Emerald
Vol. 82, No. 148
Eugene, Oregon 97403
Wednesday, May 6, 1981
University graduate
told to leave country
Photo by
Ismet Guchan, a familiar campus activist, faces possible deportation today in a
Portland immigration hearing. Guchan's wife, Turkan Erden, was told Tuesday to
leave the U.S. within 90 days. Here, Guchan burns a yellow ribbon.
By PAUL TELLES
Of the Emerald
PORTLAND — A Turkish citizen and
former University student was given 90
days to leave the United States at an
immigration hearing here Tuesday.
Immigration Judge Newton Jones
ruled that, “perhaps through no fault of
her own,” Turkan Erden is “deportable."
However, Jones allowed Erden to
leave the country voluntarily, at the
request of her lawyer, Ann Witte of Port
land. Seattle attorney Kendall Warren,
representing the Immigration and Natur
alization Service, agreed to the request.
Erden, and her husband Ismet Gu
chan, also a Turkish national and former
University student, both faced deporta
tion proceedings this week for allegedly
overstaying their visas. Guchan’s depor
tation hearing, also scheduled for Tues
day, was postponed until today.
Guchan was arrested Feb. 11 during
ex-hostage Victor Tomseth’s University
visit. He was charged with hindering
prosecution for allegedly interfering with
police as they took a Revolutionary
Communist Youth Brigade member into
custody for burning a yellow ribbon in
the EMU Ballroom before Tomseth’s
speech. Guchan was released on bail.
At Tuesday's hearing, Erden told the
judge she has sufficient resources to
leave the country of her own volition.
Jones gave Erden, a Fulbright scholar
who recently received a University
master’s degree in psychology, until
Aug. 5 to leave the country.
Jones asked Erden where she would
like to relocate if she were deported
When she said Canada, the judge told
her she could only be deported to a
country where she previously had
resided.
She then answered West Germany.
But when the INS later agreed to let
Erden leave the country voluntarily, it
was not clear where she would go.
Erden was found ‘‘deportable”
because she did not renew her student
visa, which expired Aug. 16, 1980
However, Erden testified that she had
tried in vain to renew her visa. She said
she began trying about one month
before the visa expired
T*
m
To renew her visa, she first had to
obtain an extension of her Turkish pass
port. That also expired Aug. 16, 1980
Erden testified that she submitted
proof of her student status to the Turkish
educational attache in New York in July,
1980. However, her application for pass
port extension was delayed in New
York, she claimed.
According to her testimony, she did
not receive an answer from the Turkish
attache until April 10, 1981 — the day she
was arrested in her home in the Univer
sity's Amazon student housing.
At that time, she reported, she was
granted permission to extend her stay to
April 4,1981 — the extension had expired
almost a week before she received the
notification.
Witte presented several letters from
Erden's University colleagues “testifying
to the excellence of Ms. Erden’s work.’’
Witte then moved the INS reconsider
its action against Erden and grant her a
retroactive visa extension.
However, after conferring with INS
officials, Warren said the INS rejected
that suggestion because Erden’s current
extension had expired April 4.
In his ruling, Jones said he found the
evidence of Erden’s deportablility “clear
and unequivocal.” He also said he didn’t
have the jurisdiction to grant an exten
sion of Erden’s visa
He gave Witte until May 15 to file an
appeal. After the hearing, Witte said she
plans to appeal on grounds that Jones
erred when he said he didn't have the
power to grant the retroactive extension.
She also maintained that Erden is not
deportable. “There is absolutely nothing
substantial at all against this woman,”
Witte said
Erden’s husband, Guchan, was pre
sent at the hearing.
The INS charges that Guchan also has
overstayed his visa. His hearing was
scheduled to follow Erden's but was
postponed until today because the first
hearing ran an hour longer than expect
ed
Witte requested the postponement
because she had a previous court ap
pointment she could not postpone
Caveat emptor
Agency helps consumers fight
stealing, cheating businesses
By DAWN GARCIA
Of the Emerald
Are you worried and distressed?
Can't seem to get no rest?
Put our product to the test
You 'll feel just fine!
Buy the Big Bright Green Pleasure Ma
chine...
-Simon and Garfunkel
The days of cure-all potions and "lit
tle liver pills” may be gone, but some of
the bogus businessmen seem to have
stuck around.
And many hapless consumers find
out the hard way, says Josh Marquis.
Marquis runs the Consumer Protec
tion Division in the Lane County District
Attorney’s office, which conducts as
many as 500 consumer-fraud inves
tigations a month,
"We get complaints about every bu
siness in town,” Marquis says, waving
his hand in the direction of dozens of
overstuffed files.
'he consumers involved often are
students.
"People under 25 and over 65 are
customarily victims of consumer
fraud,” Marquis says. "That's because
they have a limited base of comparison
and sometimes make snap decisions
involving a lot of money.”
Automobile purchases and repairs
account for half the complaints.
”1t’s not that car dealers are inher
ently bad,” Marquis says, "but car
deals involve a lot of money, hot
tempers and people trying to get
something for nothing.”
Restaurants, sweepstakes games
and coupon offers also are responsible
for beefs from unhappy consumers.
The division doesn’t act on every
complaint, however. Only those based
on Oregon's 1971 Deceptive Trade
Practices Law, which covers transac
tions between businesses and con
sumers, are accepted.
Marquis has his own handy definition
of the law: “Lying, cheating and
stealing are consumer fraud. Rude
ness, incompetence and stupidity are
not."
Breakdowns in communication and
"buyer’s remorse” are other causes for
consumer problems that don't qualify
as consumer fraud.
But what if you feel you’ve really been
swindled?
Marquis suggests calling the Con
sumer Protection Division at 687-4261
to determine if you do have a case, and
then come in and fill out a complaint
form. Attach a copy of any contracts,
advertisements or other paperwork in
volved.
The division will send a copy of the
complaint to the business, which then
is given two weeks to respond.
Most businesses respond immedia
tely. If they don’t, “The letters get more
threatening, and we can demand to
have them come in," Marquis says The
division then can go to the business
with what’s called a “consumer search
warrant" and investigate.
Most locally established businesses
are honest, though — "with occasional
lapses," Marquis says. But there are
some to be careful of.
“One to two percent are outright
thieves — businessmen by name only,"
he says.
Businesses accused of consumer
fraud are given the opportunity to sign
an "assurance of voluntary com
pliance” form before action is taken.
The form, which is not an admission of
guilt, serves to discourage the business
from continuing with its shady prac
tices because newspapers list affected
businesses.
If a company refuses to sign, it can be
fined, charged the DA’s costs and
closed down — besides reimbursing the
consumer for actual losses.
The entire complaint and investiga
tion process takes anywhere from two
weeks to a month on the average. But
some cases go on for years, Marquis
says.
The quickest way to handle con
sumer fraud is to be cautious in the first
place.
"Don’t look for a free lunch,” Mar
quis says. Realize that the business
man has to make a profit, but remain
constantly wary.
"If they’ve promised you the world,"
Marquis says, "get it in writing.”
iP ■