I was before the IAD on a number of appeals involving removal orders for criminality.
As I've written in the past, these appeals involve the consideration of the so called "Ribic factors", namely:
- Seriousness of the offence leading to the removal order;
- Remorse/potential for rehabilitation;
- Length of time/establishment in Canada;
- Family in Canada and the dislocation to that family upon removal;
- Community support; and
- Degree of hardship upon return.
Such hearings are analogous to sentencing hearings in criminal courts. I typically get the following evidence before the panel:
- when the appellant came to Canada, his/her age at the time;
- how the appellant became a permanent resident;
- languages spoken;
- employment history;
- education (in Canada and the country of origin);
- relationship history;
- family composition;
- children and arrangements for support;
- household finances and financial contribution/dependency (if any);
- assets/liabilities;
- support from friends and family;
- circumstances of the offence (including whether violence was involved/whether it was a pattern of offences or a singular occurrence);
- country evidence for the country of return;
- efforts at rehabilitation/compliance with probation or other conditions imposed after the criminal finding of guilt/counselling, degree of insight (this is important);
- restitution made (if any);
- sentencing remarks (hopefully positive) made by the judge in the criminal matter; and, inter alia,
- the appellant's plan for the future;
I may directly ask the appellant as to what assurances he/she can provide the Panel that he/she would abstain from illegal behavior in the future.
In many cases, it is important to request the Panel to impose a stay. A stay allows the appellant to demonstrate his good intentions while allowing the immigration regime/authority to keep an eye on the appellant. Should the stay be breached, the appellant's appeal would be dismissed and he/she would be ordered deported.
Comments