'Running out of sympathy'
Refugee claimant Laibar Singh had support of the Sikh community, but he's running out of friends
Brian Hutchinson, National Post
Published: Friday, March 28, 2008
Failed refugee claimant Laibar Singh is propped up in bed, a heat lamp fixed on his withered right forearm. He is ill.
According to his doctor, he should be in hospital. Instead, he's locked inside a white, two-storey house next to a large Sikh temple, and is attended to by priests and their subordinates. They say he's not going anywhere.
Before wearing out his welcome last week, Mr. Singh was lodged inside another Sikh house, owned by a different temple down the highway in Surrey. He also spent time in New Westminster, and before that here in Abbotsford, a 45-minute drive southeast of Vancouver.
He is tired of being shuttled from one safe haven to another as people attempt to manage his considerable needs while shielding him from Canadian immigration officials.
Frustrated border agents say they would like to enforce a long-standing deportation order against him. Despite repeated attempts to put Mr. Singh on an airplane, they haven't succeeded.
A 48-year-old labourer, Mr. Singh used a fake passport to enter Canada five years ago. He sought refugee status in Montreal, claiming he would be persecuted should he be forced back to his native Punjab, in India. That claim was found lacking and after his refugee application and subsequent appeals were rejected, Mr. Singh received a deportation order.
Rather than respect the order, Mr. Singh quietly moved on, to B.C.'s Lower Mainland. He then fell ill and was bedridden.
Somehow, he became a cause célèbre. In December, thousands of Sikhs converged on Vancouver International Airport and blocked attempts by Canada Border Services Agency officials to escort him to his flight back to India.
Mr. Singh was then spirited to Surrey, where others took up the cause. For a while, at least. "He's not our headache anymore," snaps one disenchanted Sikh elder in Surrey.
Officially, Mr. Singh still enjoys support from distant organizations and individuals, from the Canadian Labour Congress to author Naomi Klein. But here in B.C., he's fast losing friends.
A seven-person committee representing 21 local human rights groups and religious societies was formed this month to press his case. But it disbanded within days, after Mr. Singh allegedly reneged on an agreement to return to his native India.
Last week, leaders of the Surrey temple where Mr. Singh was offered sanctuary, solidarity and a large sum of cash sent him packing; they claim they were "double-crossed" by their former guest.
"He's a liar," declares Balwant Singh Gill, president of the Guru Nanak Sikh temple in Surrey, near Vancouver. "He said he would obey the laws of Canada and go home. We think it's in his best interest to go home. We even offered him $100,000 for medical treatment in India."
Half that amount was posted as a surety to the Immigration and Refugee Board, in order to buy some more time for Mr. Singh to recover from his illness and arrange his affairs in India. The money, raised by local supporters, has been forfeited, says Mr. Gill, thanks to Mr. Singh's intransigence.
"Nothing with [Mr. Singh] worked out the way we had hoped," he says. "We didn't even know anything about him, really. He kept changing his story all the time."
Mr. Singh admits that his story is confusing. His failed refugee application was based on an alleged fear of persecution in India: He claimed to have been the victim of a false accusation - that he was once a member of the Khalistan Commando Force, a terrorist organization seeking to form an independent Sikh state.
But Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board did not find this credible.
A widower with four children still in India, Mr. Singh was actually a sapper in the Indian army before becoming a common labourer.
He now says that fear of persecution is not an issue.
He wants to be allowed to stay in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, based on his illness.
But there is confusion over that, as well. Mr. Singh's supporters and some reporters continue to assert that he suffered either a "stroke" or a "cerebral aneurism" while painting a house in Montreal two years ago, and that he is now a quadriplegic.
In fact, he was diagnosed with a spinal infection after moving to the Vancouver area. It is a debilitating illness - Mr. Singh lost the use of his limbs - but one from which he can at least partially recover. Indeed, his condition has improved, thanks to weekly acupuncture and acupressure treatments, and he can now move his arms. "I'm feeling okay," he said in a bedside interview this week.
His health problems should not preclude him from returning to India, according to his own physician. Appearing on a local radio program in January, Gulzar Cheema said "anyone in his condition with the proper medical treatment can travel."
Dr. Cheema also suggested Mr. Singh required better medical care than could be provided while in sanctuary inside a Sikh temple.
Everyone directly involved in the Singh case concedes that such care exists in India, albeit for a price. The $100,000 offered by former supporters would likely have taken care of that, says Mr. Gill, president of the Surrey temple.
Mr. Singh's care in Canada also has a price, one borne by taxpayers. Earlier this month, the Vancouver Sun reported that his public medical bills have already reached $491,900. That's in addition to the $62,947 the Canadian Border Services Agency has spent on its aborted deportation attempts.
None of this should count against him, or hinder his application to stay in Canada, argues Mr. Singh's lawyer. "It's not unusual" to be accepted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds because of health issues, says Zool Suleman.
Government officials are reviewing his client's latest application; they should also consider "the huge outpouring of concern and support that has come from across Canada," says Mr. Suleman, even if it's shrinking.
He cannot predict when a decision might come. In the meantime, his client remains in bed, inside another Sikh-owned house, where CBSA officials dare not tread for fear of offending religious leaders. Mr. Singh hopes not to wear out his welcome again.
National Post
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=407204
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM EXPERIENCE
Canadians learn how Israel absorbed millions of immigrants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Eglash , THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 25, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian immigration officials can learn a lot from Israel's success in absorbing and integrating more than three million immigrants over the past 60 years, according to visiting Canadian academics and experts on immigration, who are here this week to learn from local immigration experiences.
Part of the International Metropolis Project - an immigration think tank initiated and sponsored by the Canadian government that includes more than 40 member nations - the delegation will participate in a Canadian-Israeli Dialogue on Immigration, Integration and Identity being held Thursday and Friday at the Ruppin Academic Center.
"Israel has done an extremely good job of integration," Dr. Howard Duncan, Executive Head of the International Metropolis Project, told The Jerusalem Post this week.
Duncan said that Canadian officials were very interested in learning from Israel's immigration programs and policies, despite the major differences in practices between the two nations.
"Canada has an elaborate process of selecting immigrants with specific skills," explained Duncan. "And the only criteria Israel has for immigrants are that they fit in with the Law of Return." Duncan highlighted Israel's particular success at overcoming the challenges of integrating large numbers of immigrants from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and channeling their skills into the hi-tech industry during the early 1990s, as well as resettling more than 100,000 immigrants from Ethiopia.
While the Metropolis project focuses mainly on immigration, Duncan said that the new challenge for most nations worldwide is "not how to attract new immigrants, but how to make them stay in the country."
"The effects of globalization are enormous," he continued. "Today, we hear about people changing countries many times in their lives or about immigrants who return to their homeland. This is the new norm, what we call 'circular migration.'"
Duncan said this norm was a challenge for both Canada and Israel, which in recent years has seen a larger number of its citizens leaving the country than arriving.
Prof. Moshe Semyonov, from the department of Sociology at Tel Aviv University and Chair of the Scientific Committee of the Institute for the Study of Immigration at the Ruppin Academic Center, said that despite the high rate of citizens who leave, "Israel is committed to absorbing new immigrants."
"I consider Israel a success story in terms of immigration and absorption," he told the Post. "Within one generation, new immigrants generally become part of the system." Semyonov, who is also a member of the Metropolis International Steering Committee, continued: "Israeli society is highly committed to accepting new immigrants and here the whole system is geared up to accept them." Asked what Israel could learn from Canada's experience, Duncan pointed out that the influx of new immigrants, especially from the Pacific and Asia regions, into the North American nation over the past two decades has created "extraordinary levels of ethnic and cultural diversity, with more than 200 languages being spoken in Toronto alone."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206446102390&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Eglash , THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 25, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian immigration officials can learn a lot from Israel's success in absorbing and integrating more than three million immigrants over the past 60 years, according to visiting Canadian academics and experts on immigration, who are here this week to learn from local immigration experiences.
Part of the International Metropolis Project - an immigration think tank initiated and sponsored by the Canadian government that includes more than 40 member nations - the delegation will participate in a Canadian-Israeli Dialogue on Immigration, Integration and Identity being held Thursday and Friday at the Ruppin Academic Center.
"Israel has done an extremely good job of integration," Dr. Howard Duncan, Executive Head of the International Metropolis Project, told The Jerusalem Post this week.
Duncan said that Canadian officials were very interested in learning from Israel's immigration programs and policies, despite the major differences in practices between the two nations.
"Canada has an elaborate process of selecting immigrants with specific skills," explained Duncan. "And the only criteria Israel has for immigrants are that they fit in with the Law of Return." Duncan highlighted Israel's particular success at overcoming the challenges of integrating large numbers of immigrants from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) and channeling their skills into the hi-tech industry during the early 1990s, as well as resettling more than 100,000 immigrants from Ethiopia.
While the Metropolis project focuses mainly on immigration, Duncan said that the new challenge for most nations worldwide is "not how to attract new immigrants, but how to make them stay in the country."
"The effects of globalization are enormous," he continued. "Today, we hear about people changing countries many times in their lives or about immigrants who return to their homeland. This is the new norm, what we call 'circular migration.'"
Duncan said this norm was a challenge for both Canada and Israel, which in recent years has seen a larger number of its citizens leaving the country than arriving.
Prof. Moshe Semyonov, from the department of Sociology at Tel Aviv University and Chair of the Scientific Committee of the Institute for the Study of Immigration at the Ruppin Academic Center, said that despite the high rate of citizens who leave, "Israel is committed to absorbing new immigrants."
"I consider Israel a success story in terms of immigration and absorption," he told the Post. "Within one generation, new immigrants generally become part of the system." Semyonov, who is also a member of the Metropolis International Steering Committee, continued: "Israeli society is highly committed to accepting new immigrants and here the whole system is geared up to accept them." Asked what Israel could learn from Canada's experience, Duncan pointed out that the influx of new immigrants, especially from the Pacific and Asia regions, into the North American nation over the past two decades has created "extraordinary levels of ethnic and cultural diversity, with more than 200 languages being spoken in Toronto alone."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206446102390&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Monday, March 24, 2008
NOVA SCOTIA IMMIGRATION PROGRAM DOOMED FROM THE START
Canadian HR Reporter
March 24, 2008
Immigrants don’t get much for $130,000
Nova Scotia scraps mentorship PNP and offers refunds
By Shannon Klie
An immigration program aimed at attracting business managers and entrepreneurs to Nova Scotia by promising them business mentorships was doomed from the start, according to an immigration lawyer.
Most immigrants want to settle in Alberta or British Columbia, because of the hot job market, or Ontario and Quebec, said Sergio Karas, a Toronto-based lawyer and chair of the Ontario Bar Association’s citizenship and immigration section.
“People in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are making valiant efforts to reverse that trend but, let’s face it, the jobs are not there,” he said. “Immigrants are going to go wherever the jobs are and business immigrants are going to go wherever the money is.”
The Nova Scotia provincial nominee program’s (PNP’s) economic stream fast-tracked potential immigrants, who paid $130,000, to permanent resident status and promised them a minimum six-month mentorship with a local business, for which they would be paid a minimum of $20,000.
“It was designed to provide newcomers to the province with an opportunity to gain some exposure to the Canadian workplace,” said Mary Anna Jollymore, director of communications for the Nova Scotia office of immigration. The hope was they would then open their own business in the province, she added.
But with a softer economy, immigrants who came to Nova Scotia under the economic stream had a hard time finding mentorships with local businesses. Those who did find placements were often working well below their experience level.
“It wasn’t meeting the needs of many of the nominees who were coming through the program,” said Jollymore.
Of the $130,000 program fee, $100,000 went to the mentoring business and $30,000 went to administration fees, including a $20,000 immigration consultant fee.
PNPs in other provinces also have business or entrepreneurial streams, most of which require a minimum investment in a current or new business of up to $400,000 (usually with the requirement the immigrant own at least one-third of the company). Some provinces, such as Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, require the immigrant to make a good faith deposit with the provincial government, usually about $100,000, which the immigrant gets back when the business investment is made.
However, Nova Scotia’s economic stream differs because the immigrant doesn’t end up owning part of the company in which he has invested $100,000.
The economic stream program stopped accepting applicants on July 1, 2006. The unused mentorship fees are in a $75-million trust fund and last fall the government offered $100,000 refunds to participants who lived in Nova Scotia for 12 months but never found a mentorship. About 600 of the 800 participants qualified for the refund option.
However, about 75 immigrants who did find mentorships are petitioning the government for a refund of the difference between the $100,000 and what the mentorship paid. Some of these immigrants told the legislature’s public accounts committee last month they felt betrayed by the province because their experiences didn’t live up to the promise of the program.
A former department store manager from Tehran told the committee his boss at a fish company told him to stay home because there wasn’t any work for him. An Iranian psychiatrist spent his time at a construction company studying for Canadian medical tests.
Many immigrants who came to Canada under the program didn’t bother to stay in Nova Scotia and immigrants who found mentorships want the government to use the fees these immigrants forfeited for their refund.
There were, however, some success stories from the program. John Huang, a food exporter from China, had a year-long mentorship with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) in Halifax, during which time he worked on research projects to improve trade between Atlantic Canada and Asia.
“As a think-tank, we exist to draw new and innovative thinking to public policy ideas. By going outside of the country, you get a guaranteed different perspective on things,” said Charles Cirtwill, the acting president of AIMS, who added that Huang brought a valuable perspective on immigration and trade policy.
While working at AIMS, Huang also set up his own China-Canada import-export business in Halifax, and he became a member of the city’s chamber of commerce.
Where the program fell short, in Cirtwill’s opinion, was in matching immigrants with businesses. Despite having paid a $30,000 administrative fee, it was Huang, not Cornwallis Financial, the organization that administered the program, who found AIMS and convinced the institute to take him on, said Cirtwill.
“It was that matching piece that they were never able to fulfil the promise of,” he said.
Nova Scotia is redesigning the economic stream into an entrepreneurial stream that will more closely resemble that of other provinces, said Jollymore.
“We’re still aiming to attract the same kind of individuals who have an interest in setting up their own business down the road or have skills that would meet the needs of the local labour market,” she said.
While the majority of immigrants to Canada aren’t choosing to settle in Nova Scotia, there has been an increase in the number of immigrants coming to the province since 2001, said Jollymore.
The province had 1,474 total landings in 2003 and that increased to 2,585 in 2006. The province wants to reach 3,600 annual landings by 2010 and increase its retention rate from 40 per cent in 2001 to 70 per cent by 2010, she said.
“While it’s all well and good to bring people into the province, at the end of the day you want them staying here,” she said. “The targets are ambitious, but we’re on track.”
March 24, 2008
Immigrants don’t get much for $130,000
Nova Scotia scraps mentorship PNP and offers refunds
By Shannon Klie
An immigration program aimed at attracting business managers and entrepreneurs to Nova Scotia by promising them business mentorships was doomed from the start, according to an immigration lawyer.
Most immigrants want to settle in Alberta or British Columbia, because of the hot job market, or Ontario and Quebec, said Sergio Karas, a Toronto-based lawyer and chair of the Ontario Bar Association’s citizenship and immigration section.
“People in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are making valiant efforts to reverse that trend but, let’s face it, the jobs are not there,” he said. “Immigrants are going to go wherever the jobs are and business immigrants are going to go wherever the money is.”
The Nova Scotia provincial nominee program’s (PNP’s) economic stream fast-tracked potential immigrants, who paid $130,000, to permanent resident status and promised them a minimum six-month mentorship with a local business, for which they would be paid a minimum of $20,000.
“It was designed to provide newcomers to the province with an opportunity to gain some exposure to the Canadian workplace,” said Mary Anna Jollymore, director of communications for the Nova Scotia office of immigration. The hope was they would then open their own business in the province, she added.
But with a softer economy, immigrants who came to Nova Scotia under the economic stream had a hard time finding mentorships with local businesses. Those who did find placements were often working well below their experience level.
“It wasn’t meeting the needs of many of the nominees who were coming through the program,” said Jollymore.
Of the $130,000 program fee, $100,000 went to the mentoring business and $30,000 went to administration fees, including a $20,000 immigration consultant fee.
PNPs in other provinces also have business or entrepreneurial streams, most of which require a minimum investment in a current or new business of up to $400,000 (usually with the requirement the immigrant own at least one-third of the company). Some provinces, such as Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, require the immigrant to make a good faith deposit with the provincial government, usually about $100,000, which the immigrant gets back when the business investment is made.
However, Nova Scotia’s economic stream differs because the immigrant doesn’t end up owning part of the company in which he has invested $100,000.
The economic stream program stopped accepting applicants on July 1, 2006. The unused mentorship fees are in a $75-million trust fund and last fall the government offered $100,000 refunds to participants who lived in Nova Scotia for 12 months but never found a mentorship. About 600 of the 800 participants qualified for the refund option.
However, about 75 immigrants who did find mentorships are petitioning the government for a refund of the difference between the $100,000 and what the mentorship paid. Some of these immigrants told the legislature’s public accounts committee last month they felt betrayed by the province because their experiences didn’t live up to the promise of the program.
A former department store manager from Tehran told the committee his boss at a fish company told him to stay home because there wasn’t any work for him. An Iranian psychiatrist spent his time at a construction company studying for Canadian medical tests.
Many immigrants who came to Canada under the program didn’t bother to stay in Nova Scotia and immigrants who found mentorships want the government to use the fees these immigrants forfeited for their refund.
There were, however, some success stories from the program. John Huang, a food exporter from China, had a year-long mentorship with the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS) in Halifax, during which time he worked on research projects to improve trade between Atlantic Canada and Asia.
“As a think-tank, we exist to draw new and innovative thinking to public policy ideas. By going outside of the country, you get a guaranteed different perspective on things,” said Charles Cirtwill, the acting president of AIMS, who added that Huang brought a valuable perspective on immigration and trade policy.
While working at AIMS, Huang also set up his own China-Canada import-export business in Halifax, and he became a member of the city’s chamber of commerce.
Where the program fell short, in Cirtwill’s opinion, was in matching immigrants with businesses. Despite having paid a $30,000 administrative fee, it was Huang, not Cornwallis Financial, the organization that administered the program, who found AIMS and convinced the institute to take him on, said Cirtwill.
“It was that matching piece that they were never able to fulfil the promise of,” he said.
Nova Scotia is redesigning the economic stream into an entrepreneurial stream that will more closely resemble that of other provinces, said Jollymore.
“We’re still aiming to attract the same kind of individuals who have an interest in setting up their own business down the road or have skills that would meet the needs of the local labour market,” she said.
While the majority of immigrants to Canada aren’t choosing to settle in Nova Scotia, there has been an increase in the number of immigrants coming to the province since 2001, said Jollymore.
The province had 1,474 total landings in 2003 and that increased to 2,585 in 2006. The province wants to reach 3,600 annual landings by 2010 and increase its retention rate from 40 per cent in 2001 to 70 per cent by 2010, she said.
“While it’s all well and good to bring people into the province, at the end of the day you want them staying here,” she said. “The targets are ambitious, but we’re on track.”
Saturday, March 22, 2008
ANOTHER BRIGHT IDEA FROM OUR POLITICINAS
Here is another bright idea from our politicians to poison our relations with the US, and to defy the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, as reported in the article below in the New York Times. It must be noted that US military service is VOLUNTARY, unlike the compulsory service required in many countries...so if you don't want to get into a bad situation, don't join the military!
March 23, 2008
Phenomenon
War Dodgers
By BEN EHRENREICH
Next month, the Canadian House of Commons is slated to debate a resolution that would allow conscientious objectors “who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations” to apply for residency in Canada. The phrasing is vague but the intent is not. The war in question is the Iraq war, and the resolution represents the culmination of a four-year debate about what to do with the small but steady stream of American soldiers who have fled across our northern border to avoid fighting in Iraq.
It all began in Jan. 2004, when a young American with a long, serious face walked into the Toronto law office of Jeffry House to ask for help with what was at the time a highly unusual immigration case. The American turned out to be a soldier named Jeremy Hinzman, an infantryman in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. He told House that his petition for conscientious-objector status was denied while he was stationed in Afghanistan. He crossed the border into Canada just days before his unit was to be deployed to Iraq. Of the more than 25,000 American soldiers who, according to the United States Department of Defense, have deserted since 2003, the Toronto-based War Resisters Support Campaign estimates that 225 have fled to Canada. (The D.O.D defines a deserter as anyone who has been AWOL for 30 consecutive days or who seeks asylum in a foreign country; desertion carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.)
The majority of the deserters in Canada have chosen not to make the authorities aware of their presence. Like any other illegal immigrants, they have settled for invisibility. A few dozen, though, followed Hinzman’s lead. Most found their way to Jeffry House. One young Army medic named Justin Colby read an AOL news posting about Hinzman’s case while stationed in Iraq. He telephoned House from Ramadi and showed up in his office a few months later.
House would eventually represent between 30 and 35 American deserters. Most of them, like Colby, say they joined the military in part out of patriotism. “I thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11,” Colby says, “that they were the bad guys that attacked our country.” But unlike Hinzman, most did not apply for conscientious-objector status. They tend to say they aren’t opposed to all wars in principle — just to the one they were ordered to fight. It wasn’t until Colby arrived in Iraq that he started to see the conflict as “a war of aggression, totally unprovoked,” he says. “I was, like, ‘This is what my buddies are dying for?’ ” Midway through his tour, he decided: “I’m never going to do this again.” He went AWOL the day before his unit left to train for a second deployment. House says that more than two-thirds of his clients have been deployed to Iraq at least once. “One is resisting a third deployment.”
Tens of thousands of American draft dodgers and deserters took refuge in Canada in the late 1960s and early ’70s. House was one of them. He packed up his car and left his home in Wisconsin 38 years ago to start a new life in Canada. The process was simple. “I came to the border and said: ‘I would like to immigrate to Canada. I’m refusing to serve in Vietnam,’ ” he recalls. Border officials had him type up an application for residency on the spot. “Four weeks later, I got my permanent-resident status.” But times have changed since Pierre Trudeau, then the prime minister, declared Canada “a refuge from militarism.” While Canada is still a relative haven for asylum-seekers, its immigration laws have tightened sharply, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been a faithful ally of the Bush administration. (Harper has kept 2,500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, whose deployment the House of Commons recently extended until 2011.) As a result, the new generation of war resisters find themselves in an uncomfortable squeeze. In today’s Canada, deserters like Hinzman really have only one legal option: to apply for residency as refugees.
“There’s a very clear Canadian precedent for the idea that no soldier has to participate in an illegal war,” House says. That precedent, interestingly enough, is a case in which an Iraqi Army soldier was granted asylum in Canada after fleeing to avoid taking part in the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. But House’s first task was to prove that the Iraq war is illegal. His argument relied largely on his reading of international law. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees lays out a slender possibility for relief. Mere disagreement with the “political justification for a particular military action” is not sufficient. The action must be “condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct.” Only in that case can punishment for desertion or draft evasion “be regarded as persecution.”
Juridically, at least, House saw the case as straightforward. A British court had awarded asylum to a Russian deserter of the Chechen war on the same basis. (British case law often influences Canadian jurisprudence.) And there was the precedent of the Iraqi deserter. But convincing the Canadian courts to equate George W. Bush’s occupation of Iraq with Saddam Hussein’s attack on Kuwait was a politically daunting task.
In the end, House never got the chance. He showed up at Hinzman’s first hearing armed with evidence arguing for the illegality of the Iraq war: 13 four-inch-thick binders containing everything from former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s memos on the treatment of detainees to Human Rights Watch reports to the British Army’s documentation of civilian deaths at American military checkpoints. In March 2005, the immigration board ruled against Hinzman, insisting that its “authority does not include making judgments about United States foreign policy.”
A Canadian federal court upheld that decision in 2006, interpreting the relevant international law to apply only to high-level policy makers. “The ordinary foot soldier,” the court ruled, “is not expected to make his or her personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict.” All the documents in House’s 13 binders were thus irrelevant. House objected that policy makers are rarely asked to take up arms. But an appeals court ruled against him last April on other grounds.
“The present position is basically Pontius Pilate,” House told me last fall, not long before he hit the end of the legal road. In mid-November, the Supreme Court dismissed his request for an appeal. “It’s a huge loss,” House said at the time. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s the court deciding not to be involved in the controversy.”
The deserters’ fight has since passed out of the courts and into the hazy realm of politics. On Dec. 6, the Parliament’s immigration committee passed the resolution that would give American deserters a chance at residency. The vote broke down along party lines: the four members of the Conservative Party (which is currently in power but lacks a parliamentary majority) voted against it, but they were outnumbered by the seven representatives of the three major opposition parties.
Whether such unity will survive the full House of Commons debate next month remains to be seen. The Iraq war has been immensely unpopular in Canada, and the leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and the left-leaning New Democratic Party have both come out in support of the resolution. But Canadian M.P.’s tend to vote with far more party discipline than their American counterparts, and Stéphane Dion, the head of the Liberal Party, has not yet taken a public stance on the bill. Without his support, its fate is uncertain.
In the meantime, the deserters have little to do but wait. Though the United States Army does issue arrest warrants for deserters, it does not actively track them down; even at home, deserters are most likely to be apprehended if they are picked up for an unrelated offense. According to a State Department spokeswoman, the United States has made no diplomatic efforts to bring deserters home from Canada. And despite the Canadian Supreme Court decision in November, none have yet been deported. But, as House puts it, “the machinery is grinding along.” At least eight deserters, including Hinzman, have received Preremoval Risk Assessment notices, the bureaucratic preludes to actual deportation orders. It’s very unlikely, though, that the government will make any move before the parliamentary vote in April. Even then, the deserters’ supporters say they hope, the government might prefer that this issue disappear. Given the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the Harper administration’s narrow hold on power, “the Conservatives have nothing to gain if this issue becomes very public,” says Michelle Robidoux of the War Resisters Support Campaign.
Undeterred by the Supreme Court ruling, new arrivals are still showing up. Robidoux’s group has added five to its roster in just the last three weeks. For Colby, Hinzman and others, uncertainty in Canada apparently looks better than combat in Iraq. “Every day that I’m here,” Colby says, “I’m glad I’m not in Baghdad.”
Ben Ehrenreich is the author of a novel, “The Suitors,” and has written for L.A. Weekly, Men’s Vogue and The Times Book Review.
March 23, 2008
Phenomenon
War Dodgers
By BEN EHRENREICH
Next month, the Canadian House of Commons is slated to debate a resolution that would allow conscientious objectors “who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the United Nations” to apply for residency in Canada. The phrasing is vague but the intent is not. The war in question is the Iraq war, and the resolution represents the culmination of a four-year debate about what to do with the small but steady stream of American soldiers who have fled across our northern border to avoid fighting in Iraq.
It all began in Jan. 2004, when a young American with a long, serious face walked into the Toronto law office of Jeffry House to ask for help with what was at the time a highly unusual immigration case. The American turned out to be a soldier named Jeremy Hinzman, an infantryman in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. He told House that his petition for conscientious-objector status was denied while he was stationed in Afghanistan. He crossed the border into Canada just days before his unit was to be deployed to Iraq. Of the more than 25,000 American soldiers who, according to the United States Department of Defense, have deserted since 2003, the Toronto-based War Resisters Support Campaign estimates that 225 have fled to Canada. (The D.O.D defines a deserter as anyone who has been AWOL for 30 consecutive days or who seeks asylum in a foreign country; desertion carries a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.)
The majority of the deserters in Canada have chosen not to make the authorities aware of their presence. Like any other illegal immigrants, they have settled for invisibility. A few dozen, though, followed Hinzman’s lead. Most found their way to Jeffry House. One young Army medic named Justin Colby read an AOL news posting about Hinzman’s case while stationed in Iraq. He telephoned House from Ramadi and showed up in his office a few months later.
House would eventually represent between 30 and 35 American deserters. Most of them, like Colby, say they joined the military in part out of patriotism. “I thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11,” Colby says, “that they were the bad guys that attacked our country.” But unlike Hinzman, most did not apply for conscientious-objector status. They tend to say they aren’t opposed to all wars in principle — just to the one they were ordered to fight. It wasn’t until Colby arrived in Iraq that he started to see the conflict as “a war of aggression, totally unprovoked,” he says. “I was, like, ‘This is what my buddies are dying for?’ ” Midway through his tour, he decided: “I’m never going to do this again.” He went AWOL the day before his unit left to train for a second deployment. House says that more than two-thirds of his clients have been deployed to Iraq at least once. “One is resisting a third deployment.”
Tens of thousands of American draft dodgers and deserters took refuge in Canada in the late 1960s and early ’70s. House was one of them. He packed up his car and left his home in Wisconsin 38 years ago to start a new life in Canada. The process was simple. “I came to the border and said: ‘I would like to immigrate to Canada. I’m refusing to serve in Vietnam,’ ” he recalls. Border officials had him type up an application for residency on the spot. “Four weeks later, I got my permanent-resident status.” But times have changed since Pierre Trudeau, then the prime minister, declared Canada “a refuge from militarism.” While Canada is still a relative haven for asylum-seekers, its immigration laws have tightened sharply, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been a faithful ally of the Bush administration. (Harper has kept 2,500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, whose deployment the House of Commons recently extended until 2011.) As a result, the new generation of war resisters find themselves in an uncomfortable squeeze. In today’s Canada, deserters like Hinzman really have only one legal option: to apply for residency as refugees.
“There’s a very clear Canadian precedent for the idea that no soldier has to participate in an illegal war,” House says. That precedent, interestingly enough, is a case in which an Iraqi Army soldier was granted asylum in Canada after fleeing to avoid taking part in the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. But House’s first task was to prove that the Iraq war is illegal. His argument relied largely on his reading of international law. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees lays out a slender possibility for relief. Mere disagreement with the “political justification for a particular military action” is not sufficient. The action must be “condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct.” Only in that case can punishment for desertion or draft evasion “be regarded as persecution.”
Juridically, at least, House saw the case as straightforward. A British court had awarded asylum to a Russian deserter of the Chechen war on the same basis. (British case law often influences Canadian jurisprudence.) And there was the precedent of the Iraqi deserter. But convincing the Canadian courts to equate George W. Bush’s occupation of Iraq with Saddam Hussein’s attack on Kuwait was a politically daunting task.
In the end, House never got the chance. He showed up at Hinzman’s first hearing armed with evidence arguing for the illegality of the Iraq war: 13 four-inch-thick binders containing everything from former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’s memos on the treatment of detainees to Human Rights Watch reports to the British Army’s documentation of civilian deaths at American military checkpoints. In March 2005, the immigration board ruled against Hinzman, insisting that its “authority does not include making judgments about United States foreign policy.”
A Canadian federal court upheld that decision in 2006, interpreting the relevant international law to apply only to high-level policy makers. “The ordinary foot soldier,” the court ruled, “is not expected to make his or her personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict.” All the documents in House’s 13 binders were thus irrelevant. House objected that policy makers are rarely asked to take up arms. But an appeals court ruled against him last April on other grounds.
“The present position is basically Pontius Pilate,” House told me last fall, not long before he hit the end of the legal road. In mid-November, the Supreme Court dismissed his request for an appeal. “It’s a huge loss,” House said at the time. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s the court deciding not to be involved in the controversy.”
The deserters’ fight has since passed out of the courts and into the hazy realm of politics. On Dec. 6, the Parliament’s immigration committee passed the resolution that would give American deserters a chance at residency. The vote broke down along party lines: the four members of the Conservative Party (which is currently in power but lacks a parliamentary majority) voted against it, but they were outnumbered by the seven representatives of the three major opposition parties.
Whether such unity will survive the full House of Commons debate next month remains to be seen. The Iraq war has been immensely unpopular in Canada, and the leaders of the Bloc Quebecois and the left-leaning New Democratic Party have both come out in support of the resolution. But Canadian M.P.’s tend to vote with far more party discipline than their American counterparts, and Stéphane Dion, the head of the Liberal Party, has not yet taken a public stance on the bill. Without his support, its fate is uncertain.
In the meantime, the deserters have little to do but wait. Though the United States Army does issue arrest warrants for deserters, it does not actively track them down; even at home, deserters are most likely to be apprehended if they are picked up for an unrelated offense. According to a State Department spokeswoman, the United States has made no diplomatic efforts to bring deserters home from Canada. And despite the Canadian Supreme Court decision in November, none have yet been deported. But, as House puts it, “the machinery is grinding along.” At least eight deserters, including Hinzman, have received Preremoval Risk Assessment notices, the bureaucratic preludes to actual deportation orders. It’s very unlikely, though, that the government will make any move before the parliamentary vote in April. Even then, the deserters’ supporters say they hope, the government might prefer that this issue disappear. Given the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the Harper administration’s narrow hold on power, “the Conservatives have nothing to gain if this issue becomes very public,” says Michelle Robidoux of the War Resisters Support Campaign.
Undeterred by the Supreme Court ruling, new arrivals are still showing up. Robidoux’s group has added five to its roster in just the last three weeks. For Colby, Hinzman and others, uncertainty in Canada apparently looks better than combat in Iraq. “Every day that I’m here,” Colby says, “I’m glad I’m not in Baghdad.”
Ben Ehrenreich is the author of a novel, “The Suitors,” and has written for L.A. Weekly, Men’s Vogue and The Times Book Review.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.....
Immigration consultant guilty of misconduct
TheStar.com
Truck driver clients didn't get Canadian jobs
March 20, 2008
Nicholas Keung
IMMIGRATION/DIVERSITY REPORTER
A Toronto immigration consultant has been found guilty of professional misconduct for failing to secure jobs for 24 Korean truck drivers she helped bring to Canada along with an immigration-consulting firm in Seoul.
After three months of deliberations, the discipline panel of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants ruled this week that Yolanda Simao failed to provide quality service to the drivers despite her claim she was not retained by the drivers and that her only client was the Korean recruiter.
The ruling, which stemmed from the four-year-old regulatory body's first disciplinary hearing in November, sheds new light on the often-murky relationship between prospective migrants, consultants and myriad unregulated recruitment agents overseas.
It also redefines the scope of what is considered immigration work by consultants who, due to a recent expansion of Canada's temporary foreign worker program, are increasingly doubling up their duties by acting as employment recruiters helping overseas workers obtain work permits.
In their complaints, the drivers said they each paid thousands of dollars to the unregulated recruiter in Seoul, who teamed up with Simao to find them Canadian employment.
The drivers said they were told they would earn $60,000 a year and could expect to get Canadian permanent residency after getting a work permit. However, the jobs evaporated because their English was not up to par.
Their story was one of many profiled in a Star investigative series last year that looked into unscrupulous immigration advisers. The regulatory body is also probing another case involving Mississauga's CWC Immigration Solutions Inc., run by CSIC consultants Gurpreet and Kamalpreet Khaira.
The disciplinary panel's decision against Simao hinged on the definition of a client-consultant relationship. Simao argued that her job was done when she successfully obtained work permits for the drivers.
"If the panel takes Ms Simao's view, then there are indeed a limited number of occasions when a consultant can be said to have entered a consultant/client relationship," the 23-page decision explained.
"While she may not have known (the drivers) or even met them, Ms Simao represented their interests to (Service Canada)."
The Star's "Lost in Migration" series, which won a 2007 international Online Journalism Award in the public service category, can be seen at www.thestar.com/investigation.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
HERE WE GO AGAIN....ROMA TAKING ADVANTAGE OF POLICY CHANGE
This is deja vu: Canada just lifted the visa requirement for citizenship of Czech Republic and Hungary, and Czech and Hungarian citizens of Roma origin are again busy trying to find creative ways to make bogus refugee claims. When will Canada learn? (rhetorical question...). We need to prevent a repeat of the situation and reject these claims immediately to discourage a flood of applicants. See Toronto Star report below:
Czech asylum bids watched in Ottawa
TheStar.com
Spike in applications, mostly by Roma, since visa requirement ended
March 19, 2008
Nicholas Keung
IMMIGRATION/DIVERSITY REPORTER
Canada has seen a rising number of Roma asylum seekers since lifting its visa requirement for Czech Republic visitors five months ago – and more are expected now that four other eastern European countries have been given the same exemption.
This month, Canada extended visa exemptions to Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania. All but the latter are populated by ethnic Roma, known colloquially as gypsies, who continue to face discrimination and social isolation in eastern Europe.
The European Union has been pressuring Canada to open its border to all 27 member states, eliminating barriers that especially involve eastern Europe.
Immigration Minister Diane Finley dropped the visa requirement for the Czech Republic as of Nov. 1.
Since then, claims for asylum by Czech visitors, in most cases Roma, shot up to 83 by the end of December, from zero the previous year. This past January, 45 more claims were entered.
There are concerns this could lead to a repeat of the 1996 influx of an estimated 4,000 Czech Roma into Canada after travel restrictions were eliminated. The majority were granted refugee status, but not before Canada reinstated a visa requirement.
This time, the Canadian government has made it known unofficially that should the number of Czech refugee claimants leap to 580 this year (or 2 per cent of all such claims Canada expects to process), it will restore the visa requirement.
At the Toronto Roma Community Centre on Springhurst Ave., executive director Paul St. Clair said he has been fielding calls from eastern Europeans wanting to learn more about coming to Canada."If we open the border, we open the border. We shouldn't limit how many refugees can apply from a country," said St. Clair, whose centre has files on about 40 Roma families seeking asylum since November.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada said the status quo between the two countries is based only on diplomatic assurances. "There is no 2 per cent (sanction) but it is important to remember that visa requirements are regularly reviewed," said spokesperson Danielle Norris.
Eliminating visas is a win-win for both countries in terms of trade and tourism, Czech Republic ambassador Pavel Vosalik told the Star, adding that using the 2 per cent yardstick to determine entry conditions for Czechs isn't fair.
He questioned the legitimacy of asylum applications, saying Czech natives are now free to travel in Europe if they decide their homeland lacks adequate security.
Canada now requires visas of only two EU members, Romania and Bulgaria. Norris said the eventual goal is to end those barriers as well.
Czech asylum bids watched in Ottawa
TheStar.com
Spike in applications, mostly by Roma, since visa requirement ended
March 19, 2008
Nicholas Keung
IMMIGRATION/DIVERSITY REPORTER
Canada has seen a rising number of Roma asylum seekers since lifting its visa requirement for Czech Republic visitors five months ago – and more are expected now that four other eastern European countries have been given the same exemption.
This month, Canada extended visa exemptions to Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Lithuania. All but the latter are populated by ethnic Roma, known colloquially as gypsies, who continue to face discrimination and social isolation in eastern Europe.
The European Union has been pressuring Canada to open its border to all 27 member states, eliminating barriers that especially involve eastern Europe.
Immigration Minister Diane Finley dropped the visa requirement for the Czech Republic as of Nov. 1.
Since then, claims for asylum by Czech visitors, in most cases Roma, shot up to 83 by the end of December, from zero the previous year. This past January, 45 more claims were entered.
There are concerns this could lead to a repeat of the 1996 influx of an estimated 4,000 Czech Roma into Canada after travel restrictions were eliminated. The majority were granted refugee status, but not before Canada reinstated a visa requirement.
This time, the Canadian government has made it known unofficially that should the number of Czech refugee claimants leap to 580 this year (or 2 per cent of all such claims Canada expects to process), it will restore the visa requirement.
At the Toronto Roma Community Centre on Springhurst Ave., executive director Paul St. Clair said he has been fielding calls from eastern Europeans wanting to learn more about coming to Canada."If we open the border, we open the border. We shouldn't limit how many refugees can apply from a country," said St. Clair, whose centre has files on about 40 Roma families seeking asylum since November.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada said the status quo between the two countries is based only on diplomatic assurances. "There is no 2 per cent (sanction) but it is important to remember that visa requirements are regularly reviewed," said spokesperson Danielle Norris.
Eliminating visas is a win-win for both countries in terms of trade and tourism, Czech Republic ambassador Pavel Vosalik told the Star, adding that using the 2 per cent yardstick to determine entry conditions for Czechs isn't fair.
He questioned the legitimacy of asylum applications, saying Czech natives are now free to travel in Europe if they decide their homeland lacks adequate security.
Canada now requires visas of only two EU members, Romania and Bulgaria. Norris said the eventual goal is to end those barriers as well.
HOW NOT TO CROSS THE BORDER
The decision below, just released, shows how NOT to cross the border. Obviously, these individuals did not have legal counsel to advise them as to how to deal with their immigration situation, which could have easily have been resolved without incident if they had not tried to do so much fancy footwork.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v. Bodine
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Alison Colette Bodine
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (Immigration Division)
M. Tessler Member
Heard: October 31, 2007
Judgment: October 31, 2007
Docket: A7-00753
M. Tessler Member:
1 Canada Border Services Agency alleges that Ms. Bodine is inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a potential ground of inadmissibility found in section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . It reads as follows:
40. (1) ...a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
(a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act
2 The structure of my decision will be as follows. I will summarize generally the circumstances that led to the allegation. I will briefly discuss what this hearing does not concern. I will then look at the evidence and make some specific findings of act. Then I will move on to the legal issue.
3 Ms. Bodine is a citizen of the United States and neither a permanent resident nor a Canadian citizen. At approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 10th, Ms. Bodine arrived in her car at the Peace Arch border crossing. Her car was filled with many items, including a large chest, several backpacks and a bicycle. Ms. Bodine was examined by CBSA Officer Kelly Emmett (phonetic). Her car was also inspected by Officer Emmett and another officer. Officer Emmett noted that Ms. Bodine had more belongings than would be required for a trip to Canada for two to three months. She did not have any proof of available funds or of a US address to which she would return. Officer Emmett formed the opinion that Ms. Bodine would not leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for her stay in Canada. Ms. Bodine did not protest Officer Emmett's decision and agreed to voluntarily withdraw her application to enter.
4 Around noon on the same date, Ms. Bodine returned in her car to the same border crossing. At this time her car contained only a few items, including a single backpack. Ms. Bodine was admitted to Canada. She did not advise the officer who examined her at the primary inspection line that she had been allowed to voluntarily withdraw from Canada earlier in the day. She did not advise the officer that she had in her possession the information suggested by Officer Emmett that she have available.
5 A few minutes later, Andrew Barry (phonetic), a Canadian citizen, approached the border seeking to re-enter Canada. In his car were many of the items Ms. Bodine had had in her car when she sought to enter Canada earlier that morning. Among these items were personal papers of Ms. Bodine's, including an expired passport. When CBSA learned from Mr. Barry that Ms. Bodine had entered Canada a few minutes before, the belongings were seized and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
6 Canada Border Services alleges that when Ms. Bodine sought to enter Canada the second time, she misrepresented or withheld the fact that she had been refused entry earlier that day. CBSA also alleges that Ms. Bodine misrepresented the amount of belongings she was intending on bringing into Canada.
7 Now, I want to talk for a moment about what this hearing is not about. It is not about Officer Emmett's decision to deny Ms. Bodine entry into Canada. I am not here to look behind that decision. I will tell you that I am not sure that I agree with Officer Emmett's decision. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is very clear at section 22(2) that a person can have a dual intent when coming into Canada. It reads:
22. (2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.
8 In my estimation, there was very little before Officer Emmett that suggested Ms. Bodine would not comply with the requirement that she leave Canada at the end of her visit. In fact, Officer Emmett had Ms. Bodine's computer file that showed that she had complied in the past with all requirements placed on her by Immigration authorities. She had been in Canada recently, as recently as the summer. She had just completed her Bachelor of Science degree at UBC in May after four years on study permits. For part of that time, she had an off-campus work permit. In four years, I would imagine she had made many friends and connections in Canada and might have had some interest in visiting them and perhaps seeking to live in Canada permanently.
9 Officer Emmett concluded from the quantity of belongings in Ms. Bodine's car that she would not leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for her stay. I am rather bewildered by that conclusion in the face of the provision for dual intent in the legislation and Ms. Bodine's untarnished record with Canada Immigration authorities.
10 It would not have been improper for Ms. Bodine to have been thinking about permanently living in Canada. It would not have been improper of her to seek to live with her partner for an extended period of time. All she was required to do was remain in status; that is, leave by the end of her authorized period or apply for an extension, and not work or study without authorization. These were concepts that Ms. Bodine understood well. Officer Emmett could simply have reminded Ms. Bodine of her obligations under the Immigration Act but instead chose to refuse her admission. Ms. Bodine was probably unaware that if she had been politely insistent, the question of her admission could have been adjudicated at a hearing such as this.
11 This hearing is also not about Ms. Bodine's political opinion or affiliations. Ms. Bodine was of the view that Officer Emmett's decision to deny her entry was influenced by antiwar literature found in her car. This was Ms. Bodine's impression of her interaction with Officer Emmett, but not Officer Emmett's recall of the event. The evidence is not at all conclusive on this subject. Officer Emmett says she never saw the literature. Ms. Bodine says Officer Emmett brought a sample from the car and asked her about it.
12 Perhaps Officer Emmett saw some antiwar literature and it influenced her decision to not admit Ms. Bodine. This would have been improper as it relates to no ground of inadmissibility and it would ignore the Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression and freedom of association. Nonetheless, this just brings us back to what I originally noted: Officer Emmett's decision to deny Ms. Bodine entry to Canada is not the subject of this hearing. What I have offered is an opinion on it. I have no authority to overrule it.
13 Now I will address the substance of this hearing. There are essentially two issues. The first issue is a factual issue: what happened at the border when Ms. Bodine sought to enter Canada the second time. The second issue is a legal issue: did she make a material misrepresentation when she came to the border the second time.
14 Ms. Bodine asserts that when she was denied to Canada, she decided to change her plans regarding Canada. She drove into Blaine, Washington and slept in her car. In the morning, she received a call from Simon Fraser University about a teaching assistant position she had applied for. She decided then that she would attempt to come into Canada for a couple of days to see about the job. In order to address two of Officer Emmett's concerns, Ms. Bodine obtained an ATM receipt showing her account balance and a statement showing her home address in Colorado.
15 In the meantime, her boyfriend, Mr. Barry, drove to Blaine to meet her. According to Ms. Bodine, she gave Mr. Barry his belongings that had been in her car, including the bicycle. She also gave him the chest that primarily contained the antiwar literature that Ms. Bodine felt caused her to be turned away at the border. According to her testimony, she transferred to Mr. Barry's car only things belonging to him and that when she approached the border the second time, she had with her only her belongings, her personal belongings, including a backpack and some other bags. She admitted that she inadvertently left a folder full of personal documents in the chest.
16 The Minister presented in a post-hearing letter a receipt for the seized goods, those seized from Mr. Barry's car, indicating that seized from Mr. Barry was a bike, a bike rack, helmet, wooden chest, two black bags, two red bags and a beige bag. Officer Dempsey, who inspected Mr. Barry's car, stated in a statutory declaration that the trunk of Mr. Barry's car contained several backpacks and a chest.
The trunk contained several backpacks and a large chest that contained goods such as several photo albums, old letters, old bills, unopened letters, several notebooks with notes, many old books, women's clothing, women's shoes, a certificate of achievement for a course that was completed, personal file folders filled with personal information, artwork. Political and cannabis literature was found within the contents. Inside one of the backpacks was an expired passport of a woman, as well as other picture identification.
17 Because these are items that Officer Dempsey personally inspected and seized, I prefer his statutory declaration over Ms. Bodine's oral testimony. Ms. Bodine attempted to minimize the significance of the transfer to Mr. Barry's car. She testified that only Mr. Barry's belongings and the political literature were moved. But in fact Mr. Barry's trunk contained many of Ms. Bodine's own possessions, including clothing and personal documents, and these were not just inadvertently in the chest but also in one of the backpacks.
18 I draw two conclusions: First, that Ms. Bodine unburdened herself of the bulk of the items from her car to create the impression to border officials that she was bringing into Canada no more than what she would need for a short sojourn in Canada, once again, in order to address Officer Emmett's concerns. Second, at this hearing Ms. Bodine wanted to create the impression that transferring the bulk of the items was not a calculated act; at least, it was only calculated in respect of the political literature that she felt had hindered her admission previously.
19 I think it is clear that when Ms. Bodine decided to attempt to enter Canada again, she gave regard to the CBSA officer's advice. She prepared herself by having an ATM receipt showing her bank balance, some proof of a US address, only those belongings needed for her visit and no eyebrow-raising political material.
20 The statutory declaration of the border officer who examined her on her second attempt to enter Canada reveals that the officer does not remember very much of the encounter, but does offer the opinion that if Ms. Bodine's car had contained all of her belongings, she would have been referred for a secondary examination. This opinion has no influence on my decision.
21 Ms. Bodine testified that she told the border officer that she was seeking to enter Canada for two or three days. She did not advise the officer that she had been allowed to leave earlier the same day. She was not referred to a secondary examination and therefore was not asked for the documents to show her funds and connection to the US.
22 This leads me to the second issue: whether there was a misrepresentation in law. There was considerable argument about whether and to what degree Ms. Bodine owed a duty of candour, in other words, a duty to spontaneously disclose to the border officer that she had been refused entry earlier that day. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to make this determination.
23 Misrepresentation may take many forms and occur in a variety of circumstances. It may occur when completing application forms for status in Canada, for example by claiming to be single when actually married. It may occur by presenting false documents, such as a fraudulent acceptance letter for a college. It may also arise from omissions, by the withholding of information relevant to one's admission, for example by not disclosing an existing criminal record when asked. This last example relates to the requirement in subsection 16(1) of the Act.
16. (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
24 Clearly in this case Ms. Bodine was not asked by the officer about the quantity of belongings she was bringing into Canada. She was not asked because she was displaying only a minimum of personal effects. She was not asked because, as I have found in fact, she had transferred most of her belongings to Mr. Barry's car. The purpose of doing so was unquestionably to mislead the examining officer into believing she was bringing into Canada less than she actually was. I characterize this as either indirectly withholding information or directly misrepresenting. Not much turns on how it is phrased.
25 A misrepresentation must be of a material fact. "Material" means in context relevant to that person's admission to Canada and it's very case-specific. "Material" also relates to what a person objectively knows to be relevant to the border officials.
26 In this case, seeing only a few things in Ms. Bodine's car, the border officer's interest was not piqued. This is precisely what makes Ms. Bodine's misrepresentation material. She knew that a car full of possessions would attract unwanted attention, as it had when she tried to enter earlier the same day. She knew that she had been denied admission to Canada because, among other concerns, reasonable or not, she had had with her too much stuff. By removing the bulk of the belongings, she foreclosed or averted further inquiries, or in other words, she cut off an avenue of investigation for the officer.
27 This connects to the final element of the allegation: whether the misrepresentation induced or could have induced an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . If one withholds or misrepresents information that is relevant to whether or not one is admitted to Canada, then it creates the potential for an error in the administration of the Act; that is, the potential for admitting someone who may not be admissible. I appreciate that Ms. Bodine felt her earlier refusal of admission had been unjustified, and I am inclined to agree, but that did not justify Ms. Bodine in turn playing fast and loose with border officials.
28 In summary, I am satisfied that all the elements of the allegation have been established and I am required to make an exclusion order against Ms. Bodine, which I hereby do. So I'll conclude this matter and provide Ms. Bodine with the order.
29 -- PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED
Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) v. Bodine
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Alison Colette Bodine
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (Immigration Division)
M. Tessler Member
Heard: October 31, 2007
Judgment: October 31, 2007
Docket: A7-00753
M. Tessler Member:
1 Canada Border Services Agency alleges that Ms. Bodine is inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a potential ground of inadmissibility found in section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . It reads as follows:
40. (1) ...a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation
(a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act
2 The structure of my decision will be as follows. I will summarize generally the circumstances that led to the allegation. I will briefly discuss what this hearing does not concern. I will then look at the evidence and make some specific findings of act. Then I will move on to the legal issue.
3 Ms. Bodine is a citizen of the United States and neither a permanent resident nor a Canadian citizen. At approximately 2:00 a.m. on September 10th, Ms. Bodine arrived in her car at the Peace Arch border crossing. Her car was filled with many items, including a large chest, several backpacks and a bicycle. Ms. Bodine was examined by CBSA Officer Kelly Emmett (phonetic). Her car was also inspected by Officer Emmett and another officer. Officer Emmett noted that Ms. Bodine had more belongings than would be required for a trip to Canada for two to three months. She did not have any proof of available funds or of a US address to which she would return. Officer Emmett formed the opinion that Ms. Bodine would not leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for her stay in Canada. Ms. Bodine did not protest Officer Emmett's decision and agreed to voluntarily withdraw her application to enter.
4 Around noon on the same date, Ms. Bodine returned in her car to the same border crossing. At this time her car contained only a few items, including a single backpack. Ms. Bodine was admitted to Canada. She did not advise the officer who examined her at the primary inspection line that she had been allowed to voluntarily withdraw from Canada earlier in the day. She did not advise the officer that she had in her possession the information suggested by Officer Emmett that she have available.
5 A few minutes later, Andrew Barry (phonetic), a Canadian citizen, approached the border seeking to re-enter Canada. In his car were many of the items Ms. Bodine had had in her car when she sought to enter Canada earlier that morning. Among these items were personal papers of Ms. Bodine's, including an expired passport. When CBSA learned from Mr. Barry that Ms. Bodine had entered Canada a few minutes before, the belongings were seized and a warrant was issued for her arrest.
6 Canada Border Services alleges that when Ms. Bodine sought to enter Canada the second time, she misrepresented or withheld the fact that she had been refused entry earlier that day. CBSA also alleges that Ms. Bodine misrepresented the amount of belongings she was intending on bringing into Canada.
7 Now, I want to talk for a moment about what this hearing is not about. It is not about Officer Emmett's decision to deny Ms. Bodine entry into Canada. I am not here to look behind that decision. I will tell you that I am not sure that I agree with Officer Emmett's decision. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is very clear at section 22(2) that a person can have a dual intent when coming into Canada. It reads:
22. (2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.
8 In my estimation, there was very little before Officer Emmett that suggested Ms. Bodine would not comply with the requirement that she leave Canada at the end of her visit. In fact, Officer Emmett had Ms. Bodine's computer file that showed that she had complied in the past with all requirements placed on her by Immigration authorities. She had been in Canada recently, as recently as the summer. She had just completed her Bachelor of Science degree at UBC in May after four years on study permits. For part of that time, she had an off-campus work permit. In four years, I would imagine she had made many friends and connections in Canada and might have had some interest in visiting them and perhaps seeking to live in Canada permanently.
9 Officer Emmett concluded from the quantity of belongings in Ms. Bodine's car that she would not leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for her stay. I am rather bewildered by that conclusion in the face of the provision for dual intent in the legislation and Ms. Bodine's untarnished record with Canada Immigration authorities.
10 It would not have been improper for Ms. Bodine to have been thinking about permanently living in Canada. It would not have been improper of her to seek to live with her partner for an extended period of time. All she was required to do was remain in status; that is, leave by the end of her authorized period or apply for an extension, and not work or study without authorization. These were concepts that Ms. Bodine understood well. Officer Emmett could simply have reminded Ms. Bodine of her obligations under the Immigration Act but instead chose to refuse her admission. Ms. Bodine was probably unaware that if she had been politely insistent, the question of her admission could have been adjudicated at a hearing such as this.
11 This hearing is also not about Ms. Bodine's political opinion or affiliations. Ms. Bodine was of the view that Officer Emmett's decision to deny her entry was influenced by antiwar literature found in her car. This was Ms. Bodine's impression of her interaction with Officer Emmett, but not Officer Emmett's recall of the event. The evidence is not at all conclusive on this subject. Officer Emmett says she never saw the literature. Ms. Bodine says Officer Emmett brought a sample from the car and asked her about it.
12 Perhaps Officer Emmett saw some antiwar literature and it influenced her decision to not admit Ms. Bodine. This would have been improper as it relates to no ground of inadmissibility and it would ignore the Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression and freedom of association. Nonetheless, this just brings us back to what I originally noted: Officer Emmett's decision to deny Ms. Bodine entry to Canada is not the subject of this hearing. What I have offered is an opinion on it. I have no authority to overrule it.
13 Now I will address the substance of this hearing. There are essentially two issues. The first issue is a factual issue: what happened at the border when Ms. Bodine sought to enter Canada the second time. The second issue is a legal issue: did she make a material misrepresentation when she came to the border the second time.
14 Ms. Bodine asserts that when she was denied to Canada, she decided to change her plans regarding Canada. She drove into Blaine, Washington and slept in her car. In the morning, she received a call from Simon Fraser University about a teaching assistant position she had applied for. She decided then that she would attempt to come into Canada for a couple of days to see about the job. In order to address two of Officer Emmett's concerns, Ms. Bodine obtained an ATM receipt showing her account balance and a statement showing her home address in Colorado.
15 In the meantime, her boyfriend, Mr. Barry, drove to Blaine to meet her. According to Ms. Bodine, she gave Mr. Barry his belongings that had been in her car, including the bicycle. She also gave him the chest that primarily contained the antiwar literature that Ms. Bodine felt caused her to be turned away at the border. According to her testimony, she transferred to Mr. Barry's car only things belonging to him and that when she approached the border the second time, she had with her only her belongings, her personal belongings, including a backpack and some other bags. She admitted that she inadvertently left a folder full of personal documents in the chest.
16 The Minister presented in a post-hearing letter a receipt for the seized goods, those seized from Mr. Barry's car, indicating that seized from Mr. Barry was a bike, a bike rack, helmet, wooden chest, two black bags, two red bags and a beige bag. Officer Dempsey, who inspected Mr. Barry's car, stated in a statutory declaration that the trunk of Mr. Barry's car contained several backpacks and a chest.
The trunk contained several backpacks and a large chest that contained goods such as several photo albums, old letters, old bills, unopened letters, several notebooks with notes, many old books, women's clothing, women's shoes, a certificate of achievement for a course that was completed, personal file folders filled with personal information, artwork. Political and cannabis literature was found within the contents. Inside one of the backpacks was an expired passport of a woman, as well as other picture identification.
17 Because these are items that Officer Dempsey personally inspected and seized, I prefer his statutory declaration over Ms. Bodine's oral testimony. Ms. Bodine attempted to minimize the significance of the transfer to Mr. Barry's car. She testified that only Mr. Barry's belongings and the political literature were moved. But in fact Mr. Barry's trunk contained many of Ms. Bodine's own possessions, including clothing and personal documents, and these were not just inadvertently in the chest but also in one of the backpacks.
18 I draw two conclusions: First, that Ms. Bodine unburdened herself of the bulk of the items from her car to create the impression to border officials that she was bringing into Canada no more than what she would need for a short sojourn in Canada, once again, in order to address Officer Emmett's concerns. Second, at this hearing Ms. Bodine wanted to create the impression that transferring the bulk of the items was not a calculated act; at least, it was only calculated in respect of the political literature that she felt had hindered her admission previously.
19 I think it is clear that when Ms. Bodine decided to attempt to enter Canada again, she gave regard to the CBSA officer's advice. She prepared herself by having an ATM receipt showing her bank balance, some proof of a US address, only those belongings needed for her visit and no eyebrow-raising political material.
20 The statutory declaration of the border officer who examined her on her second attempt to enter Canada reveals that the officer does not remember very much of the encounter, but does offer the opinion that if Ms. Bodine's car had contained all of her belongings, she would have been referred for a secondary examination. This opinion has no influence on my decision.
21 Ms. Bodine testified that she told the border officer that she was seeking to enter Canada for two or three days. She did not advise the officer that she had been allowed to leave earlier the same day. She was not referred to a secondary examination and therefore was not asked for the documents to show her funds and connection to the US.
22 This leads me to the second issue: whether there was a misrepresentation in law. There was considerable argument about whether and to what degree Ms. Bodine owed a duty of candour, in other words, a duty to spontaneously disclose to the border officer that she had been refused entry earlier that day. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to make this determination.
23 Misrepresentation may take many forms and occur in a variety of circumstances. It may occur when completing application forms for status in Canada, for example by claiming to be single when actually married. It may occur by presenting false documents, such as a fraudulent acceptance letter for a college. It may also arise from omissions, by the withholding of information relevant to one's admission, for example by not disclosing an existing criminal record when asked. This last example relates to the requirement in subsection 16(1) of the Act.
16. (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.
24 Clearly in this case Ms. Bodine was not asked by the officer about the quantity of belongings she was bringing into Canada. She was not asked because she was displaying only a minimum of personal effects. She was not asked because, as I have found in fact, she had transferred most of her belongings to Mr. Barry's car. The purpose of doing so was unquestionably to mislead the examining officer into believing she was bringing into Canada less than she actually was. I characterize this as either indirectly withholding information or directly misrepresenting. Not much turns on how it is phrased.
25 A misrepresentation must be of a material fact. "Material" means in context relevant to that person's admission to Canada and it's very case-specific. "Material" also relates to what a person objectively knows to be relevant to the border officials.
26 In this case, seeing only a few things in Ms. Bodine's car, the border officer's interest was not piqued. This is precisely what makes Ms. Bodine's misrepresentation material. She knew that a car full of possessions would attract unwanted attention, as it had when she tried to enter earlier the same day. She knew that she had been denied admission to Canada because, among other concerns, reasonable or not, she had had with her too much stuff. By removing the bulk of the belongings, she foreclosed or averted further inquiries, or in other words, she cut off an avenue of investigation for the officer.
27 This connects to the final element of the allegation: whether the misrepresentation induced or could have induced an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . If one withholds or misrepresents information that is relevant to whether or not one is admitted to Canada, then it creates the potential for an error in the administration of the Act; that is, the potential for admitting someone who may not be admissible. I appreciate that Ms. Bodine felt her earlier refusal of admission had been unjustified, and I am inclined to agree, but that did not justify Ms. Bodine in turn playing fast and loose with border officials.
28 In summary, I am satisfied that all the elements of the allegation have been established and I am required to make an exclusion order against Ms. Bodine, which I hereby do. So I'll conclude this matter and provide Ms. Bodine with the order.
29 -- PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
