See this...It makes you wonder as to how many criminal convictions a person needs to accumulate in order for the system to kick him out. Thi scharacter has 19 convictions, some very serious! I think I feel safer already...
Ritchie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration)
Stalin Dacosta Ritchie, appellant, and
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, respondent
[2008] I.A.D.D. No. 326
No. TA4-02431
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada
Immigration Appeal Division
Toronto, Ontario
Panel: Pamila Ahlfeld
Heard: May 2, 2007, September 17, 2007.
Decision: November 22, 2008.
(24 paras.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal Order
Reasons for Decision
INTRODUCTION
1 These are the reasons1 for decision in the appeal of Stalin Dacosta RITCHIE (the appellant), from the removal order, dated February 5, 20042 issued against him by Member Iozzo of the Immigration Division pursuant to subsection 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)3. The basis of the removal order is the appellant's conviction dated January 28, 2002 for one count of trafficking in a schedule I substance whereby he received a sentence of four months time served and two years probation4.
2 There was no challenge to the validity of the removal order and the panel finds nothing in the evidence that would render the order legally invalid. Accordingly, the panel finds that the removal order is valid in law.
3 The appellant was represented at the hearing by a designated representative appointed by the panel as the appellant was unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings.
4 At issue in this case is whether, taking into consideration the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case5.
DECISION
5 For the reasons outlined below, the panel finds that taking into consideration the best interests of a child directly affected by this decision, there exist sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant the granting of a stay for a period of five years.
BACKGROUND
6 The appellant was born in Jamaica on February 22, 19716. He was sponsored to Canada by his sister together with his mother and he was landed on December 1, 19777.
7 The appellant's father and two sisters all reside in Toronto. His mother is deceased. He testified that his father is in a nursing home and he has limited contact with his sister.
8 The appellant has a Grade 9 education.
9 The appellant receives a disability pension (ODSP) in the amount of $755.40 a month8. He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and he is currently in treatment.
10 The appellant has 16 convictions; 4 of them for assaults9, 7 convictions regarding controlled substances, a robbery conviction, possession of a prohibited weapon and various fail to comply convictions10.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF FACT
11 The panel remains guided in the exercise of its discretion by the factors outlined in Ribic11, approved by the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Chieu12. These factors, which are not exhaustive, are:
i)
the seriousness of the offences leading to the deportation order;
ii)
the possibility of rehabilitation;
iii)
the length of time spent in Canada and the degree to which the appellant is established here;
iv)
the family in Canada and the dislocation to the family that deportation would cause;
v)
support available to the appellant, within the family and within the community; and
vi)
potential foreign hardship the appellant will face in the likely country of removal.
12 The panel is also guided by section 3 (1)(h) of IRPA which states:
3. (1) The objectives of the Act with respect to immigration are:
(h)
to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society.
13 The panel is "alert, alive and sensitive" to the best interests of any child directly affected by the removal of the appellant13.
14 The appellant and the appellant's mental health worker testified at the hearing.
15 The appellant's criminal history is extensive. Unfortunately, the appellant was not able to testify in detail regarding the offences as he did not remember them. He could not for example remember his convictions for assault in 1994 and 1995. His memory of the robbery conviction from 1994 was that he grabbed a man on the street at Queen and Sherbourne and took his money. He could not remember anything about the possession of a weapon conviction but he remembers that he was convicted of selling crack cocaine and marijuana.
16 The appellant admitted he is a long time drug user. A letter from Dr. Vasu Srinivasan reports that the appellant suffers from schizophrenia and is being treated with Risperal14. The doctor also reported that the appellant is developmentally delayed15. It was evident from his testimony that the appellant has difficulties in relaying incidents from his past and he becomes easily anxious.
17 The appellant stated that he has received some assistance in the past regarding his addictions and life skills but these efforts were unsuccessful. He is currently being followed by a number of professionals as follows:
i)
He is seeing Dr. Williams, a psychiatrist on a monthly basis;
ii)
He is being case-managed by a mental health worker at Reconnect Health Services in Etobicoke. His participation is voluntary and ongoing since February 2007;
iii)
He is reporting to the Toronto Bail Program, Immigration Division since April 200616;
iv)
He testified that he completed a 5-day detox program at Toronto Western Hospital a week prior to this hearing;
v)
He is scheduled for an appointment at the Concurrent Disorder Clinic on September 18, 2007 to assess whether he will receive drug rehabilitation treatment in a group or as an individual;
vi)
His mental health worker testified that he is seeking through LOFT or COTA, permanent housing for the appellant. For the time being, the appellant is residing with a good friend;
18 In addition to being managed for his probation and health concerns, the appellant is also working daily (volunteer) sorting clothes at Evangel Hall Mission. A letter from Tony Pucci, Volunteer Coordinator, confirms that the appellant has worked with the program since 2004 and he is "well-mannered reliable and efficient"17.
19 Also in the appellant's favor is a letter from Steven Sharp of the Toronto Bail Program. Mr. Sharp, as the Mental Health Coordinator at the Toronto Bail Program, stated in his letter of April 10, 2007 that the appellant "has shown some progress since coming under the supervision of this writer and with community supports can build on this progress"18.
20 I recognize that the appellant has many convictions but it appears that those convictions are the result of the appellant's illness and addiction. I find the appellant's sometimes aggressive behavior appears to have been when he is using alcohol and/or drugs. I am satisfied that he is now getting help around his addictions and his mental issues and I am persuaded if he continues to be managed, he will not pose a threat to the Canadian public.
21 Since the conclusion of the appellant's hearing, I have received written submissions from his counsel that included a letter from Reconnect Mental Health Services and from a therapist at the Concurrent Disorders Service at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH)19. The letter from Simon Nnaakirya from the Mental Health & Justice, Prevention Program, Reconnect Mental Health Services at Reconnect, stated that the appellant has consistently met with Mr. Nnaakirya in the community and he attends the CAMH and Toronto Bail program meetings20. The letter indicates that the appellant has been referred to Dr. Balchand who is conducting a psychiatric assessment to determine a course of treatment for him. A letter from Vicki Myers confirms that the appellant has seen Dr. Balchand two times and a treatment plan will be forthcoming21.
22 Considering that the appellant has been cooperative in seeking treatment and the support he has been receiving from a number of professionals, I find it would be extremely detrimental to consider removal at this juncture. I am satisfied from the appellant's testimony that he would like to change his life and become a productive member of Canadian society. I am satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards in place at the current time to assist the appellant in achieving this goal. In her submission, counsel for the appellant made a suggestion that I wait until the treatment plan is finalized by the treating psychiatrist prior to rendering a decision. I am concerned that the treatment plan could take longer than the four weeks suggested. I have, therefore, decided that I will grant the appellant a stay of removal whereby he will have to follow treatment recommended to him as it becomes available and in six months' time, I will review the treatment plan and, if necessary, vary the stay accordingly. Accordingly, an interim review will be scheduled on or about May 2008.
23 Having considered all of the evidence and taking into consideration the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision I find that the appellant has established that there exist sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which warrant special consideration.
24 Accordingly, I am granting a 5-year stay to the appellant with terms and conditions.
CONDITIONS OF STAY OF REMOVAL ORDER
The removal order in this appeal is stayed. This stay is made on the following conditions - the appellant must:
[1] Inform the Canada Border Services Agency (the "Department") and the Immigration Appeal Division in writing in advance of any change in your address.
The address of the Department is:
Canada Border Services Agency, The Greater Toronto
Enforcement Centre,
6900 Airport Road, P.O. Box 290,
Mississauga, Ontario, L4V 1E8.
The address of the Immigration Appeal Division is:
74 Victoria Street, Suite 400, Toronto, Ontario, M5C 3C7.
[2] Provide a copy of your passport or travel document to the Department or, if you do not have a passport or travel document, complete an application for a passport or a travel document and to provide the application to the Department.
[3] Apply for an extension of the validity period of any passport or travel document before it expires, and provide a copy of the extended passport or document to the Department.
[4] Not commit any criminal offences.
[5] If charged with a criminal offence, immediately report that fact in writing to the Department.
[6] If convicted of a criminal offence, immediately report that fact in writing to the Department and the Immigration Appeal Division.
[7] Provide all information, notices and documents (the "documents") required by the conditions of the stay by hand; by regular or registered mail; by courier or priority post to the Canada Border Services Agency, 6900 Airport Road, P.O. Box 290, Mississauga, Ontario, L4V 1E8. It is the responsibility of the appellant that the documents are received by the Department within any time period required by a condition of the stay.
[8] Provide all information, notices and documents (the "documents") required by the conditions of the stay by hand; by regular or registered mail; by courier or priority post; or by fax to the Immigration Appeal Division at 416-954-1165 . Include your IAD file number. It is the responsibility of the appellant that the documents are received by the Immigration Appeal Division within any time period required by a condition of the stay.
[9] Report to the Department in person (with a written report) at the Canada Border Services Agency, The Greater Toronto Enforcement Centre, 6900 Airport Road, Entrance 2B, Mississauga, Ontario, L4V 1E8 on Thursday, April 24, 2008 between 7:30 a.m. to 15:00 p.m., and every six months thereafter on the following dates:
October 23, 2008
April 23, 2009
October 22, 2009
April 22, 2010
October 21, 2010
April 21, 2011
October 27, 2011
April 26, 2012
October 15, 2012
The reports are to contain details of the appellant's:
-
employment or efforts to obtain employment if unemployed;
-
current living arrangements;
-
marital status including common-law relationships;
-
attendance at meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other drug or alcohol rehabilitation program;
-
compliance of psychiatric appointments;
-
meetings with parole officer, including details of any violations of the conditions of parole.
[10] Make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain full time employment and IMMEDIATELY report any change in employment to the Department.
[11] Engage in or continue treatment prescribed by Dr. Balchand or other treating psychiatrist. (Note: If you withdraw your consent to the foregoing condition, you must bring an application to the Appeal Division forthwith to have this condition removed)
[12] Attend a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program at Concurrent Disorder Service of CAMH and to follow any ongoing recommendation. (Note: If you withdraw your consent to the foregoing condition, you must bring an application to the Appeal Division forthwith to have this condition removed)
[13] Make reasonable efforts to maintain yourself in such condition that:
a)
your schizophrenia will not cause you to conduct yourself in a manner dangerous to yourself or anyone else; and,
b)
it is not likely you will commit further offences.
[14] Not knowingly associate with individuals who have a criminal record or who are engaged in criminal activity, except contact that might result while attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other drug or alcohol rehabilitation program.
[15] Not own or possess offensive weapons or imitations of offensive weapons.
[16] Respect all parole conditions and any court orders.
[17] Refrain from the illegal use or sale of drugs.
[18] Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
INTERIM RECONSIDERATION
An interim reconsideration of the case by the Immigration Appeal Division will take place on or about the 22nd day of May 2008, at which time it may change or cancel any non-prescribed conditions imposed, or it may cancel the stay and then allow or dismiss the appeal. You will receive a notice to appear prior to the hearing date, if the Immigration Appeal Division orders an oral interim reconsideration.
FINAL RECONSIDERATION
Take notice that the Immigration Appeal Division will reconsider the case on or about the 12th day of November 2012 or at such other date as it determines, at which time it may change or cancel any non-prescribed conditions imposed, or it may cancel the stay and then allow or dismiss the appeal.
"Pamila Ahlfeld"
22 November 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment