Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
March 16, 2022
Russian Immigrant Who was Convicted of Fraud Must Leave the U.S.

Commit Insurance Fraud Go Directly to Jail and the Back to Russia

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/russian-immigrant-who-convicted-fraud-must-leave-us-zalma-esq-cfe and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4100 posts.

Posted on March 16, 2022 by Barry Zalma

Alexie Legassov, a convicted insurance fraud perpetrator, petitioned the USCA for review of a final order of removal and the denial of a motion to remand. In Alexei Legassov v. Attorney General United States Of America, No. 21-2586, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (February 24, 2022) the USCA decided it was time he returned to mother Russia.
FACTS

Legassov, a Russian citizen, has lived in the United States since 1993. In 2018, he was convicted in New Jersey of insurance fraud and operating a corporation for criminal purposes. He was sentenced to prison terms of four and five years, respectively, and ordered to pay over $1.2 million in restitution. After the Government initiated removal proceedings in 2019, an Immigration Judge (IJ) concluded that Legassov was removable as a noncitizen convicted of two or more offenses for which the aggregated sentences were five years or more and as a noncitizen convicted of a crime involving moral.

In August 2020, Legassov, proceeding pro se, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At a hearing in January 2021, Legassov testified that he entered the United States due to fears relating to his father’s involvement in investigating the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Although the official cause of his father’s death in 1988 was suicide, Legassov claimed that the Russian government had his father killed and he was warned to stop discussing that topic. Legassov stated that he was not harmed while in Russia, but he believed that the KGB initiated charges against him in 1996 after his departure and that he had been included on a wanted list.

The IJ ruled on several grounds that Legassov did not qualify for relief. In addition to making an adverse credibility finding, the IJ concluded that the one-year filing deadline barred the asylum application, and Legassov failed to provide a significantly changed circumstance to extend the time for filing. Even aside from the one-year bar, the IJ explained that he would deny aylum as a matter of discretion due to Legassov’s criminal history. The IJ likewise decided that Legassov had committed a “particularly serious crime” which rendered him ineligible for withholding of removal, and that Legassov did not qualify for CAT relief where he had not shown it would be more likely than not that he would be tortured upon his return to Russia. The IJ also denied voluntary departure.

On appeal, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s reasoning, rejected all grounds advanced in Legassov’s counseled brief, and dismissed the appeal. The BIA also denied a motion to remand because the evidence submitted did not rebut any of the IJ’s findings.
ANALYSIS

Notably, Legassov has not disputed that he is removable on the statutory grounds cited by the agency based on his criminal history (for committing a CIMT and for convictions of offenses carrying aggregated sentences of five or more years’ imprisonment). Also, he did not previously challenge the IJ’s conclusions that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief on appeal in the BIA; although he now claims, in very general terms, that he was eligible.

What remains are jurisdictional and due process arguments Legassov raised before, and the court rejected them for largely the same reasons the BIA did.

Legassov argues in his petition that the immigration court violated his due process rights by failing to adequately explain the proceedings or to develop the record. However, the record reveals no due process violation in Legassov’s proceedings.

the IJ explained to Legassov how he might retain an attorney and, after granting one continuance, the IJ was poised to grant another for Legassov to find an attorney. However, Legassov demurred and asked if the proceedings could move forward, and the IJ obliged. The IJ explained that Legassov would testify in support of his asylum application at the next hearing, and the IJ gave him time to submit documentation; Legassov did both. Legassov does not detail what else the IJ should have explained. Further, he has not shown that any deficiency prejudiced him, which is fatal to a due process claim.

Legassov did not show the requisite prejudice. In addition to the State Department report on country conditions in Russia in the record, the IJ considered statements of Legassov’s relatives and an article concerning the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Legassov does not state what other evidence that the IJ should have helped him obtain or how he was prejudiced by the absence of that material.

Finally, Legassov requested a remand so that his CAT claim could be considered in light of “new” evidence, including his birth certificate, articles about the Chernobyl disaster and his father, and articles about Russian intelligence activities. However, as the BIA explained, this evidence did not meaningfully address the shortcomings of his claims. Therefore, the BIA appropriately denied remand.

The BIA may deny a remand motion where the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief, fails to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, or would not be entitled to discretionary relief even if the motion were granted.

Accordingly, the petition for review was denied.
ZALMA OPINION

In 1993 the United States allowed a Russian Criminal, Legassov, who was wanted by the then KGB, to enter the United States and enter into multiple state and federal crimes until he was finally caught, prosecuted and convicted and sentence to five years in a federal prison and an order to remove him from the U.S. back to Russia. He used the judicial system including appeals to the Third Circuit. He should never have been allowed in the U.S. and remaining in the U.S. violates the law as did his insurance fraud. He should be put on a plane and sent to the mercy of Vladamir Putin. Perhaps he will be conscripted into the Russian military.

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He also serves as an arbitrator or mediator for insurance related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].

Over the last 54 years Barry Zalma has dedicated his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created a library of books and other materials to make it possible for insurers and their claims staff to become insurance claims professionals.

Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe. Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome. Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected];

http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; I publish daily articles at https://zalma.substack.com, Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ Read posts from Barry Zalma at Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
September 05, 2025
Interpleader Helps Everyone Potential Claimant to Insurance Proceeds

Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer

Who’s on First to Get Life Insurance Proceeds

Post 5184

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gyxQfnUz and at https://lnkd.in/gAd3wqWP, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://lnkd.in/g2hGv88; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Interpleader Protects All Claimants Against Life Policy and the Insurer

In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Selena Sanchez, et al, No. 2:24-cv-03278-TLN-CSK, United States District Court, E.D. California (September 3, 2025) the USDC applied interpleader law.
Case Overview

This case involves an interpleader action brought by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Plaintiff-in-Interpleader) against Selena Sanchez and other defendants (Defendants-in-Interpleader).

Key Points

Plaintiff-in-Interpleader’s Application:

The Plaintiff-in-Interpleader...

00:06:34
September 05, 2025
Demands for Reasons for Termination not a “Claim”

A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182

It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.

In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.

Case Background:

This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...

00:08:22
September 04, 2025
Demands for Reasons for Termination not a “Claim”

A Claim by Any Other Name is not a Claim
Post 5182

It is Imperative that Insured Report Potential Claim to Insurers

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfbwAsxw, See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gea_hgB3 and at https://lnkd.in/ghZ7gjxy, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.

In Jeffrey B. Scott v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyd’s, London, Subscribing To Policy No. B0901li1837279, RLI Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters At Lloyds, London And The Insurance Company, Subscribing To Policy No. B0180fn2102430, No. 24-12441, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (August 25, 2025) the court explained the need for a claim to obtain coverage.

Case Background:

This appeal arises from a coverage dispute under a Directors & Officers (D&O) insurance policy. Jeffrey B. Scott, the plaintiff-appellant, was terminated from his role as CEO, President, and Secretary of Gemini Financial Holdings, LLC in October 2019. Following his termination, Scott threatened legal action against Gemini, and ...

00:08:22
September 03, 2025

Barry Zalma: Insurance Claims Expert Witness
Posted on September 3, 2025 by Barry Zalma
The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit

© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE

When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.

On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive ...

post photo preview
September 03, 2025
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE Insurance Claims Expert Witness

The Need for a Claims Handling Expert to Defend or Prove a Tort of Bad Faith Suit
© 2025 Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE

When I finished my three year enlistment in the US Army as a Special Agent of US Army Intelligence in 1967, I sought employment where I could use the investigative skills I learned in the Army. After some searching I was hired as a claims trainee by the Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company. For five years, while attending law school at night while working full time as an insurance adjuster I became familiar with every aspect of the commercial insurance industry.

On January 2, 1972 I was admitted to the California Bar. I practiced law, specializing in insurance claims, insurance coverage and defense of claims against people insured and defense of insurance companies sued for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After 45 years as an active lawyer, I asked that my license to practice law be declared inactive and became a consultant and expert witness for lawyers representing insurers and lawyers ...

post photo preview
September 03, 2025
Evidence Required to Prove Breach of Contract

APPRAISAL AWARD SETS AMOUNT OF DAMAGES RECOVERED FROM INSURER

Post 5180

See the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.

It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence

Evidence Required to Prove Breach of Contract

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evidence-required-prove-breach-contract-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-rfelc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6yd2z0-evidence-required-to-prove-breach-of-contract.html and at https://youtu.be/2ywEjs3hZsw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.

It’s a Waste of Time to Sue Your Insurer if You Don’t Have Evidence

In Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes v. Homeowners Of America Insurance Company, No. 01-23-00844-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas, First District (August 26, 2025) Debbie Beaty and Jonathan Hayes filed a claim under their homeowner’s insurance policy with Homeowners of ...

See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals