Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Steve Ellis - failed Immigration Refugee Board Member

Steve Ellis, a 'chubby, curly haired', former Immigration and Refugee Board Member is facing charges of breach of trust and bribery. The 'disheveled' Ellis was caught on tape (video and audio) allegedly propositioning a refugee claimant. Ellis has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Toronto Sun article here. The recording apparently discloses a promise by Ellis for a favourable refugee decision. National Post article here. CTV story here. Needless to say, it was inappropriate for him to desire a 'friendship' with a refugee claimant, and inappropriate to meet the claimant (the subject of adjudication) at her place of work, and then set up a subsequent meeting at Starbucks. An adjudicator should have no business speaking with a claimant in any capacity outside of a hearing room. I don't believe that this was a deficiency in the training (which is quite extensive) of a Board Member, but rather the personal failings of an individual. He had to have known that what he was doing was wrong. YouTube video here: Read more →

Just returned from the IAD - another removal order appeal (serious criminality). Client facing removal based on dangerous driving and sexual assault offenses. There are three options for an individual in this situation. The IAD can allow the appeal against the removal order, dismiss it, or impose a stay (with conditions). In this case, a the stay was imposed by way of a joint recommendation by both counsel. Client's issues with alcohol abuse was a central issue for the imposition of a stay. If the client can continue on the path of rehabilitation, then the appeal will be allowed and the removal order will eventually get dismissed. Read more →

H&C Applications

I have had occasion to submit a number of "Humanitarian and Compassionate applications" under s.25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The following excerpt from a recent Federal Court decision points out a number of important issues: 1. that the applicant has the onus to provide the documentation; and 2. that the decision is a discretionary one which mandates respect from the reviewing Court; and finally 3. that the decision doesn't actually take any right away from the applicant (and -- my reading -- therefore a refusal to exercise discretion breaches no significant rights): [26] In an application based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations, the onus is always on the applicants to provide the documentation upon which the determination will be based (Zambrano v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 481 at paragraph 39 (Zambrano); Melchor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1327 at paragraph 13 (Melchor); Arumugum v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 985 at paragraph 16). Again, it has been reiterated by this Court numerous times that the humanitarian and compassionate decision making process is a highly discretionary one (Quiroa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC... Read more →