The client was released from Custody on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 with essentially the same conditions as his release in March of this year. Rick Bell's (somewhat inflammatory) article Download Print - Tran's lawyer is smiling _ Columnists _ Opinion _ Calgary Sun discussing the release here.
Immigration Division Member Otto Nupponen, in his decision to release indicated that Mr. Nguyen-Tran has "simply quite aggressively sought resources available to him in law." Nupponen also dismissed CBSA assertions that the client was a flight risk or a danger to the public. It appears the biggest factor in ordering the release was the fact that removal was no longer imminent.
This matter has received a lot of attention, including apparently that of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney. I don't believe the client can be blamed for availing himself of the remedies available to him under the law. Nor do I believe that he is responsible for any purported delay in his removal. See Calgary Sun Article - Don't Blame Tran: Lawyer here.
I have received some criticism from the general public who perhaps don't understand the role a lawyer plays within our justice system. My role is simply to advance my client's partisan interests against the state with the maximum zeal permissible under law.
This coming week we will file an Application for Leave and Judicial Review of the most recent removal order (Immigration Division Member Tessler's decision was released on September 1, 2009).
Let me say first that I don't blame you for representing this particular client. You act according to your mandate and work within the (flawed) system we have in place today.
It is the system that needs to be changed. Immigrants must be seen as "future citizens on probation". In other words, I don't care how "dangerous" your client is considered to be by the public, media and the courts, because to me any immigrant who even so much as shoplifts should be deported immediately.
Immigrants waiting to meet the eligibility requirements for citizenship must be on their best behaviour, which means that any criminal behaviour (including shoplifting a chocolate bar) should be grounds for immediate deportation.
Immigration is a privilege, not a right, and so we must, and have every right to, expect the absolute best behaviour from those we grant the privilege of settling in Canada.
Being an immigrant myself (and by now Canadian citizen), I can tell you that I merely apply the standards and expectations that I have applied to myself all my life.
I expect of the other immigrants no less and no more.
Posted by: Werner Patels | September 13, 2009 at 10:35 AM
There is a principle in law and criminal justice. It's called proportionality. IE. shoplifting a chocolate bar should earn perhaps a fine, or community service. Deportation would seem above and beyond any proportionate sentence and would approach a draconian response to a minor offence. Obviously there must be a balancing, but establishing ludicrous standards of behavior for residents of Canada is just that - ludicrous.
Posted by: Raj Sharma | September 13, 2009 at 01:22 PM
Somehow I don't see how requiring newcomers NOT to break the law is a "ludicrous" proposal... that should go without saying...
Posted by: Werner Patels | September 13, 2009 at 08:50 PM
Sure, who would argue with requiring immigrants to "keep the peace and be of good behaviour"? But, do we deport for traffic offences? Or unpaid parking tickets? Or summary judgment matters? A line has to be drawn and a balance needs to be struck. This is not a problem that lends itself to simplistic thinking.
Raj Sharma LLB
Barrister & Solicitor
Suite 204, 1228 Kensington Road NW
Calgary AB T2N 3P7
Posted by: Raj Sharma | September 15, 2009 at 08:20 AM