I was quoted in this article. https://www.thepostmillennial.com/dzsurdzsa-in-canada-we-dont-have-illegal-immigrants-we-have-irregular-border-crossers/
Showing posts with label Canada immigration asylum seekers refugees illegal entry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada immigration asylum seekers refugees illegal entry. Show all posts
Friday, November 30, 2018
Friday, February 17, 2012
TOUGH BILL TARGETS BOGUS REFUGEES
The party is over for many counting on long delays . How will this work? consider that human smugglers always seem to be one step a head of the law and find ways to beat the system. Should the government have declared a moratorium until they can implement the reforms?
Refugee reforms include fingerprints, no appeals for some - Politics - CBC News
Refugee reforms include fingerprints, no appeals for some - Politics - CBC News
Thursday, February 16, 2012
REFUGEE REFORMS COMING SOON
Feds expected to tighten refugee rules
Immigration and Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney may introduce more legislation to deal with a spike in refugee claimants, most notably, from Hungary.
Photograph by: Peter J. Thompson/National Post/Files, National Post
CBC News reports Immigration Minister Jason Kenney plans to announce legislation this week to further strengthen barriers against what the government considers to be "bogus" refugee claimants coming from countries where they face no real risk or persecution.
Among other things, it's expected the legislation, if passed, would block an appeal route for refugee claimants coming from countries the government has designated as "safe," and eliminate a committee of experts which was to advise the government on which countries to place on that list.
The move comes as Canada copes with a massive spike in refugee applications from Hungary. Figures recently obtained by Postmedia News suggest 4,409 Hungarians applied for refugee status in 2011 compared with just 2,300 a year earlier. In 2009 there were 2,440 applications for asylum.
According to 2009 and 2010 figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Canada is by far the top destination for Hungarian asylum seekers.
Belgium was the next highest destination, at 188 applications. The United States received 47 claims, while Norway and France each received 33.
The Canadian government has taken a hard line on Roma asylum applications in recent years.
A spike in Roma asylum claimants from Czech Republic two years ago — 95 Czech Roma landed at Toronto's Pearson International Airport in a single night — prompted the government to impose a visa requirement on Czech citizens and led Kenney to label most Czech Roma claims as "bogus."
In 2010, Kenney told the House of Commons that some Roma asylum-seekers are "coached to come to Canada, make a false asylum claim, and then register for provincial welfare benefits."
Since Kenney's public questioning of the veracity of the Czech asylum claims, the Immigration and Refugee Board has taken a much harder line on Roma applicants.
It approved just two per cent of Czech Republic refugee claims in 2010 and five per cent in the first nine months of 2011. It has been equally hard on claims from Hungarian nationals, approving two per cent in 2010 and seven per cent in the first nine months of last year.
Friday, January 13, 2012
HUNGARIAN ROMA IN HAMILTON HUMAN SMUGGLING TRIAL
See article below from the Hamilton Spectator, ongoing case on human trafficking. As the economic situation in Hungary continues to deteriorate, the numbers will probably become larger. It is time to impose a visa on Hungary, as it seems unable to curb the abuse of our refugee determination system. A few years ago, the same situation arose with Roma citizens of the Czech Republic, until Canada reimposes a visa requirement.
January 12, 2012
An ongoing human trafficking case in Hamilton has sparked sharp criticism of Canada’s immigration and refugee system.
The case prosecutor, assistant Crown attorney Toni Skarica blames the removal of Hungarian visitors’ visa requirements for providing “the opportunity for the expansion of the ... criminal organization into Canada,” he wrote in a court document.
He denounced the alleged criminal organization as “an invasion of evil,” from Hungary.
“They came into Canada virtually unmolested and set up shop ... something has to be done to prevent that in the future,” Skarica said in court.
It’s the largest human trafficking case in Canadian history.
Since the RCMP issued arrest warrants more than 13 months ago, 13 members of an alleged Hungarian Roma criminal organization have been arrested.
A youth pleaded guilty and was deported in September and Lajos Domotor — a “latecomer” to the organization — pleaded guilty to human trafficking and criminal organization charges Tuesday. He is dying of stomach cancer and will spend up to 10½ months in custody before being deported back to Hungary.
There are 10 accused who remain in jail awaiting trial later this year. None can be named because of a publication ban.
The RCMP have statements from 19 alleged victims, who describe being forced to hand over their documentation, live in their captors’ basements and work for little or no pay.
Skarica and RCMP say the alleged criminal organization would recruit people from Hungary, pay for their airfare to Canada, have them claim refugee status, sign up for welfare and then work like slaves.
During Lajos Domotor’s sentencing Justice Stephen Glithero expressed shock that this criminal organization “came over here without any apparent challenge and set up shop.”
In 2001, Canada required Hungarians to apply for a visa before entering the country. This was in response to the large number of Hungarian refugee claims, explains Skarica in the court document obtained by the Hamilton Spectator.
But when Hungary entered the European Union, Canada lifted that visa requirement in March 2008. Since then, Hungarians have been flocking to Canada to claim refugee status, according to statistics released from Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board.
In 2007, 34 Hungarians claimed refugee status, and of the cases finalized, 43 per cent were accepted as refugees. But in 2009, for instance, 2,423 Hungarians claimed refugee status. The refugee board was only able to get through 268, of which only 1 per cent were accepted.
Most cases are withdrawn or simply abandoned without notice or explanation.
Hungary went from not making the list of top 10 countries that refugee claimants come from to ranking second highest in 2009 and topping all countries in 2010.
In the first half of 2011, Hungary continued to dominate, with 1,600 refugee claimants referred to the board.
While the government doesn’t further break down the reasons people claim refugee status, anecdotally it’s understood many of the claimants coming from Hungary say they are persecuted because they are Roma, said Imre Helyes, head of the consular section of the Hungarian embassy in Ottawa.
Most of the victims and all of the accused in the ongoing human trafficking case are Roma.
The Roma population of Hungary has long claimed persecution and there is clearly racial tension between Hungarian nationals and the gypsy group. However, Helyes said he believes most claimants are simply trying to abuse Canada’s immigration and refugee system.
If lives were truly in danger, he said, why would so many people abandon or withdraw their refugee claims and choose to go back to Hungary?
There have been whispers about Canada considering imposing visa requirements on Hungary for the last few years. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney visited Budapest in June 2009, where he urged Hungarian authorities to take steps to stem the flood of refugee claimants.
Kenney’s office declined an interview request by The Spectator for this article, deferring to a Citizenship and Immigration Canada spokesperson who would not say whether the government is considering changing the visa requirement.
“We are concerned about the number of asylum claims coming from the EU, and in particular Hungary, as there has been a significant increase,” CIC spokesperson Nancy Caron said in an email.
The government passed the Balanced Refugee Reform Act last June, which makes a number of changes to the refugee claim system. Caron said when the act comes into effect this June, the government expects claimants to have their cases heard in a matter of weeks — it currently takes months.
Helyes said he believes these changes — particularly if cases are heard much faster — will be a deterrent to false asylum seekers.
Human trafficking is in no way only a Hungarian or Canadian issue. But it is one Hungary is focusing on, he said.
In Hungary, this starts with stricter law enforcement to “suppress” this activity, he said, adding that the country is also working on intelligence-gathering that it shares with allies.
But there are key differences in the justice systems of Canada and Hungary.
Prosecutors of the Hamilton case found that several of the accused human traffickers skipped out on criminal charges in Hungary when they came to Canada.
But when the Hungarian court can’t find or access a suspect, in many cases after a handful of years pass, the charges are dissolved. This happened with two alleged key members of the Roma criminal organization, who had criminal charges against them dropped in Hungary in 2006.
“This meant that (they) had status in Canada and were also free from any threat of deportation back to Hungary,” Skarica said in the court document. It was shortly after these developments that the pair began to expand their alleged organization in Canada.
Helyes confirmed there is a statute of limitations on some crimes, but he added that criminals who have fled Hungary are often extradited back for trial.
Hungary is aware of the human trafficking issue and authorities are committed to working with Canada, he said. Hungarian authorities have been working with the RCMP on the ongoing Hamilton case.
But to change the visa requirements would have much larger political implications.
A visa-free regime is a way of deepening the relationship between countries, Helyes said. But he also recognizes it comes with responsibility.
“Hungary has been very clear ... firmly stating that Hungary is ready and committed to co-operate with the Canadian side and/or take other measures if necessary.”
Human trafficking case puts spotlight on refugee system
January 12, 2012
An ongoing human trafficking case in Hamilton has sparked sharp criticism of Canada’s immigration and refugee system.
The case prosecutor, assistant Crown attorney Toni Skarica blames the removal of Hungarian visitors’ visa requirements for providing “the opportunity for the expansion of the ... criminal organization into Canada,” he wrote in a court document.
He denounced the alleged criminal organization as “an invasion of evil,” from Hungary.
“They came into Canada virtually unmolested and set up shop ... something has to be done to prevent that in the future,” Skarica said in court.
It’s the largest human trafficking case in Canadian history.
Since the RCMP issued arrest warrants more than 13 months ago, 13 members of an alleged Hungarian Roma criminal organization have been arrested.
A youth pleaded guilty and was deported in September and Lajos Domotor — a “latecomer” to the organization — pleaded guilty to human trafficking and criminal organization charges Tuesday. He is dying of stomach cancer and will spend up to 10½ months in custody before being deported back to Hungary.
There are 10 accused who remain in jail awaiting trial later this year. None can be named because of a publication ban.
The RCMP have statements from 19 alleged victims, who describe being forced to hand over their documentation, live in their captors’ basements and work for little or no pay.
Skarica and RCMP say the alleged criminal organization would recruit people from Hungary, pay for their airfare to Canada, have them claim refugee status, sign up for welfare and then work like slaves.
During Lajos Domotor’s sentencing Justice Stephen Glithero expressed shock that this criminal organization “came over here without any apparent challenge and set up shop.”
In 2001, Canada required Hungarians to apply for a visa before entering the country. This was in response to the large number of Hungarian refugee claims, explains Skarica in the court document obtained by the Hamilton Spectator.
But when Hungary entered the European Union, Canada lifted that visa requirement in March 2008. Since then, Hungarians have been flocking to Canada to claim refugee status, according to statistics released from Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board.
In 2007, 34 Hungarians claimed refugee status, and of the cases finalized, 43 per cent were accepted as refugees. But in 2009, for instance, 2,423 Hungarians claimed refugee status. The refugee board was only able to get through 268, of which only 1 per cent were accepted.
Most cases are withdrawn or simply abandoned without notice or explanation.
Hungary went from not making the list of top 10 countries that refugee claimants come from to ranking second highest in 2009 and topping all countries in 2010.
In the first half of 2011, Hungary continued to dominate, with 1,600 refugee claimants referred to the board.
While the government doesn’t further break down the reasons people claim refugee status, anecdotally it’s understood many of the claimants coming from Hungary say they are persecuted because they are Roma, said Imre Helyes, head of the consular section of the Hungarian embassy in Ottawa.
Most of the victims and all of the accused in the ongoing human trafficking case are Roma.
The Roma population of Hungary has long claimed persecution and there is clearly racial tension between Hungarian nationals and the gypsy group. However, Helyes said he believes most claimants are simply trying to abuse Canada’s immigration and refugee system.
If lives were truly in danger, he said, why would so many people abandon or withdraw their refugee claims and choose to go back to Hungary?
There have been whispers about Canada considering imposing visa requirements on Hungary for the last few years. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney visited Budapest in June 2009, where he urged Hungarian authorities to take steps to stem the flood of refugee claimants.
Kenney’s office declined an interview request by The Spectator for this article, deferring to a Citizenship and Immigration Canada spokesperson who would not say whether the government is considering changing the visa requirement.
“We are concerned about the number of asylum claims coming from the EU, and in particular Hungary, as there has been a significant increase,” CIC spokesperson Nancy Caron said in an email.
The government passed the Balanced Refugee Reform Act last June, which makes a number of changes to the refugee claim system. Caron said when the act comes into effect this June, the government expects claimants to have their cases heard in a matter of weeks — it currently takes months.
Helyes said he believes these changes — particularly if cases are heard much faster — will be a deterrent to false asylum seekers.
Human trafficking is in no way only a Hungarian or Canadian issue. But it is one Hungary is focusing on, he said.
In Hungary, this starts with stricter law enforcement to “suppress” this activity, he said, adding that the country is also working on intelligence-gathering that it shares with allies.
But there are key differences in the justice systems of Canada and Hungary.
Prosecutors of the Hamilton case found that several of the accused human traffickers skipped out on criminal charges in Hungary when they came to Canada.
But when the Hungarian court can’t find or access a suspect, in many cases after a handful of years pass, the charges are dissolved. This happened with two alleged key members of the Roma criminal organization, who had criminal charges against them dropped in Hungary in 2006.
“This meant that (they) had status in Canada and were also free from any threat of deportation back to Hungary,” Skarica said in the court document. It was shortly after these developments that the pair began to expand their alleged organization in Canada.
Helyes confirmed there is a statute of limitations on some crimes, but he added that criminals who have fled Hungary are often extradited back for trial.
Hungary is aware of the human trafficking issue and authorities are committed to working with Canada, he said. Hungarian authorities have been working with the RCMP on the ongoing Hamilton case.
But to change the visa requirements would have much larger political implications.
A visa-free regime is a way of deepening the relationship between countries, Helyes said. But he also recognizes it comes with responsibility.
“Hungary has been very clear ... firmly stating that Hungary is ready and committed to co-operate with the Canadian side and/or take other measures if necessary.”
Thursday, November 17, 2011
ILLEGAL ENTRY, PREVIOUS DEPORTATION RESULTS IN SPOUSAL SPONSORSHIP REFUSAL
Interesting but not surprising state of affairs reported by the National Post:
Illegal alien smuggling business thriving in Canada News National Post
The text of the court decision is as follows. Note the language of court, it appears that the judge is very unhappy with the flagrant disregard for the law displayed by this individual.
· 1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
· 2. There is no serious question of general importance to certify.
Illegal alien smuggling business thriving in Canada News National Post
The text of the court decision is as follows. Note the language of court, it appears that the judge is very unhappy with the flagrant disregard for the law displayed by this individual.
Uddin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Between Shaid Uddin, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2011] F.C.J. No. 1543
2011 FC 1260
Docket IMM-177-11
Federal Court
Montréal, Quebec
Harrington J.
Heard: October 26, 2011.
Judgment: November 3, 2011.
Docket IMM-177-11
Federal Court
Montréal, Quebec
Harrington J.
Heard: October 26, 2011.
Judgment: November 3, 2011.
(14 paras.)
· REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
1 HARRINGTON J.:-- Mr. Uddin, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Canada via the United States in 2000. His claim that he was a refugee, within the meaning of the United Nations Convention, was dismissed, as was his subsequent pre-removal risk assessment. He was "deported" to the United States in July 2003.
2 There are three types of removal orders: departure orders, exclusion orders and deportation orders. If a foreign national is removed within the time prescribed, he need not obtain authorization in order to return to Canada. If he leaves late, however, as Mr. Uddin did, the departure order becomes a deportation order, which obliges him to obtain written authorization from an officer in order to return to Canada: see section 52(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA] and sections 223 and following of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
3 Not only did Mr. Uddin come back to Canada in 2007, he did not bother to present himself at a port of entry in order to ask for permission. He sneaked into Quebec from northern New York State. The reason he wanted to return to Canada was to join his wife, a Canadian permanent resident, whom he married over the telephone; he being in New York and she in Bangladesh. Let him tell the story:
· With the help of my friend I met a Pakistani smuggler in a restaurant in N.Y. He promised to bring me to Canada in exchange for $4,000. On November 9, 2007 at night, he picked me in his car and drove about 1 1/2 hours and then transferred me to two Spanish speaking guys. They too me into their vehicle and started their journey towards Canada. ... They drove about 5/6 hours and then came to a busy area. One of them got out of the vehicle and asked me to follow him. We walked through a bushy area for about 20 minutes after crossing a small swampland (Muddy and little water). The Spanish guy told me "We are now in Canada". He also talked to another person over his cell phone. Another vehicle came over there and we got into the vehicle. They drove for about one hour or so and reached the Plamondon area of Montreal. As per our agreement I gave the Spanish guy the promised money of $4,000 and the driver dropped me in front of Plamondon metro on November 9, 2007. I came to Vezina Street and met my wife Fatema Begun. Since then we have been living together happily on Vezina Street in Montreal.
4 A year and a half later, he filed an "In-Canada application for permanent resident status". He disclosed his first sojourn in Canada, his removal, and his return.
5 The application was dismissed because he returned to Canada without the authorization of an officer as required by section 52(1) of IRPA. This is the judicial review of that decision.
6 Mr. Uddin submits that the officer committed various reviewable errors by not informing him of her concerns regarding the authorization to enter Canada after being deported. It follows that he had no opportunity to respond to her concerns. Furthermore, she did not consider his humanitarian and compassionate grounds for an exemption of the requirement to be pre-authorized to return to Canada after being deported. She could have granted an exemption.
DISCUSSION
7 Issues of procedural fairness are beyond the realm of the standard of judicial review. The Court owes no deference to the decision maker: see Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.) v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539. Alternatively, one might say the standard of review is correctness: see Sketchley v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404, [2006] 3 FCR 392.
8 One might wonder what duty one owes to a scofflaw who deliberately flaunts our laws and wallows back through the big muddy. Be that as it may, whatever duty of fairness the immigration officer owed was discharged.
9 There was no humanitarian and compassionate application before her. At best, there is one line in her own notes of interview of Mr. Uddin and his wife in which they stated that they were undergoing fertility treatments as they had gone more than two years without being able to conceive. The officer was concerned with the solemnity of the marriage which, as mentioned above, took place by procuration via the telephone. Perhaps she should not have been concerned with this point as she was satisfied of the legitimacy of the relationship. In any event, they resolved her concerns by entering into a marriage ceremony at a Mosque in Montreal.
10 The officer was criticized for not specifically raising her concerns about Mr. Uddin's status in Canada earlier, or at any time. In her notes dated 28 September 2010, the officer expressed satisfaction with respect to the relationship but stated that she was obliged to dismiss the application in virtue of section 52(1) of IRPA. However, the letter to Mr. Uddin dismissing his application is only dated 20 December 2010.
11 The order granting leave to have the matter judicially reviewed was in the standard form. It provided that each side was entitled to serve and file further affidavits and to cross-examine thereon. The Minister filed an affidavit from the immigration officer in which she said that after her meeting with the Uddins on 21 September 2010, she informed their immigration consultant that she would have to dismiss the application because of section 52(1) of IRPA. The consultant asked her to hold off so that he could consider the situation. They further discussed the matter at least on two other occasions during the months of October and November 2010. It was only after protracted silence that the decision was actually issued.
12 She was not cross-examined on her affidavit. Nor was leave sought to have affidavits in reply filed by Mr. Uddin, his wife, or the immigration consultant.
13 Counsel for Mr. Uddin stated it would be inappropriate to cross-examine because the affidavit was self-serving, with no reference to these discussions in her notes. On the other hand, the dates are consistent with her recollection. Section 66 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that a request by a foreign national under section 25 of IRPA on humanitarian and compassionate grounds must be made in writing. The timeline gave Mr. Uddin every opportunity to do so. He did not.
14 There was no breach of procedural fairness in this case and otherwise the decision was reasonable. The application is dismissed.
ORDER
FOR REASONS GIVEN;
THIS COURT ORDERS that
HARRINGTON J.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
HUNGARIAN ROMA FLOODING EFUGEE SHELTERS
See article from the Toronto Sun and related video. This is not new, it has been going on for quite some time and no one dares to stop it. This is one of the best examples why Canada is generally viewed as a doormat: asylum seekers who are citizens of a EU member country enter Canada, claim "refugee" status, get social assistance, welfare, legal aid, free medical care, and manage to stay for a few years courtesy of the taxpayers, while Skilled Workers and entrepreneurs wait several years in visa posts abroad and get a runaround until they are allowed to come to work in Canada legally. I would say that our priorities are misplaced. Wouldn't you say that? It is time for the imposition of a visa on Hungary, same as was done previously with the Czech Republic.
Video: Refugee influx at Pearson Home Toronto Sun
Video: Refugee influx at Pearson Home Toronto Sun
Sunday, October 16, 2011
FORMER KGB AGENT AVOIDING DEPORTATION, REFUGE IN CHURCH
The case below highlights one of the problems with the refugee system, which often allows for a "cat and mouse game" : a failed refugee claimant exhausts his reviews after a lengthy process, is ordered deported, but does not like the result and decides to seek refuge in a church, knowing that the authorities will not enforce the deportation order while he is inside the church. The case is then publicized, and supporters and militants put pressure on the authorities to grant him residency on humanitarian grounds, while everyone else waits in line. Sounds familiar? Time for a change: full hearings, fairness, finality, and rule of law should be the only criteria governing decisions, and once the decision is made, only a court of law should be able to stop it for limited reasons.
Ukrainian group hires investigator to watch former KGB officer taking asylum in church
The Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association announced Friday it has hired a private investigator to put former KGB officer Mikhail Lennikov under surveillance in Vancouver.
Lennikov has been living in the sanctuary of First Lutheran Church in east Vancouver for the last 28 months, after immigration officials declared him a threat to national security and denied his application to stay in Canada.
He was scheduled to be deported on June 3, 2009, but instead sought sanctuary a day earlier in the church at the corner of 42nd and Wales.
Lubomyr Luciuk, the Ukrainian association’s director of research, said Friday that members of his group are fed up that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has not enforced the law and removed Lennikov from Canada.
“They know where this guy is and they haven’t touched him,” he said, adding Lennikov has been found to be inadmissible in Canada.
So the Ukrainian association recently decided at its annual general meeting to hire a private investigator to watch the church, he said.
“If he leaves the church, he will be reported to CBSA,” Luciuk said. “If not, he may spend the rest of his life in the church.”
The association began a postcard campaign last year, urging federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and the Conservative government to enforce that law and remove Lennikov.
Although the CBSA has traditionally been reluctant to arrest those seeking asylum in churches, they do have that right, Luciuk said.
Luciuk said he is a reluctant critic of the federal government, since Luciuk is a Tory and Prime Minister Stephen Harper was to receive the Shevchenko Medal on Friday. It’s the highest form of recognition granted by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress to honour people for their outstanding national contribution to the development of the Ukrainian community in Canada.
Luciuk, a former member of the federal Immigration and Refugee Board, said his group has nothing against Lennikov personally, but the law states that former members of the Russian secret police are inadmissible to Canada.
“We’re not against refugees,” he said. “Many of our parents were refugees from communism.”
He also said that Lennikov has not publicly apologized for being a member of the KGB, which had a notorious reputation in Ukraine during Soviet Communist rule, which ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Luciuk said that if Lennikov apologized, his group may accept it and drop its campaign, leaving the matter to Ottawa.
Lennikov, 51, whose wife and son live in the Vancouver area and continue visiting him at the church, was not available for an interview.
He came to Canada in 1997 on a student visa and obtained a degree from the University of B.C.
Initially, he did not state he had been a member of the Soviet secret police. Lennikov said in an earlier interview that the original immigration form he filled out did not ask if he had any military service.
He only revealed he had been a KGB officer when he applied in 1999 to bring his wife, Irina, and son, Dmitri, to Canada. His wife and son were given permission to stay in Canada on compassionate grounds.
Lennikov maintains he was a reluctant recruit, hired by the KGB because he spoke Japanese, and did mostly translation and clerical work from 1983 to 1988.
He was dismissed in 1988 as being incapable of service after he wrote a report explaining how he was not suitable for the KGB. He went to live in Japan in 1995.
A number of local politicians, including former MP Ujjal Dosanjh and current MPs Don Davies and Peter Julian, have insisted Lennikov poses no risk.
Lennikov has been living in the sanctuary of First Lutheran Church in east Vancouver for the last 28 months, after immigration officials declared him a threat to national security and denied his application to stay in Canada.
He was scheduled to be deported on June 3, 2009, but instead sought sanctuary a day earlier in the church at the corner of 42nd and Wales.
Lubomyr Luciuk, the Ukrainian association’s director of research, said Friday that members of his group are fed up that the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) has not enforced the law and removed Lennikov from Canada.
“They know where this guy is and they haven’t touched him,” he said, adding Lennikov has been found to be inadmissible in Canada.
So the Ukrainian association recently decided at its annual general meeting to hire a private investigator to watch the church, he said.
“If he leaves the church, he will be reported to CBSA,” Luciuk said. “If not, he may spend the rest of his life in the church.”
The association began a postcard campaign last year, urging federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and the Conservative government to enforce that law and remove Lennikov.
Although the CBSA has traditionally been reluctant to arrest those seeking asylum in churches, they do have that right, Luciuk said.
Luciuk said he is a reluctant critic of the federal government, since Luciuk is a Tory and Prime Minister Stephen Harper was to receive the Shevchenko Medal on Friday. It’s the highest form of recognition granted by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress to honour people for their outstanding national contribution to the development of the Ukrainian community in Canada.
Luciuk, a former member of the federal Immigration and Refugee Board, said his group has nothing against Lennikov personally, but the law states that former members of the Russian secret police are inadmissible to Canada.
“We’re not against refugees,” he said. “Many of our parents were refugees from communism.”
He also said that Lennikov has not publicly apologized for being a member of the KGB, which had a notorious reputation in Ukraine during Soviet Communist rule, which ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Luciuk said that if Lennikov apologized, his group may accept it and drop its campaign, leaving the matter to Ottawa.
Lennikov, 51, whose wife and son live in the Vancouver area and continue visiting him at the church, was not available for an interview.
He came to Canada in 1997 on a student visa and obtained a degree from the University of B.C.
Initially, he did not state he had been a member of the Soviet secret police. Lennikov said in an earlier interview that the original immigration form he filled out did not ask if he had any military service.
He only revealed he had been a KGB officer when he applied in 1999 to bring his wife, Irina, and son, Dmitri, to Canada. His wife and son were given permission to stay in Canada on compassionate grounds.
Lennikov maintains he was a reluctant recruit, hired by the KGB because he spoke Japanese, and did mostly translation and clerical work from 1983 to 1988.
He was dismissed in 1988 as being incapable of service after he wrote a report explaining how he was not suitable for the KGB. He went to live in Japan in 1995.
A number of local politicians, including former MP Ujjal Dosanjh and current MPs Don Davies and Peter Julian, have insisted Lennikov poses no risk.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
COSTS AWARDED AGAINST WHITE SOUTH AFRICAN IN POLITICIZED IMMIGRATION CASE
The Federal Court of Appeal awarded costs against the White South African who successfully argued at the IRB that he suffered discrimination based on race. The Federal Court Trial Division reversed the decision, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed. It is very unusual for the court to award costs in immigration cases, but read the last paragraph, from the language of the decision it seems that the court was unhappy with counsel's conduct of the proceedings.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huntley
Between
Brandon Carl Huntley, Appellant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2011] F.C.J. No. 1382
2011 FCA 273
Docket A-482-10
Federal Court of Appeal
Toronto, Ontario
Sexton and Evans Stratas JJ.A.
Heard: October 3, 2011.
Oral judgment: October 3, 2011.
(13 paras.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court dated November 24, 2010, Docket No. IMM-4423-09, [2010] F.C.J. No. 1453.
________________________________________
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
1 EVANS J.A. (orally):-- Brandon Carl Huntley, a white citizen of South Africa, was found by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) to be a refugee. It held that Mr Huntley had a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of his race. The decision received considerable publicity and was criticised as racist by the Government of South Africa.
2 The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Minister) made an application for judicial review to the Federal Court to set aside the Board's decision. The matter came before Justice Russell (Judge), who held that the Board's decision was unreasonable in light of the evidence before it. Consequently, he granted the application and remitted the matter to the Board for re-determination in accordance with his reasons, which are published at 2010 FC 1175.
3 Mr Huntley also argued that the proceeding constituted an abuse of process because the Minister had brought the application for judicial review in response to diplomatic pressure from the South African Government, and that for the Court to grant the Minister's application would create an apprehension that it was biased and lacked independence. The Judge rejected this argument also, having found that there was no evidence that the Minister had made the application for judicial review for a reason other than that he thought that the Board's decision was wrong.
4 Paragraph 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), provides that no appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Federal Court in matters governed by IRPA, unless the judge who heard the application for judicial review certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question.
5 In the present case, the Judge refused to certify questions proposed by counsel concerning political interference with IRPA proceedings and the allegations of perceived bias and lack of independence. He held that the questions proposed were hypothetical since he had concluded that there was no factual basis for their premise, namely that the Minister had brought an application for judicial review as a result of diplomatic pressure.
6 Undeterred, counsel for Mr Huntley has appealed to this Court, arguing that paragraph 74(d) has been held not to oust the general right of appeal from the Federal Court pursuant to section 27 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, when the ground of appeal is that the Applications Judge was biased, or wrongfully assumed or declined jurisdiction.
7 We agree that, despite the apparently plain language of paragraph 74(d), Parliament cannot have intended to immunize alleged errors from appellate scrutiny which, if not subject to review, would undermine the rule of law and public confidence in the due administration of justice. However, in our view, the errors that the Judge is alleged to have committed in this case do not fall within this narrow category.
8 The principal so-called "jurisdictional" error invoked by counsel for Mr Huntley is that the Judge did not apply the reasonableness standard of review to the Board's findings of fact. Instead, counsel says, he substituted his own view of the evidence for that of the Board and made de novo findings of fact. Even if the Judge erred as alleged, failing to apply the appropriate standard of review is a run-of-the-mill error of law, and not a usurpation of jurisdiction falling outside paragraph 74(d).
9 Counsel also argues that Mr Huntley's appeal should be heard because he alleges abuse of process by the Minister. However, the Judge found that there was no evidentiary basis for this allegation, and hence refused to certify the questions of law proposed by counsel because they were hypothetical.
10 Even if the abuse of process alleged here could be the subject of an appeal in the absence of a certified question, we are not persuaded that the Judge made any reversible error in rejecting the allegation as unsupported by the evidence. It follows that counsel's related allegations of apprehended bias and lack of independence on the part of the Judge must also fail.
11 In the alternative, counsel submits that paragraph 74(d) violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not agree. This issue has been settled by Huynh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [1996] 2 F.C. 976 (C.A.).
12 Not are we satisfied that, on the facts of this case, Mr Huntley has established that he cannot get a fair hearing when the matter is remitted to the Board.
13 For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed. The totally unmeritorious nature of this appeal constitutes "special reasons" within the meaning of rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration Rules, SOR/93-22, and costs of the appeal will be awarded to the Minister.
EVANS J.A.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huntley
Between
Brandon Carl Huntley, Appellant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2011] F.C.J. No. 1382
2011 FCA 273
Docket A-482-10
Federal Court of Appeal
Toronto, Ontario
Sexton and Evans Stratas JJ.A.
Heard: October 3, 2011.
Oral judgment: October 3, 2011.
(13 paras.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court dated November 24, 2010, Docket No. IMM-4423-09, [2010] F.C.J. No. 1453.
________________________________________
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
1 EVANS J.A. (orally):-- Brandon Carl Huntley, a white citizen of South Africa, was found by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board) to be a refugee. It held that Mr Huntley had a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of his race. The decision received considerable publicity and was criticised as racist by the Government of South Africa.
2 The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Minister) made an application for judicial review to the Federal Court to set aside the Board's decision. The matter came before Justice Russell (Judge), who held that the Board's decision was unreasonable in light of the evidence before it. Consequently, he granted the application and remitted the matter to the Board for re-determination in accordance with his reasons, which are published at 2010 FC 1175.
3 Mr Huntley also argued that the proceeding constituted an abuse of process because the Minister had brought the application for judicial review in response to diplomatic pressure from the South African Government, and that for the Court to grant the Minister's application would create an apprehension that it was biased and lacked independence. The Judge rejected this argument also, having found that there was no evidence that the Minister had made the application for judicial review for a reason other than that he thought that the Board's decision was wrong.
4 Paragraph 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), provides that no appeal lies to this Court from a decision of the Federal Court in matters governed by IRPA, unless the judge who heard the application for judicial review certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question.
5 In the present case, the Judge refused to certify questions proposed by counsel concerning political interference with IRPA proceedings and the allegations of perceived bias and lack of independence. He held that the questions proposed were hypothetical since he had concluded that there was no factual basis for their premise, namely that the Minister had brought an application for judicial review as a result of diplomatic pressure.
6 Undeterred, counsel for Mr Huntley has appealed to this Court, arguing that paragraph 74(d) has been held not to oust the general right of appeal from the Federal Court pursuant to section 27 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, when the ground of appeal is that the Applications Judge was biased, or wrongfully assumed or declined jurisdiction.
7 We agree that, despite the apparently plain language of paragraph 74(d), Parliament cannot have intended to immunize alleged errors from appellate scrutiny which, if not subject to review, would undermine the rule of law and public confidence in the due administration of justice. However, in our view, the errors that the Judge is alleged to have committed in this case do not fall within this narrow category.
8 The principal so-called "jurisdictional" error invoked by counsel for Mr Huntley is that the Judge did not apply the reasonableness standard of review to the Board's findings of fact. Instead, counsel says, he substituted his own view of the evidence for that of the Board and made de novo findings of fact. Even if the Judge erred as alleged, failing to apply the appropriate standard of review is a run-of-the-mill error of law, and not a usurpation of jurisdiction falling outside paragraph 74(d).
9 Counsel also argues that Mr Huntley's appeal should be heard because he alleges abuse of process by the Minister. However, the Judge found that there was no evidentiary basis for this allegation, and hence refused to certify the questions of law proposed by counsel because they were hypothetical.
10 Even if the abuse of process alleged here could be the subject of an appeal in the absence of a certified question, we are not persuaded that the Judge made any reversible error in rejecting the allegation as unsupported by the evidence. It follows that counsel's related allegations of apprehended bias and lack of independence on the part of the Judge must also fail.
11 In the alternative, counsel submits that paragraph 74(d) violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We do not agree. This issue has been settled by Huynh v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [1996] 2 F.C. 976 (C.A.).
12 Not are we satisfied that, on the facts of this case, Mr Huntley has established that he cannot get a fair hearing when the matter is remitted to the Board.
13 For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed. The totally unmeritorious nature of this appeal constitutes "special reasons" within the meaning of rule 22 of the Federal Courts Immigration Rules, SOR/93-22, and costs of the appeal will be awarded to the Minister.
EVANS J.A.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
ASYLUM SHOPPING MUST BE STOPPED
See story below.
Game plan for asylum-seekers who want to move around the world? when you make a refugee claim in the US and you do not like the result, get into a trunk, avoid detection, and have the taxpayers pay for your costs, hearings, etc. while you try to dramatize your case in the media to garner sympathy? Not unusual....unfortunately.
Lesson: reform the system now! Enter surreptitiously and and be automatically detained and denied access to the system, welfare, legal aid, etc. the system should only be available to those who present themselves upfront and do not play games. Asylum shoppers need not enjoy our support, those who are in refugee camps and have no means to escape should receive our attention, not those who "shop" for a country around the world to get into surreptitiously. And prosecute the facilitators who transport people! People-smuggling endangers our national security. There should be zero tolerance.
Asylum shoppers who hire smugglers and willingly break the law are insulting legitimate refugees who live in fear in dangerous places, and patiently wait in line for an opportunity to be resettled.
Refugee claimant left baby in U.S.
Refugee claimant left baby in U.S.
By Hugh Adami, Ottawa Citizen
April 13, 2011
Floresha Yucel is heartbroken and desperate, but realizes she “can only take one step at a time” in the hope of being reunited with her family, including her baby boy.
Yucel, 33, arrived in Ottawa on March 27, after being smuggled into Canada, from Detroit to Windsor, in the trunk of a car. She is staying at her sister’s downtown apartment.
Yucel had travelled by bus overnight to Detroit from New Windsor, a town in southeast New York, where she lived. She was fleeing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which she says advised her weeks earlier that she faced deportation to her native Albania. She was ordered to attend a hearing in Manhattan on March 17.
Yucel says she spent a decade in the United States. Her Ottawa immigration lawyer, Rezaur Rahman, says it appears she was told she had to leave after her application for refugee status was finally rejected. Yucel says she was given a social-security number when she arrived in the U.S., which allowed her to work. She says she had various jobs, often holding down two at a time and working seven days a week.
When she got on the Detroit-bound bus on March 26, she left behind her husband, Muiat Yucel, whom she married three years ago, their seven-month-old baby, Kubilay, who is an American citizen, and another son, 18, and daughter, 16. The latter are from a previous marriage and were born in Greece.
Yucel says the only person who knew she was coming to Ottawa was another sister, who lives near New Windsor and is taking care of her three children. Her Ottawa sister only found out when Yucel called her from Toronto. Muiat was left in the dark, too.
Yucel’s first priority was to apply for refugee status. The next was to get her husband to drive from New Windsor to Ottawa to drop off the infant, whom she was breastfeeding. There were two attempts to bring Kubilay here — the first on April 2 by his father, and another on April 9, by Yucel’s sister from New York. Canadian border guards at the Thousand Islands crossing refused entry both times.
In the most recent attempt, Yucel waited on the Canadian side for her sister to arrive with the baby. She was devastated when she realized the rendezvous would not take place. “I miss my baby so much,” she says. “My baby needs me. I need my baby.”
Yucel insists she didn’t make any prior arrangements to be smuggled into Canada. But after she broke down in a Detroit cab and the driver listened to her story, he told her “he would see what he could do.” A couple of hours later, the cabbie arrived with two men who told Yucel that for $3,500, they could take her to the Greyhound station in Windsor. “I was very scared,” says Yucel, but within minutes, she was in the trunk of a car. A few hours later, she was on a bus to Toronto. From there, she boarded another bus for Ottawa.
On Thursday, Yucel will be interviewed by Canadian immigration officials to determine whether she is eligible for an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing. If she’s turned down, she could apply for a “pre-removal risk assessment.” That would determine whether she faces any serious danger, including death and persecution, if she ends up in Albania. She says if she is deported there as the U.S. wants, blood feuds — a centuries-old horror in the Balkan nation — would put her life in danger. She says her Ottawa sister, who was deported to Albania from New York in 2005, was raped and repeatedly threatened by in-laws before she moved to Canada in 2008 and was given refugee status.
“If you only knew what my sister went through,” says Yucel. Blood feuds became prevalent again after communism’s fall two decades ago, sending many Albanians back to the customary laws of the ancient tribes.
Rahman, who is providing his legal services to Yucel for free, says he will also be working on having the baby reunited with his mother on compassionate grounds. Yucel says she also hopes her two older children will eventually be allowed into Canada.
Even if she is ultimately kicked out, it would take months, especially if she gets a hearing. Cases before the board take an average 22 months to be settled. Rejected applications can be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada.
When Muiat Yucel tried bringing his son into Canada almost two weeks ago, he was turned away after being questioned for several hours. He says border guards were suspicious of a number of things: How his wife got into the country; whether he was using the baby as a ruse to settle in Canada illegally; and the purpose of a lengthy stay in Iraq recently. (He works for an American company involved in foreign contracts.)
The Turkish-born Muiat says he has lived in the U.S. for 20 years and has a Green card, which gives him permanent residency. He says he expects to become an American citizen soon.
Whether that will help him sponsor his wife so she can return to the U.S. wasn’t clear Tuesday. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration officials could not be reached for comment.
Is something bothering you? Please contact thepubliccitizen@ottawacitizen.com
Game plan for asylum-seekers who want to move around the world? when you make a refugee claim in the US and you do not like the result, get into a trunk, avoid detection, and have the taxpayers pay for your costs, hearings, etc. while you try to dramatize your case in the media to garner sympathy? Not unusual....unfortunately.
Lesson: reform the system now! Enter surreptitiously and and be automatically detained and denied access to the system, welfare, legal aid, etc. the system should only be available to those who present themselves upfront and do not play games. Asylum shoppers need not enjoy our support, those who are in refugee camps and have no means to escape should receive our attention, not those who "shop" for a country around the world to get into surreptitiously. And prosecute the facilitators who transport people! People-smuggling endangers our national security. There should be zero tolerance.
Asylum shoppers who hire smugglers and willingly break the law are insulting legitimate refugees who live in fear in dangerous places, and patiently wait in line for an opportunity to be resettled.
Refugee claimant left baby in U.S.
Refugee claimant left baby in U.S.
By Hugh Adami, Ottawa Citizen
April 13, 2011
Floresha Yucel is heartbroken and desperate, but realizes she “can only take one step at a time” in the hope of being reunited with her family, including her baby boy.
Yucel, 33, arrived in Ottawa on March 27, after being smuggled into Canada, from Detroit to Windsor, in the trunk of a car. She is staying at her sister’s downtown apartment.
Yucel had travelled by bus overnight to Detroit from New Windsor, a town in southeast New York, where she lived. She was fleeing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which she says advised her weeks earlier that she faced deportation to her native Albania. She was ordered to attend a hearing in Manhattan on March 17.
Yucel says she spent a decade in the United States. Her Ottawa immigration lawyer, Rezaur Rahman, says it appears she was told she had to leave after her application for refugee status was finally rejected. Yucel says she was given a social-security number when she arrived in the U.S., which allowed her to work. She says she had various jobs, often holding down two at a time and working seven days a week.
When she got on the Detroit-bound bus on March 26, she left behind her husband, Muiat Yucel, whom she married three years ago, their seven-month-old baby, Kubilay, who is an American citizen, and another son, 18, and daughter, 16. The latter are from a previous marriage and were born in Greece.
Yucel says the only person who knew she was coming to Ottawa was another sister, who lives near New Windsor and is taking care of her three children. Her Ottawa sister only found out when Yucel called her from Toronto. Muiat was left in the dark, too.
Yucel’s first priority was to apply for refugee status. The next was to get her husband to drive from New Windsor to Ottawa to drop off the infant, whom she was breastfeeding. There were two attempts to bring Kubilay here — the first on April 2 by his father, and another on April 9, by Yucel’s sister from New York. Canadian border guards at the Thousand Islands crossing refused entry both times.
In the most recent attempt, Yucel waited on the Canadian side for her sister to arrive with the baby. She was devastated when she realized the rendezvous would not take place. “I miss my baby so much,” she says. “My baby needs me. I need my baby.”
Yucel insists she didn’t make any prior arrangements to be smuggled into Canada. But after she broke down in a Detroit cab and the driver listened to her story, he told her “he would see what he could do.” A couple of hours later, the cabbie arrived with two men who told Yucel that for $3,500, they could take her to the Greyhound station in Windsor. “I was very scared,” says Yucel, but within minutes, she was in the trunk of a car. A few hours later, she was on a bus to Toronto. From there, she boarded another bus for Ottawa.
On Thursday, Yucel will be interviewed by Canadian immigration officials to determine whether she is eligible for an Immigration and Refugee Board hearing. If she’s turned down, she could apply for a “pre-removal risk assessment.” That would determine whether she faces any serious danger, including death and persecution, if she ends up in Albania. She says if she is deported there as the U.S. wants, blood feuds — a centuries-old horror in the Balkan nation — would put her life in danger. She says her Ottawa sister, who was deported to Albania from New York in 2005, was raped and repeatedly threatened by in-laws before she moved to Canada in 2008 and was given refugee status.
“If you only knew what my sister went through,” says Yucel. Blood feuds became prevalent again after communism’s fall two decades ago, sending many Albanians back to the customary laws of the ancient tribes.
Rahman, who is providing his legal services to Yucel for free, says he will also be working on having the baby reunited with his mother on compassionate grounds. Yucel says she also hopes her two older children will eventually be allowed into Canada.
Even if she is ultimately kicked out, it would take months, especially if she gets a hearing. Cases before the board take an average 22 months to be settled. Rejected applications can be appealed to the Federal Court of Canada.
When Muiat Yucel tried bringing his son into Canada almost two weeks ago, he was turned away after being questioned for several hours. He says border guards were suspicious of a number of things: How his wife got into the country; whether he was using the baby as a ruse to settle in Canada illegally; and the purpose of a lengthy stay in Iraq recently. (He works for an American company involved in foreign contracts.)
The Turkish-born Muiat says he has lived in the U.S. for 20 years and has a Green card, which gives him permanent residency. He says he expects to become an American citizen soon.
Whether that will help him sponsor his wife so she can return to the U.S. wasn’t clear Tuesday. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration officials could not be reached for comment.
Is something bothering you? Please contact thepubliccitizen@ottawacitizen.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
