prisoners are too limited and too ineffective to redress effectively such violation of their human rights.

Page 75
Conditions for prisoners serving life sentences in the Russian Federation are so harsh that they amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and in some cases possibly even torture.

Life imprisonment is a new punishment in the Russian Federation and is best understood in the context of the death penalty debate that divided the country in the 1990s.

Although obliged to abolish the death penalty since the Russian Federation joined the Council of Europe in 1996, the State Duma has failed to do so. Reluctantly, it introduced an alternative punishment to death - life imprisonment, which the authorities have made as harsh as possible.

Page 76-77
Life imprisonment means imprisonment for the duration of a prisoner's natural life. Contrary to international standards for the treatment of people in custody, in the Russian Federation life imprisonment is organized around the prisoner's almost total isolation. This isolation, along with other hardships, leads Amnesty International to believe that their rights under Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] are being violated.

Life sentence prisoners serve their time on 'special regime,' which is the harshest category of imprisonment in the system of corrective labour colonies. According to the 1997 Punishment-Implementation Code, they are kept separately from other 'special regime' prisoners, who serve their sentences in barracks.

Every aspect of imprisonment for prisoners serving life sentences is designed to ensure their isolation from the outside world and from other prisoners. They are held in cells, either alone or in the company of one other prisoner. They exercise in a separate enclosed yard outside their cell for 90 minutes each day, and are given work assignments to do inside a separate workshop. They are entitled to study, but may not take part in education classes with other prisoners, studying instead in principle to have only a three-hour visit twice a year and to receive one parcel and one small package a year. The money they earn on work assignments can be spent each month on items from the prison kiosk.

The provisions isolating life sentence prisoners contravene those recommended by international standards, and the way they are put into practice makes them even harsher.

Page 78
[One prison, Institution OE 265/5] accommodates 156 people with commuted death sentences, according to statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice to a delegation of State Duma deputies visiting the prison in February 2001. Since the first prisoner arrived in the colony in February 1994, the Ministry reports that 32 prisoners have died, four of whom have committed suicide. This is a mortality rate of around 20 per cent in six years.

Opponents of abolishing the death penalty have used figures like these to argue that execution is more humane than what they call the 'slow death' of life imprisonment. In Amnesty International's view, the figures indicate that the condition in which life sentence prisoners are held violate their right to be treated with humanity and not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment - and that the conditions should be improved without delay.

Page 79
According to some of the letters that prisoners have managed to send from the island, even this picture does not match reality. Work is not always available, so prisoners without work have no way of occupying their time and have no source of income with which to buy essentials such as soap, toothpaste, shaving tools and envelopes.

Prisoners serving life sentences face major difficulties in maintaining contact with loved ones, especially given the enormous size of the Russian Federation and the severe limitations placed on the frequency and length of visits.

Page 79
[The large distances between prisons and the prisoners' homes] can mean life sentence prisoners have no personal contact, since not every family can afford the time or expense of such a long journey. In the Vremia MN article, the journalist noted that out of 156 inmates, only 40 'maintain contact' with relatives, which could amount to just one letter a year.

This imposes extreme physical and psychological isolation on life sentence prisoners and also makes them utterly dependent on the fairness and professionalism of the people administering their punishment. If this professionalism is missing, the prisoner's only direct channel for redress is writing to the procuracy, which is responsible for ensuring that legality is observed in the region, or too the regional ombudsman, if there is one.

In the midst of a tense, big-money dispute with Yukos oil company in 1998 and 1999, businessman Yevgeny Rybin was twice targeted by gunmen trying to kill him. Rybin suspected that someone affiliated with Yukos was behind the murder attempts and told Russian prosecutors. But they never acted on his suspicions.

Then this summer, long after Rybin had given up and left the country in fear for his life, he received an urgent call from the Russian prosecutor's office asking him to return to Moscow to formally repeat, on paper, some of the same allegations he had made five years earlier.

The sudden revival of interest in old allegations against the oil company run by billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky is characteristic of the politically charged investigation that last weekend landed him in prison on charges of tax evasion, fraud and forgery.

Even Rybin's lawyer, who has fought Yukos in court several times and expresses no love for Khodorkovsky, said the prosecutors' call to his client demonstrated that the pursuit of Russia's richest man stems from politics, not law enforcement. "Why after five years?" said the lawyer, Alexander Dobrovinsky. "What's changed? To me it gives an absolutely clear picture that this is a political case."

President Vladimir Putin insisted this week that the case against Khodorkovsky was about establishing the rule of law in Russia. But many lawyers, politicians and analysts counter that the legal proceedings against him so far amount to a case study in lack of due process in the country's largely unreconstructed justice system.

Even his supporters concede Khodorkovsky may be guilty of some of the financial crimes he has been charged with, although he denies that. But the investigations that began unfolding in July during a political dispute between Khodorkovsky and the Kremlin have struck many observers as selective prosecution in a country where virtually every big business tycoon accumulated wealth as state companies were sold in corrupt deals in the 1990s.

Critics include the U.S. ambassador, Alexander Vershbow, who told the Interfax news agency that the arrest could negatively affect the investment climate in Russia.

The investigations, they add, have been conducted with little regard for the standards Putin publicly espouses -- authorities have searched the office of Khodorkovsky's main lawyer in the case and have demanded the school records of the businessman's 12-year-old daughter.

On Monday, the Russian president hailed the arrest as the work of a "democratic and legally well-balanced system" and refused to intervene, saying "it is only the court that can decide this matter."

Putin, who signed into law last year a new criminal procedure code that theoretically gives defendants like Khodorkovsky expanded rights and seeks to curb the overwhelming advantages of prosecutors in the Russian system, also offered a lecture on the principle of equality before the law.

It doesn't matter, he said, whether the accused is "a modest clerk, a government official or a top businessman, regardless of how many billions of dollars there are in his personal or corporate accounts."

With his statements, Putin practically invited scrutiny of a law enforcement system that has no tradition of an independent judiciary and is rampantly corrupt.

"There is no 'rule of law' state in this country," said Sergei Pashin, a former federal judge who has publicly advocated comprehensive legal reforms. "The Khodorkovsky case is another case in which the law works the way someone wants it to."

Pashin and other experts see parallels to the misuses of the legal system during the Soviet period, when Communist-written laws appeared on paper to offer guarantees of fairness but were either impossible to abide by or so selectively applied that they served only as a tool to reinforce the authorities' control. Some call the tactics used against Khodorkovsky "Stalinist."

"It's a very Stalinist style of management. From time to time, you need a demonstration of power by punishing someone publicly," Pashin said. "Selective application of the law is a tradition."

Gleb Pavlovsky, a political consultant who helped Putin win election in 2000, said on the Ekho Moskvy radio station that authorities were organizing a "show trial" of the Yukos chief, and he ridiculed the notion that "any action the prosecution chooses to take is legitimate by definition." Such a view is "unacceptable," he said, "even if it is made by the president of the Russian Federation."

Even some of those who support the Kremlin's goal of eliminating the power of the so-called oligarchs such as Khodorkovsky in Russian politics have expressed fears in recent days about Putin's methods.

"We know oligarchic capitalism is very bad for Russia and that Vladimir Putin has to crush this system," said Sergei Markov, a Kremlin-connected political analyst. But he said he was against Khodorkovsky's arrest, primarily because of the inconsistency with which the law is applied here. "First they must make a law which we can follow," he said. At present, "every person in Russia can say 'I want to be loyal to the law, but I cannot.' "

Khodorkovsky's arrest by armed, masked secret service agents has revived concerns among Western investors about doing business in a country where law enforcement authorities often interfere in financial disputes.

"Putin has left himself face to face with a 'due process' which is in fact a travesty," said a report from a Russian brokerage firm, United Financial Group, which recommended that he fire Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov or propose "radical" reform of the law enforcement system to save his presidency "from ignominious failure."

Lawyers in the Yukos case have a long dossier of what they contend are violations of Russian rules or international legal standards in the investigation, which began in July as a probe into a nearly decade-old privatization deal but has mushroomed into a broad series of accusations, including that Khodorkovsky evaded personal taxes and that a top company official ordered a murder. So far, Khodorkovsky and two other Yukos billionaires have been charged.

Both Khodorkovsky and top adviser Platon Lebedev were denied access to their lawyers for days after their arrests and held on white-collar charges that in the United States would rarely result in lengthy detention before trial. Lawyers for Yukos security official Alexei Pichugin say that authorities injected him with psychotropic drugs in an attempt to extract a confession.

Masked agents have raided a wide variety of locations associated with Yukos, including an orphanage and a public relations firm that works for a political party funded by the Khodorkovsky team, often without proper search warrants and without allowing Yukos representatives to monitor the searches, according to defense attorneys.

In one of the most controversial moves, prosecutors searched the offices of Anton Drel, the lead attorney for Lebedev and Khodorkovsky, and summoned him for interrogation, which Russian lawyers say violates attorney-client privilege. Drel refused to appear for questioning but his associates believe his jailhouse conversations with Lebedev have been intercepted by authorities.

And most hearings in the case have been held behind closed doors, with the public and the news media barred. At one hearing for Lebedev, even the Yukos lawyers were locked out of the courtroom. "They were literally left knocking on the door of the Basmanny Court while the prosecutor and the judge were talking about the legitimacy of his arrest and whether he's going to be held or not," said Sanford M. Saunders Jr., a Washington lawyer hired by the Khodorkovsky team.

President Bush, who publicly credited Russian President Vladimir Putin just 10 weeks ago for promoting freedom and democracy, has protested to the Russian leader since then for moving in the opposite direction, according to senior U.S. officials.

Bush and his foreign policy team have begun to question Putin's intentions - and their own approach - after the abrupt imprisonment of Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky and parliamentary elections derided by European monitors as an unfair government-orchestrated triumph. . . .

Administration officials say Bush, in recent telephone conversations with Putin, has raised complaints about evidence that Putin has fallen far short of his promises to deliver pluralism and a fair legal system.. . .

Meanwhile, an emerging debate within Republican circles spilled into the open after Khodorkovsky's Oct. 25 arrest. He was charged with tax evasion and fraud, but Putin critics and Bush administration officials view the case as a Kremlin-orchestrated political attack on a powerful business figure who has presented himself as a reformer.

[a]lthough resolution of a motion to enforce a settlement agreement draws on standard contract principles, it may be accomplished within the context of the underlying litigation without the need for a new complaint. To this extent, district courts have inherent authority, deriving from their equity power, to enforce settlement agreements. The exercise of this authority has the 'practical effect' of entering a judgment by consent. Id., citing Millner v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 643 F.2d 1005, 1009 (4th Cir. 1981).

Respondent [Immigration and Naturalization Service] agrees to parole petitioner [Konanykhine] pending final resolution of his immigration proceedings, including any direct judicial appeals thereof, so long as petitioner engages in _____ [indecipherable in copy] conduct, or so long as no other circumstances arise, which warrant revocation of his parole under 8 C.F.R. § 212.5. See Exhibit 1 of Petitioners' Original Emergency Motion filed on December 19, 2003.

"should be available to afford relief to those persons whom society has grievously wronged in light of modern concepts of justice. Just as notions of justice prevailing at the inception of habeas corpus were offended when a conviction was issued by a court that lacked jurisdiction, so the modern conscience found intolerable convictions obtained in violation of certain constitutional commands."

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Excessive bail shall not be required, no excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.