U.S. Code » Title 22 » Chapter CHAPTER 77— UNITED STATES-CHINA RELATIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL PROVISIONS

22 U.S.C. § 618

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION RELATING TO TIBET.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)United States Consulate in Lhasa, Tibet.—The Secretary should seek to establish a United States consulate in Lhasa, Tibet—“(1) to provide consular services to United States citizens traveling in Tibet; and“(2) to monitor political, economic, and cultural developments in Tibet.“(b)Policy.—The Secretary may not authorize the establishment in the United States of any additional consulate of the People’s Republic of China until such time as a United States consulate in Lhasa, Tibet, is established under subsection (a).“(c)Waiver.—The Secretary may waive the requirement under subsection (b), notwithstanding the lack of a United States consulate in Lhasa, not less than 30 days after the Secretary determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that it is in the national security interests of the United States to waive such requirements and submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report including—“(1) a specific and detailed rationale for the determination that the waiver is in the national security interests of the United States; and“(2) a description of the efforts by the Department of State to seek the establishment of a United States consulate in Lhasa.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: United States v. John Peter McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. John Peter McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 7× “See 22 U.S.C. § 618 (e); cf H.R.Rep. No. 1470, 89th Cong.”
United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). · cites it 2× “§ 4442 (c)(1) (maximum one year prison term for knowingly making false statement of material fact in seeking cultural and art development grants); 22 U. S. C. § 618 (a)(2) (maximum six month prison term for willfully making false statement of material fact in registering to…”
United States v. Manafort, 313 F. Supp. 3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “Specifically, the warrant authorized seizure of eight categories of "[r]ecords relating to violations of 31 U.”
United States v. Bijan Rafiekian, 68 F.4th 177 (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 951 , and 2) making a materially false FARA registration in violation of 22 U.S.C. § 618 (a)(2). Count 2 charged Rafiekian with acting as a foreign agent without first notifying the Attorney General, in violation of 18 U.”
Manual Enter., Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962). · cites it 2× “1113 (plants and plant products); 22 U. S. C. § 618 (foreign agents' propaganda advocating violent disorder in any other American republic); compare 7 U.”
United States v. Manafort, 323 F. Supp. 3d 768 (E.D. Va. 2018). · cites it 2× “§§ 5314 , 5322(a) (Failure to File a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts), 22 U.S.C. § 618 (Foreign Agent Registration Act), and 26 U.”
Attorney Gen. of the United States v. Irish N. Aid Comm., 530 F. Supp. 241 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 3× “§ 1345 and 22 U.S.C. § 618 (f). The case is now before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s counterclaims and granting the relief sought in the complaint.”
United States v. Michael E. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 1994). “§ 4442 (c)(1) (maximum one year prison term for knowingly making false statement of material fact in seeking cultural and art development grants); 22 U.S.C. § 618 (a)(2) (maximum six month prison term for willfully making false statement of material fact in registering to…”
United States v. Bijan Rafiekian, 991 F.3d 529 (4th Cir. 2021). “§ 951 ; and (b) making a materially false Foreign Agents Registration Act filing, in violation of 22 U.S.C. § 618 (a)(2). In Count Two, the grand jury charged Rafiekian with a substantive § 951 violation—i.”
Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am. v. The Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “See 22 U.S.C. § 618 (a) (1976). . The Rule provides that “the court in which the action is pending may take such orders in regard to the failure [to comply with a production order] as are just," and lists several possibilities “among others.”
Attorney Gen. of the United States v. Stephen Wynn, 104 F.4th 348 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 7× “22 U.S.C. § 618 (f). The government can also criminally prosecute willful violations of FARA.”
Comm. for a Free Namibia v. South West Africa People's Org., 554 F. Supp. 722 (D.D.C. 1982). · cites it 4× “22 U.S.C. § 618 . 4 2. Even if plaintiff could satisfy the Article III requirements, it has failed to advance any more than a superficial showing that it is impliedly authorized by statute to maintain this action.”
Show all 43 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.