Warrantless Surveillance This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. The numbers Calls per hour 111 Feedback submitted 22 Average feedback per call 21 As of May 28, 2023, there are 33 states known to have introduced some form of alien land and property bills in the current or recent legislative session. A few have passed and signed into state law; some have died; others are still pending. State-by-state links to the legislations and a companion map are provided below as community resources. They are collected from multiple sources including research by APA Justice, Advancing Justice | AAJC, Committee of 100, National Agricultural Law Center, Project South, media reports, and crowdsourcing. Due to the dynamic nature of these developments, we plan to update the information periodically. We anticipate the introduction or continuation of alien land and property bills into future state legislative sessions. Title Oct. 4th 2023 Tracking Bills Read More Latest developments

Lei Guan 关磊 Docket ID: 8:20-cr-00127 District Court, C.D. California Date filed: Sep 10, 2020 Date ended: July 26, 2021 Table of Contents Overview 2021/07/12 Document 220-1 Exhibit A Five “Visa Fraud” Cases Links and References Overview On July 23, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the arrest of four scientists from China on an alleged visa violation. A fifth scientist, Lei Guan, was arrested for similar charges in August 2020. Lei Guan came to Los Angeles to work as a researcher in UCLA’s Department of Mathematics in 2018. On August 29, 2020, Lei Guan was charged with destroying evidence and alteration of records to obstruct an FBI investigation. One count of visa fraud and one count of making false statements were added in subsequent superseding indictments. If convicted, he faced a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. Lei Guan was detained for months at Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown Los Angeles awaiting trial. On July 23, 2021, DOJ motioned to drop their case against Lei Guan. U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald granted the motion to dismiss on July 26, 2021. The other four visa fraud cases were also dismissed at the same time. The five visa fraud cases including Lei Guan were identified under the China Initiative, but they were removed from the DOJ online report after their dismissals. 2021/07/12 Document 220-1 Exhibit A On July 12, 2021, a partially redacted draft FBI report appeared as part of an exhibit in a non-motion response filed in the case of Lei Guan. The lead draft report of the exhibit was titled “ Fourth Military Medical University Interviews and Arrests and Arrests Likely Had Minimal Impact in Mitigating Technology Transfer Threats from PRC Students ” and dated March 19, 2021. The 28-page exhibit includes a draft white paper that provides assessments on seven cases under the "China Initiative," including the five that were dismissed. The draft paper states that targeting of the researcher and students "likely had minimal, short-term positive impact on the technology transfer threat from PRC students, scholars, and researchers." In addition, "[o]nly two of the arrests has a nexus to technology transfer violations, ... and none included charges related to other counterintelligence concerns." The operation "likely contributed to the deterioration of the FBI's delicate yet valuable relationship with some US universities by not exercising more caution before approaching PRC students." Although there was strong advice against investigating and arresting students and researchers with the operation," several FBI field offices proceeded with visa fraud charges for individuals who met the criteria but did not meet the threshold for a high-priority technology transfer threat." "It is in the best national security interest of the FBI to strategically identify, target, and mitigate PRC technology transfer threats while also preserving educational opportunities in the United States for PRC students who do not pose a threat," said an unredacted portion of the FBI report. A footnote also stated that "the FBI does not consider clinical medicine an area of concern for PRC technology transfer." According to the exhibit, a FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst drafted the report as a response to a February 2021 award nomination. She was originally included as part of the award nomination but disagreed about the "high impact" the award's nomination claimed to have made. She did not think the arrest of the PLA students met the threshold for high impact at that time, as she assessed at an early stage the impact was minimal. The draft was a way for her to dispute the information contained in the awards packet. She removed herself from the award nomination. Five “Visa Fraud” Cases The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced visa fraud charges against four of five scientists from China on July 23, 2020. The fifth scientist, Lei Guan, was first charged in August 2020 for Destruction and Alteration of Records in a Federal Investigation with visa fraud charges added in September 2020. The announcement of the visa fraud cases coincided with the U.S. order to close China’s consulate in Houston, accusing it to be a "spy center" to conduct spying activities with local medical centers or universities. The five Chinese scientists are: Lei Guan (关磊), Visiting researcher (mathematics), University of California at Los Angeles Dr. Chen Song (宋琛) , Visiting researcher (neurology), Stanford University Dr. Juan Tang (唐娟) , Visiting researcher (cancer), University of California at Davis Xin Wang (王欣) , Visiting researcher (neurology), University of California at San Francisco Kaikai Zhao (赵凯凯) , Doctoral candidate (machine learning and artificial intelligence), Indiana University These five visa fraud cases were abruptly dismissed by DOJ in July 2021 without an explanation for the dismissals. Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman issued a statement that said "[r]ecent developments in a handful of cases involving defendants with alleged, undisclosed ties to the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China have prompted the department to re-evaluate these prosecutions... We have determined that it is now in the interest of justice to dismiss them.” On July 22, 2021, Reuters reported that there was "recently disclosed evidence of a report by FBI analysts that questioned if the visa application question on 'military service' was clear enough for Chinese medical scientists at military universities and hospitals." In another report by the Washington Post, an unnamed official was quoted to say that "the punishment for visa fraud typically does not exceed a year. That fact, combined with the prospect of prolonged litigation in several instances, led officials to assess that the interests of justice were best served by dropping the cases." Upon further research, defense attorneys for Dr. Juan Tang filed a Defendant's Trial Brief and Memorandum Supporting Dismissal at Trial on July 19, 2021. It included a section on "The FBI’s Deliberate Failure to Disclose Critical Exculpatory Evidence to the Court and to the Defense Warrants a Dismissal of this Ill-Conceived Indictment." "There is dissension in the FBI’s own ranks," the trial brief started. It cited that the government intentionally did not comply with the discovery order for the trial and highlighted that "... just days ago, a heavily redacted report dated for release four months ago, on April 1, 2021, which the government did not disclose to this Court when it ruled on Dr. Tang’s Motion to Dismiss." Exhibit A shows a FBI Background Note dated April 1, which includes a statement that investigations and expert interviews "suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it comes to declaring one's military service or affiliation." DOJ motioned to dismiss Dr. Juan Tang’s case four days before the trial was to start on July 26, 2021. On July 12, 2021, a partially redacted draft FBI report appeared as part of an exhibit in a non-motion response filed in the case of Lei Guan. The 28-page exhibit includes a draft white paper that provides assessments on seven cases under the "China Initiative," including the five that were dismissed. The draft paper states that targeting of the researcher and students "likely had minimal, short-term positive impact on the technology transfer threat from PRC students, scholars, and researchers." In addition, "[o]nly two of the arrests has a nexus to technology transfer violations, ... and none included charges related to other counterintelligence concerns." The operation "likely contributed to the deterioration of the FBI's delicate yet valuable relationship with some US universities by not exercising more caution before approaching PRC students." Although there was strong advice against investigating and arresting students and researchers with the operation, "several FBI field offices proceeded with visa fraud charges for individuals who met the criteria but did not meet the threshold for a high-priority technology transfer threat." "It is in the best national security interest of the FBI to strategically identify, target, and mitigate PRC technology transfer threats while also preserving educational opportunities in the United States for PRC students who do not pose a threat," said an unredacted portion of the FBI report. A footnote also stated that "the FBI does not consider clinical medicine an area of concern for PRC technology transfer." According to the exhibit, a FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst drafted the report as a response to a February 2021 award nomination. She was originally included as part of the award nomination but disagreed about the "high impact" the award's nomination claimed to have made. She did not think the arrest of the PLA students met the threshold for high impact at that time, as she assessed at an early stage the impact was minimal. The draft was a way for her to dispute the information contained in the awards packet. She removed herself from the award nomination. In December 2020, John Demers, former head of the China Initiative at DOJ, and William Evanina, former chief of the counterintelligence branch at ODNI, attributed without supporting facts and evidence that more than 1,000 Chinese researchers from affiliated with China's People's Liberation Army fled the U.S. after the FBI conducted interviews in more than 20 cities and the State Department closed China’s Houston consulate in July 2020. Some of the visa fraud prosecutions were based on photos of the individuals in uniform. However, wearing a uniform does not always imply military service. There are two non-armed branches in the uniformed services of the United States, including the Public Health Service which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps which is part of the Department of Commerce. Previous Item Next Item

Juan Tang 唐娟 Docket ID: 2:20-cr-00134 District Court, E.D. California Date filed: Aug 6, 2020 Date ended: July 23, 2021 Table of Contents Overview 2021/07/19 Defense Motion to Dismiss Five “Visa Fraud” Cases Links and References Overview On July 23, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the arrest of four scientists from China on claimed visa violation, including Dr. Juan Tang. A fifth scientist was arrested for similar charges in August 2020. Dr. Juan Tang has had a successful and award-winning career as a cancer researcher. She was invited to participate in a cancer research program at the University of California, Davis, as a visiting scholar by a leading professor and researcher at the Cancer Center. Dr. Tang was issued a J-1 visa in November 2019. The J-1 visa is often issued to non-immigrant scholars and researchers. DOJ charged Dr. Tang with one count of visa fraud and one count of making a false statement, alleging that she lied about her affiliation with China’s military. If convicted, she faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. On July 22, 2021, DOJ motioned to drop their case against Dr. Tang. U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez granted the motion to dismiss on July 23, 2021. The other four visa fraud cases were also dismissed at the same time. The five visa fraud cases including Dr. Tang were identified under the China Initiative, but they were removed from the DOJ online report after their dismissals. 2021/07/19 Defense Motion to Dismiss A jury trial of Dr. Tang was scheduled to begin in Sacramento, California on July 26, 2021. On July 19, 2021, defense attorneys for Dr. Tang submitted a trial brief and memorandum to support dismissal at trial. The trial brief provided background of the case and included two exhibits . The defense attorneys contended that the FBI deliberately failed to disclose critical exculpatory evidence to the Court and to the defense, including a heavily-redacted FBI Background Note in Exhibit A. The defense attorneys opined that China's PLA is not a direct analog to how the US military services are set up, especially regarding the PLA's Civilian Cadre, quoting from Exhibit A that “...Among the Civilian Cadre are a significant number of doctors and nurses and other professionals that at times are required to wear a military type uniform, but who would not necessarily consider themselves soldiers despite being considered as active duty.” Three days later, DOJ motioned to drop their case against Dr. Tang, which U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez granted on July 23, 2021. [jump to menu] Five “Visa Fraud” Cases The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced visa fraud charges against four of five scientists from China on July 23, 2020. The fifth scientist, Lei Guan, was first charged in August 2020 for Destruction and Alteration of Records in a Federal Investigation with visa fraud charges added in September 2020. The announcement of the visa fraud cases coincided with the U.S. order to close China’s consulate in Houston, accusing it to be a "spy center" to conduct spying activities with local medical centers or universities. The five Chinese scientists are: Lei Guan (关磊) , Visiting researcher (mathematics), University of California at Los Angeles Dr. Chen Song (宋琛) , Visiting researcher (neurology), Stanford University Dr. Juan Tang (唐娟), Visiting researcher (cancer), University of California at Davis Xin Wang (王欣) , Visiting researcher (neurology), University of California at San Francisco Kaikai Zhao (赵凯凯) , Doctoral candidate (machine learning and artificial intelligence), Indiana University These five visa fraud cases were abruptly dismissed by DOJ in July 2021 without an explanation for the dismissals. Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman issued a statement that said "[r]ecent developments in a handful of cases involving defendants with alleged, undisclosed ties to the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China have prompted the department to re-evaluate these prosecutions... We have determined that it is now in the interest of justice to dismiss them.” On July 22, 2021, Reuters reported that there was "recently disclosed evidence of a report by FBI analysts that questioned if the visa application question on 'military service' was clear enough for Chinese medical scientists at military universities and hospitals." In another report by the Washington Post, an unnamed official was quoted to say that "the punishment for visa fraud typically does not exceed a year. That fact, combined with the prospect of prolonged litigation in several instances, led officials to assess that the interests of justice were best served by dropping the cases." Upon further research, defense attorneys for Dr. Juan Tang filed a Defendant's Trial Brief and Memorandum Supporting Dismissal at Trial on July 19, 2021. It included a section on "The FBI’s Deliberate Failure to Disclose Critical Exculpatory Evidence to the Court and to the Defense Warrants a Dismissal of this Ill-Conceived Indictment." "There is dissension in the FBI’s own ranks," the trial brief started. It cited that the government intentionally did not comply with the discovery order for the trial and highlighted that "... just days ago, a heavily redacted report dated for release four months ago, on April 1, 2021, which the government did not disclose to this Court when it ruled on Dr. Tang’s Motion to Dismiss." Exhibit A shows a FBI Background Note dated April 1, which includes a statement that investigations and expert interviews "suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it comes to declaring one's military service or affiliation." DOJ motioned to dismiss Dr. Juan Tang’s case four days before the trial was to start on July 26, 2021. On July 12, 2021, a partially redacted draft FBI report appeared as part of an exhibit in a non-motion response filed in the case of Lei Guan. The 28-page exhibit includes a draft white paper that provides assessments on seven cases under the "China Initiative," including the five that were dismissed. The draft paper states that targeting of the researcher and students "likely had minimal, short-term positive impact on the technology transfer threat from PRC students, scholars, and researchers." In addition, "[o]nly two of the arrests has a nexus to technology transfer violations, ... and none included charges related to other counterintelligence concerns." The operation "likely contributed to the deterioration of the FBI's delicate yet valuable relationship with some US universities by not exercising more caution before approaching PRC students." Although there was strong advice against investigating and arresting students and researchers with the operation, "several FBI field offices proceeded with visa fraud charges for individuals who met the criteria but did not meet the threshold for a high-priority technology transfer threat." "It is in the best national security interest of the FBI to strategically identify, target, and mitigate PRC technology transfer threats while also preserving educational opportunities in the United States for PRC students who do not pose a threat," said an unredacted portion of the FBI report. A footnote also stated that "the FBI does not consider clinical medicine an area of concern for PRC technology transfer." According to the exhibit, a FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst drafted the report as a response to a February 2021 award nomination. She was originally included as part of the award nomination but disagreed about the "high impact" the award's nomination claimed to have made. She did not think the arrest of the PLA students met the threshold for high impact at that time, as she assessed at an early stage the impact was minimal. The draft was a way for her to dispute the information contained in the awards packet. She removed herself from the award nomination. In December 2020, John Demers, former head of the China Initiative at DOJ, and William Evanina, former chief of the counterintelligence branch at ODNI, attributed without supporting facts and evidence that more than 1,000 Chinese researchers from affiliated with China's People's Liberation Army fled the U.S. after the FBI conducted interviews in more than 20 cities and the State Department closed China’s Houston consulate in July 2020. Some of the visa fraud prosecutions were based on photos of the individuals in uniform. However, wearing a uniform does not always imply military service. There are two non-armed branches in the uniformed services of the United States, including the Public Health Service which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps which is part of the Department of Commerce. Previous Item Next Item

The China Initiative This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. The numbers Calls per hour 111 Feedback submitted 22 Average feedback per call 21 As of May 28, 2023, there are 33 states known to have introduced some form of alien land and property bills in the current or recent legislative session. A few have passed and signed into state law; some have died; others are still pending. State-by-state links to the legislations and a companion map are provided below as community resources. They are collected from multiple sources including research by APA Justice, Advancing Justice | AAJC, Committee of 100, National Agricultural Law Center, Project South, media reports, and crowdsourcing. Due to the dynamic nature of these developments, we plan to update the information periodically. We anticipate the introduction or continuation of alien land and property bills into future state legislative sessions. Title Oct. 4th 2023 Tracking Bills Read More Latest developments

#369 1/5 Meeting; 2025 Changed Research; CAPAC 2025 Review; ACLU Update; Summaries Posted;+ December 22, 2025 Read #368 Gary Locke Honored by NAPA; William Tong Elected; APA History in CT; NAPABA Updates; + December 15, 2025 Read #367 C.A.C.A./AAJC Updates; Jane Wu; Mass Detention Policy; Rising Fear/Collapsing Courts;+ December 12, 2025 Read #366 12/1 Meeting; Giving Tuesday; Yanping Chen; Internatonal Students; CAIR Sues; US Data+ November 28, 2025 Read #365 12/1 Meeting; CACA President Kin Hui; Will Kim; Statistician Uproar; AI Talent/Prize + November 24, 2025 Read #364 ICE Arrests and Deaths; Friends of NAPAM Veterans Day/Honors; APAICS Opportunities; + November 18, 2025 Read #363 Andy Phillips on Dr. Yanping Chen Case; US Science & Data at Crossrords; 10/3 Summary+ November 11, 2025 Read #362 Privacy Cases of Drs. Yanping Chen and Wen Ho Lee; AAJC Update; TX/FL Alien Land Laws+ November 7, 2025 Read #361 11/3 Meeting; Chinese STEM Students; Brain Drain; Jane Wu v NWU; Birthright Citizens;+ November 3, 2025 Read #360 11/3 Meeting; 10/16 Webinar Videos; Advocacy 101; PBS: Builders of the Silicon Dream;+ October 27, 2025 Read #359 Andy Phillips to Speak on 11/3; Dr. Wen Ho Lee; 6/2 Meeting Summary Posted; C.N. Yang+ October 23, 2025 Read #358 Vincent Wang Speech; Maggie Lewis & Pat Eddington Remarks; Trump "Compact" Rejected; + October 20, 2025 Read < < 1 1 1 Newsletters APA Justice began publishing a free periodic newsletter about 4-7 times a month in July 2020. You can subscribe here . Visit the Virtual Library to search the entire collection. Filter by year

Xiaoming Zhang Previous Item Next Item

Kaikai Zhao 赵凯凯 Docket ID: 1:20-cr-00187 District Court, S.D. Indiana Date filed: Aug 4, 2020 Date ended: July 26, 2021 Table of Contents Overview Five “Visa Fraud” Cases Links and References Overview On July 23, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the arrest of four scientists from China on claimed visa violation, including Kaikai Zhao. A fifth scientist was arrested for similar charges in August 2020. Kaikai Zhao applied for a United States Non-Immigrant Visa in June 2018 and was issued an F1 Visa for a PhD program studying machine learning and artificial Intelligence at Indiana University (IU) in Bloomington, Indiana. On July 23, 2020, DOJ charged Kaikai Zhao and charged with one count of visa fraud and one count of making false statement. On July 23, 2021, Acting U.S. Attorney John E. Childress and Assistant United States Attorney Matthew J. Rinka motioned to dismiss the case against Kaikai Zhao “with prejudice, in the interests of justice.” On July 26, 2021, Judge James R. Sweeny, II, granted the dismissal of the case against Kaikai Zhao. The other four visa fraud cases were also dismissed at the same time. The five visa fraud cases including Kaikai Zhao were identified under the China Initiative, but they were removed from the DOJ online report after their dismissals. Five “Visa Fraud” Cases he Department of Justice (DOJ) announced visa fraud charges against four of five scientists from China on July 23, 2020. The fifth scientist, Lei Guan, was first charged in August 2020 for Destruction and Alteration of Records in a Federal Investigation with visa fraud charges added in September 2020. The announcement of the visa fraud cases coincided with the U.S. order to close China’s consulate in Houston, accusing it to be a "spy center" to conduct spying activities with local medical centers or universities. The five Chinese scientists are: Lei Guan (关磊) , Visiting researcher (mathematics), University of California at Los Angeles Dr. Chen Song (宋琛) , Visiting researcher (neurology), Stanford University Dr. Juan Tang (唐娟) , Visiting researcher (cancer), University of California at Davis Xin Wang (王欣) , Visiting researcher (neurology), University of California at San Francisco Kaikai Zhao (赵凯凯), Doctoral candidate (machine learning and artificial intelligence), Indiana University These five visa fraud cases were abruptly dismissed by DOJ in July 2021 without an explanation for the dismissals. Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman issued a statement that said "[r]ecent developments in a handful of cases involving defendants with alleged, undisclosed ties to the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China have prompted the department to re-evaluate these prosecutions... We have determined that it is now in the interest of justice to dismiss them.” On July 22, 2021, Reuters reported that there was "recently disclosed evidence of a report by FBI analysts that questioned if the visa application question on 'military service' was clear enough for Chinese medical scientists at military universities and hospitals." In another report by the Washington Post, an unnamed official was quoted to say that "the punishment for visa fraud typically does not exceed a year. That fact, combined with the prospect of prolonged litigation in several instances, led officials to assess that the interests of justice were best served by dropping the cases." Upon further research, defense attorneys for Dr. Juan Tang filed a Defendant's Trial Brief and Memorandum Supporting Dismissal at Trial on July 19, 2021. It included a section on "The FBI’s Deliberate Failure to Disclose Critical Exculpatory Evidence to the Court and to the Defense Warrants a Dismissal of this Ill-Conceived Indictment." "There is dissension in the FBI’s own ranks," the trial brief started. It cited that the government intentionally did not comply with the discovery order for the trial and highlighted that "... just days ago, a heavily redacted report dated for release four months ago, on April 1, 2021, which the government did not disclose to this Court when it ruled on Dr. Tang’s Motion to Dismiss." Exhibit A shows a FBI Background Note dated April 1, which includes a statement that investigations and expert interviews "suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it comes to declaring one's military service or affiliation." DOJ motioned to dismiss Dr. Juan Tang’s case four days before the trial was to start on July 26, 2021. On July 12, 2021, a partially redacted draft FBI report appeared as part of an exhibit in a non-motion response filed in the case of Lei Guan. The 28-page exhibit includes a draft white paper that provides assessments on seven cases under the "China Initiative," including the five that were dismissed. The draft paper states that targeting of the researcher and students "likely had minimal, short-term positive impact on the technology transfer threat from PRC students, scholars, and researchers." In addition, "[o]nly two of the arrests has a nexus to technology transfer violations, ... and none included charges related to other counterintelligence concerns." The operation "likely contributed to the deterioration of the FBI's delicate yet valuable relationship with some US universities by not exercising more caution before approaching PRC students." Although there was strong advice against investigating and arresting students and researchers with the operation, "several FBI field offices proceeded with visa fraud charges for individuals who met the criteria but did not meet the threshold for a high-priority technology transfer threat." "It is in the best national security interest of the FBI to strategically identify, target, and mitigate PRC technology transfer threats while also preserving educational opportunities in the United States for PRC students who do not pose a threat," said an unredacted portion of the FBI report. A footnote also stated that "the FBI does not consider clinical medicine an area of concern for PRC technology transfer." According to the exhibit, a FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst drafted the report as a response to a February 2021 award nomination. She was originally included as part of the award nomination but disagreed about the "high impact" the award's nomination claimed to have made. She did not think the arrest of the PLA students met the threshold for high impact at that time, as she assessed at an early stage the impact was minimal. The draft was a way for her to dispute the information contained in the awards packet. She removed herself from the award nomination. In December 2020, John Demers, former head of the China Initiative at DOJ, and William Evanina, former chief of the counterintelligence branch at ODNI, attributed without supporting facts and evidence that more than 1,000 Chinese researchers affiliated with China's People's Liberation Army fled the U.S. after the FBI conducted interviews in more than 20 cities and the State Department closed China’s Houston consulate in July 2020. Some of the visa fraud prosecutions were based on photos of the individuals in uniform. However, wearing a uniform does not always imply military service. There are two non-armed branches in the uniformed services of the United States, including the Public Health Service which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps which is part of the Department of Commerce. Previous Item Next Item

Chen Song 宋琛 Docket ID: 3:21-cr-00011 District Court, N.D. California Date filed: Jan 7, 2021 Date ended: July 23, 2021 Table of Contents Overview 2021/10/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Five “Visa Fraud” Case Links and References Overview On July 23, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the arrest of four scientists from China on claimed visa violation, including Dr. Chen Song. A fifth scientist was arrested for similar charges in August 2020. Dr. Chen Song was a visiting researcher at Stanford University, specializing in neurological studies and brain diseases. She came to the U.S. with her young daughter in 2018 on a J-1 visa, which is often used for scholars and researchers. During her visa application process, she allegedly did not disclose her affiliation with the Chinese military. On January 7, 2021, Dr. Song was charged with one count of visa fraud. If convicted, Dr. Song faced a maximum statutory penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. On February 19, 2021, Dr. Song was charged additionally for obstruction of official proceedings; two counts of alteration, destruction, mutilation, or concealment of records; and making false statements to a government agency. On July 23, 2021, Acting U.S. Attorney Stephanie M. Hinds motioned to dismiss the case against Dr. Chen Song, a visiting researcher on neurology from China at Stanford University. On the same day, U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted the motion to dismiss. Dr. Song's passport was returned immediately, and she travelled back to China to continue her medical practice. The other four visa fraud cases were also dismissed at the same time. The five visa fraud cases including Dr. Song were identified under the China Initiative, but they were removed from the DOJ online report after their dismissals. Dr, Song’s defense attorney, John Hemann, spoke about her case during the October 2021 APA Justice monthly meeting. 2021/10/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting John Hemann, Partner at Cooley LLP, was Dr. Song’s defense attorney. He served as chief of the special prosecutions and national security unit and deputy chief of the criminal division at the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. When the “China Initiative” began at the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2018, John Hemann was literally in the room. John Hemann spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on October 5, 2021. According to John Hemann, the case of Dr. Song should never have been approached by the U.S. government as a criminal matter, echoing an earlier remark by U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin at the meeting. Worse yet, Dr. Song was charged at the same time as four other Chinese doctors in an example of what can only be described as rounding up the usual suspects to fight clearly an imagined problem. None of the five were charged with trade secret violations or espionage. And there was never any evidence of trade secret violations or espionage. John Hemann vigorously pursued information discovery in Dr. Song’s case. The government claimed it was classified and information began to come out that even within the government, there was discomfort about the way the FBI and DOJ were handling the matter. There were serious questions about whether it should ever have been charged in the first place. Under the weight of these increasing disclosures, the government dismissed all the charges against Dr. Song and the other four doctors in July 2021. Dr. Song was able to immediately return to China where she has been reunited with her young daughter, her husband, and her family, and back to practicing medicine. John Hemann echoed Rep. Raskin’s comments about due process and national security. There are valid concerns about national security. But those concerns cannot be manifested into targeting or profiling people of a race or national origin because it does not work in the first case. As a prosecutor who spent a lot of time working on national security matters, John Hemann said that profiling is not going to solve the national security problems that it is meant or allegedly motivated to solve. It makes us less safe because it undermines exactly what makes us strongest, which is a constitutional commitment to due process. That is what makes us different. That is what makes us as a country better and more hopeful than any other country. And it all comes down to due process. And while national security, information security, and trade secret thefts are real concerns and real problems, they are not problems that can be identified by first looking at suspects and then looking for crimes. John was doing national security cases and trade secret cases long before the China initiative. United States v. United Microelectronics Corporation (3:18-cr-00465) was the case that launched the China Initiative. It was a trade secret case that was identified the old-fashioned way by first seeing evidence of an actual trade secret theft and then figuring out who committed the crime. John Hemann and DOJ worked very closely with the Taiwanese government. The company that employed the individuals who allegedly stole the trade secrets was a Taiwanese company. It was worked out that the Taiwanese government would prosecute the individuals and the US government would focus on the companies. One of the companies pled guilty, and the case against the Chinese company, Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co Ltd, moved forward. That case did not need a China initiative. That case moved forward on the evidence with John’s successors in DOJ. On February 27, 2024, Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co Ltd was cleared of U.S. allegations that the Chinese chipmaker stole trade secrets, in a case that fanned tensions in an intensifying technology race between the United States and China. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney in San Francisco found the company not guilty after a non-jury trial. Five “Visa Fraud” Cases The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced visa fraud charges against four of five scientists from China on July 23, 2020. The fifth scientist, Lei Guan, was first charged in August 2020 for Destruction and Alteration of Records in a Federal Investigation with visa fraud charges added in September 2020. The announcement of the visa fraud cases coincided with the U.S. order to close China’s consulate in Houston, accusing it to be a "spy center" to conduct spying activities with local medical centers or universities. The five Chinese scientists are: Lei Guan (关磊) , Visiting researcher (mathematics), University of California at Los Angeles Dr. Chen Song (宋琛), Visiting researcher (neurology), Stanford University Dr. Juan Tang (唐娟) , Visiting researcher (cancer), University of California at Davis Xin Wang (王欣) , Visiting researcher (neurology), University of California at San Francisco Kaikai Zhao (赵凯凯) , Doctoral candidate (machine learning and artificial intelligence), Indiana University These five visa fraud cases were abruptly dismissed by DOJ in July 2021 without an explanation for the dismissals. Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman issued a statement that said "[r]ecent developments in a handful of cases involving defendants with alleged, undisclosed ties to the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China have prompted the department to re-evaluate these prosecutions... We have determined that it is now in the interest of justice to dismiss them.” On July 22, 2021, Reuters reported that there was "recently disclosed evidence of a report by FBI analysts that questioned if the visa application question on 'military service' was clear enough for Chinese medical scientists at military universities and hospitals." In another report by the Washington Post, an unnamed official was quoted to say that "the punishment for visa fraud typically does not exceed a year. That fact, combined with the prospect of prolonged litigation in several instances, led officials to assess that the interests of justice were best served by dropping the cases." Upon further research, defense attorneys for Dr. Juan Tang filed a Defendant's Trial Brief and Memorandum Supporting Dismissal at Trial on July 19, 2021. It included a section on "The FBI’s Deliberate Failure to Disclose Critical Exculpatory Evidence to the Court and to the Defense Warrants a Dismissal of this Ill-Conceived Indictment." "There is dissension in the FBI’s own ranks," the trial brief started. It cited that the government intentionally did not comply with the discovery order for the trial and highlighted that "... just days ago, a heavily redacted report dated for release four months ago, on April 1, 2021, which the government did not disclose to this Court when it ruled on Dr. Tang’s Motion to Dismiss." Exhibit A shows a FBI Background Note dated April 1, which includes a statement that investigations and expert interviews "suggest that the visa application form (DS-160) potentially lacks clarity when it comes to declaring one's military service or affiliation." DOJ motioned to dismiss Dr. Juan Tang’s case four days before the trial was to start on July 26, 2021. On July 12, 2021, a partially redacted draft FBI report appeared as part of an exhibit in a non-motion response filed in the case of Lei Guan. The 28-page exhibit includes a draft white paper that provides assessments on seven cases under the "China Initiative," including the five that were dismissed. The draft paper states that targeting of the researcher and students "likely had minimal, short-term positive impact on the technology transfer threat from PRC students, scholars, and researchers." In addition, "[o]nly two of the arrests has a nexus to technology transfer violations, ... and none included charges related to other counterintelligence concerns." The operation "likely contributed to the deterioration of the FBI's delicate yet valuable relationship with some US universities by not exercising more caution before approaching PRC students." Although there was strong advice against investigating and arresting students and researchers with the operation, "several FBI field offices proceeded with visa fraud charges for individuals who met the criteria but did not meet the threshold for a high-priority technology transfer threat." "It is in the best national security interest of the FBI to strategically identify, target, and mitigate PRC technology transfer threats while also preserving educational opportunities in the United States for PRC students who do not pose a threat," said an unredacted portion of the FBI report. A footnote also stated that "the FBI does not consider clinical medicine an area of concern for PRC technology transfer." According to the exhibit, a FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst drafted the report as a response to a February 2021 award nomination. She was originally included as part of the award nomination but disagreed about the "high impact" the award's nomination claimed to have made. She did not think the arrest of the PLA students met the threshold for high impact at that time, as she assessed at an early stage the impact was minimal. The draft was a way for her to dispute the information contained in the awards packet. She removed herself from the award nomination. In December 2020, John Demers, former head of the China Initiative at DOJ, and William Evanina, former chief of the counterintelligence branch at ODNI, attributed without supporting facts and evidence that more than 1,000 Chinese researchers affiliated with China's People's Liberation Army fled the U.S. after the FBI conducted interviews in more than 20 cities and the State Department closed China’s Houston consulate in July 2020. Some of the visa fraud prosecutions were based on photos of the individuals in uniform. However, wearing a uniform does not always imply military service. There are two non-armed branches in the uniformed services of the United States, including the Public Health Service which is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps which is part of the Department of Commerce. Previous Item Next Item

Song Guo Zheng Previous Item Next Item

Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆 Docket ID: 1:21-cr-00109 District Court, N.D. Georgia Date filed: Mar 18, 2021 Date Ended: Apr 14, 2025 Robert Fisher , Partner at Nixon Peabody, was the defense attorney for MIT Professor Gang Chen 陈刚 . He spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025, and introduced Professor Gee-Kung (GK) Chang 張繼昆 , whom Robert also represented with colleague Brian Kelly . Rob said this is a critical time for the country and for the Asian American community. Although the China Initiative was officially ended, similar prosecutions are still occurring—particularly targeting professors, scientists, and professionals with ties to China. Rob explained that GK was accused of wire fraud based on allegations that he and a colleague from ZTE conspired to misuse J-1 visa students, supposedly having them work at ZTE while being paid by Georgia Tech. However, the defense pointed out that, even according to the government’s own account, the students were working at Georgia Tech. The indictment was fundamentally flawed—it failed to allege that the financial component was the actual object of the fraud. As a result, the court dismissed most of the charges, leaving only one remaining. That final charge—visa fraud—was also challenged. GK had no role in the visa application process, and Georgia Tech had never provided training on compliance or rules regarding foreign collaboration. Without knowledge or training, there could not have been intent to defraud. Eventually, the government dropped the last remaining charge. GK was fully exonerated after a four-year ordeal under the era of the China Initiative. GK's case highlights a broader issue: many professors were once encouraged to collaborate with China, only to later face prosecution as political attitudes shifted. These retroactive investigations have damaged careers and chilled academic collaboration, especially within the Asian American community. Professor GK Chang shared his personal account of a harrowing legal ordeal during the May 2025 APA Justice monthly meeting. Quoting his written statement titled "From Injustice to Integrity: A Journey Through Fire," GK told his story that "I stand before you today, not as a victim of injustice, but as a witness to the power of integrity, forged in the fiercest fires of adversity. My journey was never just about reclaiming my freedom — it was about turning pain into a higher purpose, one that lights the way for those still suffering injustice." GK was born in China in 1947, moved to Taiwan as a baby during the Chinese Civil War, and came to the U.S. in 1970 for graduate studies in physics. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Riverside in 1976 and became a U.S. citizen in 1981. With 23 years of experience in industry—including leadership roles at Bell Labs, Bellcore, Telcordia, and OpNext—GK became a pioneer in optoelectronic integration and fiber-optic communications, holding over 50 patents. He received multiple awards, including the R&D 100 Award and the Bellcore President’s Award. In 2002, he joined Georgia Tech as an Eminent Scholar Chair Professor. There, he led major NSF-sponsored research on fiber-wireless networks that laid the foundation for 5G and 6G technologies. He advised 30 Ph.D. students, published over 500 papers, and earned Fellow honors from IEEE and the Optical Society of America. He was recognized as a distinguished alumnus of National Tsing Hua University and received Georgia Tech’s Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award. On March 24, 2021, GK’s life was changed forever when nine federal agents arrested him at home without warning, accusing him of conspiracy and wire fraud under the now-defunct “China Initiative.” Despite his clean record and decades of academic and industry contributions, he was publicly indicted without prior notice. Though released on a low bail, the arrest devastated his personal and professional life. The media portrayed him as guilty, his reputation collapsed, and colleagues and friends distanced themselves, leaving him isolated and emotionally shattered. Despite being wrongfully indicted, GK stood firm, relying on his values, family, and a few loyal allies. Through careful review of over a million pages of documents with his legal team of Rob Fisher and Brian Kelly, he uncovered major flaws in the case against him: factual inaccuracies, missing evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. The charges lacked legal grounding and were based partly on the testimony of a disgruntled former student. The government misunderstood academic norms and pursued the case without proof of intent, fraud, or personal gain—revealing a deeply flawed and unjust prosecution. Faced with multiple plea offers, including one to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor, GK refused to admit guilt for a crime he did not commit. He chose to fight on despite financial strain. A pivotal moment came in August 2023, when a prosecutor admitted in court that GK had not gained any money from the alleged offenses—contradicting the indictment’s claims. This crucial fact had been withheld from the grand jury, exposing serious prosecutorial misconduct and strengthening his case for vindication. The case shifted dramatically after the court dismissed 9 of the 10 charges on March 1, 2024. Empowered by this decision, GK demanded a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, confident of full vindication. However, the emotional strain took a serious toll: he suffered a heart attack in May 2024 and underwent emergency surgery. As he recovered, his focus turned not just to clearing his name, but reclaiming his dignity. The ordeal was nearing its end, but had already come at a profound personal cost. The final charge was dismissed on April 14, 2025, through a motion filed by the prosecutor and approved by the judge, fully exonerating GK without a trial. Yet, the long-awaited freedom brought no joy. After four years of legal battles, he was left emotionally scarred, physically worn, and financially depleted. Professionally, the damage was irreversible—four crucial years of innovation and contribution at the peak of his career were lost forever. Despite the pain, the ordeal brought GK clarity and a renewed sense of purpose. He emerged not only as a survivor but as a seeker—of truth, justice, and understanding. His faith in the justice system was shaken, as he came to see its vulnerability to error, bias, and ambition. He now believes that justice does not automatically protect the innocent and must be actively pursued with courage and conviction. Upholding what is right requires strength, even in the face of overwhelming adversity—because justice is never guaranteed, only earned. Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , GK concluded his statement by stating: "I share my testimony, 'A Journey Through Fire,' not for sympathy, but as a warning—and as a beacon. "To those suffering similar injustice: "You are not alone. "And by standing together, "we can help ensure that no one else must endure this tribulation again." References and Links 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting: GK Chang and Robert Fisher (video 19:00 2025/05/05 Gee-Kung Chang: 20250505 GK Chang, A Journey Through Fire, revised July 19, 2025 .pdf Download PDF • 218KB 2025/04/15 Law360: Judge Ends 'China Initiative' Prosecution Of Ex-Ga. Tech Prof 2021/03/24 DOJ: Georgia Institute of Technology professor charged with Visa and wire fraud Previous Item Next Item

Newsletters Monthly Meetings Impacted Persons View our Activities

Chinese American? Who is a Chinese American? What is the Chinese American population? These questions may appear simple on the surface, but they are subject to definitions and interpretations. They have also evolved over time. Defining Chinese American For data collection purposes, the Office of Management and Budget is the official authority to define racial and ethnic categories for the United States. Today, Chinese American is a sub-category of Asian American, defined as "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam." This government definition generally reflects a recognized social definition. It is not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically, nor is it linked to the standard geographical definitions. In practice, an individual associates his or her race and ethnicity by self-identification. The U.S. Census Bureau produces official statistics on the Chinese American population according to this definition and self-identified data, which include U.S. citizens and nationals, as well as permanent residents. Under this definition and interpretation, a Chinese American may also be described as a Chinese in America. Definition used in social, legal and other applications may vary, such as the requirement of U.S. citizenship. Basic Statistics The first recorded arrival of three Chinese sailors in the U.S. travelled from Canton (now Guangzhou), China on board the ship Pallas to Baltimore, Maryland in August 1785. The first recorded Chinese immigrants arrived in the U.S. around 1820. By 1860, the census counted 34,933 Chinese living in California. More than three quarters of them were miners and laborers who first came to the U.S. during the 1848-1855 Gold Rush and then helped built and completed the First Transcontinental Railroad by 1869. The 2010 census showed that the Asian population grew faster than any other race group over the previous decade. Chinese Americans was the largest detailed Asian group, with about 3.3 million people reporting Chinese alone and an additional 700,000 people identifying as both Chinese and one or more additional detailed Asian groups and/or another race. According to the 2017 American Community Survey, the Census Bureau estimated a population of Chinese Americans of one or more races to be slightly over 5 million, or about 1.5% of the total U.S. population. Additional statistics on Chinese in America are available from, for example, the Census Bureau , the Migration Policy Institute , and the Pew Research Center . Beyond Statistics Beyond these statistics, the Chinese American population is complex as it has evolved over the past two hundred years. Several waves of immigrations have occurred; they were also severely repressed for more than 60 years under the Chinese Exclusion Act. There are American-born Chinese (ABC) whose roots have been here for generations; there are also recent naturalized citizens and immigrants of diverse economic and educational background who came from Hong Kong, Taiwan, China and the rest of the world. Not surprisingly, more in-depth understanding about the Chinese American population varies according to perspectives, experiences, and even aspirations, notably between ABCs and more recent naturalized citizens and immigrants. Two prominent Chinese American leaders of such diverse background, who have long been engaged with APA Justice, offer their views on this topic. They are: Frank H. Wu (吴华扬), William L. Prosser Distinguished Professor, University of California Hastings College of the Law and author of Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White . Frank was born in Cleveland, Ohio, son of Chinese immigrants from Taiwan. His paper, "The New Chinese Diaspora Embracing the Model Minority and Perpetual Foreigner? ," was orginally published in Chinese Historical Society of America: History & Perspectives . Chinese translation of the paper was made by Kathy Liu, Steve Ning, and Julia Pan. Xiaoyan Zhang (张小彥), visiting professor at University of Pittsburgh and Chair of United Chinese Americans (UCA). Xiaoyang was born in Beijing, China and came to the U.S. in the early 1980s. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Xiaoyan authored the UCA manifesto "From Sojourner to Citizen " in 2018 and shares a paper here "American Democracy in the Eyes of a New Immigrant from China " about his personal experience and understanding. A Chinese verison is also available. China Policy: Huaren and Huaqiao The Chinese diaspora, consisting of both Chinese living overseas who are citizens of China (huaqiao 华侨), and people of Chinese descent who are citizens of foreign countries (huaren 华人), have significantly shaped the making of modern China. China’s policy towards its diaspora is primarily governed by its national interests and foreign policy imperatives. However, the Chinese government has been careful to ensure that the huaqiao and the huaren fall into different policy domains: Chinese citizens living overseas are subject to China’s domestic policies, while Chinese descendants who are citizens of other countries come under China’s foreign affairs. Nevertheless, from the beginning, the latter continue to be regarded as kinsfolk distinct from other foreign nationals. The huaqiao-huaren distinction is often blurred in ordinary discourse and this has been a source of much misunderstanding. However, it has not been the policy of the Chinese government to blur this distinction, and it is acutely aware of the complexity of the issue and is therefore very cautious about implying any change. As such, when terms such as huaqiao-huaren are introduced in the official lexicon, they are meant to acknowledge certain historical and contemporary realities, and not to deliberately obfuscate the two categories. The use of the combined term is in fact a recognition of the clear-cut distinction between the two groups, and is meant to convey a semantic balance in which neither category is emphasized at the expense of the other. And more from below by Wu Xiaoan, professor of history at Peking University and director of its Centre for the Study of Chinese Overseas Huaren or huaqiao? Beijing respects the difference and is not coercing foreigners to toe its line China’s Evolving Policy Towards The Chinese Diaspora in Southeast Asia (1949–2018) US Policy: National, Citizenship, US Persons U.S. State Department on Dual Nationality and Citizenship : Section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that “the term ‘national of the United States’ means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.” Therefore, U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals. Non-citizen nationality status refers only individuals who were born either in American Samoa or on Swains Island to parents who are not citizens of the United States. The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a national of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own nationality laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. national parents may be both a U.S. national and a national of the country of birth. Or, an individual having one nationality at birth may naturalize at a later date in another country and become a dual national. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to his or her U.S. citizenship. However, persons who acquire a foreign nationality after age 18 by applying for it may relinquish their U.S. nationality if they wish to do so... Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. For data collection and national security purposes, a "U.S. person" includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the United States. See U.S. Code § 1801 (i): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801 VS