Need I say that everybody played dumb as usual? Cohen the lawyer speaking for the Wrights really pissed me off yesterday. Trust that I dismissed the sly bastard immediately just like I did with the nasty woman in Karen Ludwig's office earlier.

However I will wager that both couples troubles will be over with the questionable lawyer Ahmed Hussen and his evil CIC minions in a heartbeat. As usual that bullshit will go down before they have a chance to say my name to the VERY questionable people in the Crown Corp commonly knows as the CBC or the other corporate media. Most folks will never know what really happened just like it has on several other occasions when I butted heads with the CIC as they worked under the wicked Harper Regime.

At least one lady called me back from one of Hussen's offices late yesterday. Her associate was somewhat honest with me today. I will leave to wonder what was said. Call them as ask them for yourself if you don't believe Mean Old Me about anything.

You received a new 0:23 minutes voicemail message, on Monday, March 20, 2017 at 07:15:53 PM in mailbox 9028000369 from 416 656 2526.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-asylum-seekers-hussen-macleod-1.4746622

'Not Canadian': Hussen, MacLeod exchange sharp words over asylum seeker 'crisis'

Ontario's immigration language is 'irresponsible, divisive ... fearmongering,' says Hussen

Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · Posted: Jul 13, 2018 5:23 PM ET

3400 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.

David R. Amos

Perhaps my fellow Canadians should remind the liberal lawyer Mr Minister Ahmed Hussen and his boss Prime Minister Trudeau The Younger of what I thought of Hussen for not showing a little compassion for the Yankee couple David and Kathryn Wright.

CBC and their neighbours affirmed to me that they had earned the right to remain in Voglers Cove. Although the federal Minister's computer acknowledged my email his people never responded and ignored my phone calls. On the other hand another liberal lawyer Minister Lena Metlege Diab did respond to me immediately in writing and told me it was Hussen's responsibility not hers.

Now I read this nonsense and shake my head as Hussen calls a Conservative Provincial Cabinet Minister names. Methinks Mr Prime Minister Trudeau The Younger should understand why I have no respect for liberal lawyers N'esy Pas?

This one of the news articles I reacted over a year ago as Trudeau was Tweeting and welcoming everybody else to come to Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/david-wright-kathryn-wright-deportation-order-immigration-1.4028868

I have no idea what has happened to David and Kathryn Wright since this piece of news

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1542810-last-chance-to-stay-voglers-cove-couple-fights-deportation

Content disabled.
David R. Amos

@David R. Amos Here is a little proof of what I say is true

---------- Original message ----------
From: Immigration Minister
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:42:44 +0000
Subject: RE: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos
Cc: Immigration Minister

Dear Mr. Amos:

Thank you for your email dated March 18, 2017 to the Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration for the Province of Nova Scotia, regarding David and Kathryn Wright. As I am Director of Programs for the Office of Immigration, Minister Diab has requested that I respond to your email.

I have been following this story in the news as well and am sorry to hear about the difficulties of Mr. & Mrs. Wright in moving to Nova Scotia.

In Canada, immigration is a shared responsibility between the provinces and the Canadian government via Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Provinces can nominate individuals for permanent residency through provincial nominee programs; however, IRCC has the final authority with respect to all admissions to the country.

I note that you have already contacted the federal Minister of Immigration, the Honourable Ahmed Hussen, with your concerns. You may also wish to contact your Member of Parliament as these decisions are solely a federal responsibility.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me and for sharing your views on such an important issue.

Yours truly,

Original signed by
Shelley Bent
Director of Programs

c. Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, ECNS

---------- Original message ----------
From: Premier of Ontario | Premier ministre de l’Ontario <Premier@ontario.ca>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 00:43:29 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Mayor David Mittchell RE Kathryn and David Wright I just
called and tried to discuss the letter from the Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Thank you for your email. Your thoughts, comments and input are greatly valued.

You can be assured that all emails and letters are carefully read,
reviewed and taken into consideration.

There may be occasions when, given the issues you have raised and the
need to address them effectively, we will forward a copy of your
correspondence to the appropriate government official. Accordingly, a
response may take several business days.

Thanks again for your email.
______

Merci pour votre courriel. Nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de
nous avoir fait part de vos idées, commentaires et observations.

Nous tenons à vous assurer que nous lisons attentivement et prenons en
considération tous les courriels et lettres que nous recevons.

Dans certains cas, nous transmettrons votre message au ministère
responsable afin que les questions soulevées puissent être traitées de
la manière la plus efficace possible. En conséquence, plusieurs jours
ouvrables pourraient s’écouler avant que nous puissions vous répondre.

Merci encore pour votre courriel.

---------- Original message ----------
From: Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2018 00:43:40 +0000
Subject: Autoreply / Réponse automatique
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you for contacting the Parliamentary Office of the Hon. Ahmed
Hussen. Please be advised your matter will be dealt with promptly or
forwarded to the respective office/department.
Please be advised for all Immigration, Refugee, Citizenship Canada
related matters it is best to contact your Member of Parliament first.
If you're unaware who your M.P. is please use this link:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/vis/FindED?L=e&PAGEID=20

Once again thank you for contacting our office. Have a nice day.

------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

Merci d’avoir communiqué avec le bureau parlementaire de l’honorable
Ahmed Hussen. Soyez assuré que votre message sera traité ou transmis
au bureau ou ministère concerné dans les meilleurs délais. Veuillez
noter que pour toutes questions concernant Immigration, Réfugiés et
Citoyenneté Canada, il est préférable de communiquer d’abord avec
votre député. Si vous ne savez pas qui est votre député, veuillez
utiliser le lien suivant:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/vis/FindED?L=f&PAGEID=20

Nous vous remercions pour votre intérêt, bonne journée.

---------- Original message ----------
From: "patricklove@eastlink.ca" <patricklove@eastlink.ca>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:14:47 -0300
Subject: Re: Mayor David Mittchell RE Kathryn and David Wright I just called and tried

to discuss the letter from the Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>

Kindly block this email in future.
Thank you.
Patrick Love.

On Jul 14, 2018, at 9:43 PM, David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 20:43:24 -0400
Subject: Mayor David Mittchell RE Kathryn and David Wright I just called and tried to

discuss the letter from the Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale
To: david.mitchell@bridgewater.ca, "hon.ralph.goodale" <hon.ralph.goodale@canada.ca>, ImmigrationMinister@novascotia.ca, Minister@cic.gc.ca, Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca, mlcohen@eastlink.ca, patricklove@eastlink.ca, earth5 <earth5@eastlink.ca>,
lisa.macleodco@pc.ola.org, premier <premier@ontario.ca>, premier <premier@gnb.ca>,

PREMIER <PREMIER@gov.ns.ca>, premier <premier@gov.sk.ca>,

premier <premier@gov.pe.ca>, premier <premier@gov.nl.ca>,

premier <premier@gov.ab.ca>, premier <premier@leg.gov.mb.ca>,

premier <premier@gov.bc.ca>, pm <pm@pm.gc.ca>,

"Gerald.Butts" <Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>, "Karen.Ludwig" <Karen.Ludwig@parl.gc.ca>, "Katie.Telford" <Katie.Telford@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>,

"Peter.Zimonjic" <Peter.Zimonjic@cbc.ca>, Newsroom <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>,
"steve.murphy" <steve.murphy@ctv.ca>, "David.Akin" <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, Rahul.Kalvapalle@globalnews.ca, hello@lighthousenow.ca

https://lighthousenow.ca/article.php?title=Public_Safety_Minister_s_response_concerning_U_S_c

Public Safety Minister’s response concerning U.S. couple “disappointing

It looks like an American couple who have been fighting to remain in
Voglers Cove could be denied their appeal.

At a recent city council meeting, Bridgewater's mayor expressed dismay
with the response from federal Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale
concerning the immigration difficulties facing an American couple who
call Voglers Cove home.

David Mitchell called Goodale's written reply "disappointing" as it
implies Ottawa will not change its mind about denying Kathryn and
David Wright's ability to become permanent Canadian residents.

"I feel for the Wrights," Mitchell said during town council's March 12
meeting. "Certainly that community is going to feel the impact of them
not being around."

Goodale said in his letter that the Privacy Act prohibits him from
speaking to specific cases.

"The decision to remove someone is not taken lightly, and persons are
dealt with on a case-by-case basis," Goodale said in the letter dated
February 13. "It is imperative for the integrity of the system that
once all legal avenues of review are exhausted, a person subject to a
removal order respects the law and leaves Canada or is removed.

"I assure you that the Government and the CBSA [Canada Border Services
Agency] are committed to the equitable application of Canada's
immigration laws."

David MITCHELL, Mayor
39 Empire Street
Bridgewater, NS B4V 2L5
Office: (902) 541-4364
Cell: (902) 523-5185
david.mitchell@bridgewater.ca

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-liebrano-lawyer-is-divisive.html

https://globalnews.ca/news/4331043/ontario-immigration-ahmed-hussen-lisa-macleod/

July 13, 2018 5:28 pm
Ontario MPP Lisa MacLeod slams ‘bully’ Ahmed Hussen as immigration
dispute heats up
By Rahul Kalvapalle National Online Journalist Global News

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-asylum-seekers-hussen-macleod-1.4746622

'Not Canadian': Hussen, MacLeod exchange sharp words over asylum seeker 'crisis'
Ontario's immigration language is 'irresponsible, divisive ...
fearmongering,' says Hussen
Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · Posted: Jul 13, 2018 5:23 PM ET

3400 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.

David R. Amos
Perhaps my fellow Canadians should remind the liberal lawyer Mr
Minister Ahmed Hussen and his boss Prime Minister Trudeau The Younger
of what I thought of Hussen for not showing a little compassion for
the Yankee couple David and Kathryn Wright.

CBC and their neighbours affirmed to me that they had earned the right
to remain in Voglers Cove. Although the federal Minister's computer
acknowledged my email his people never responded and ignored my phone
calls. On the other hand another liberal lawyer Minister Lena Metlege
Diab did respond to me immediately in writing and told me it was
Hussen's responsibility not hers.

Now I read this nonsense and shake my head as Hussen calls a
Conservative Provincial Cabinet Minister names. Methinks Mr Prime
Minister Trudeau The Younger should understand why I have no respect
for liberal lawyers N'esy Pas?

This one of the news articles I reacted over a year ago as Trudeau was
Tweeting and welcoming everybody else to come to Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/david-wright-kathryn-wright-deportation-order-immigration-1.4028868

I have no idea what has happened to David and Kathryn Wright since
this piece of news

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1542810-last-chance-to-stay-voglers-cove-couple-fights-deportation

David R. Amos
Content disabled.
@David R. Amos Here is a little proof of what I say is true

---------- Original message ----------
From: Immigration Minister <ImmigrationMinister@novascotia.ca>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 15:42:44 +0000
Subject: RE: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just
heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with
Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Cc: Immigration Minister <ImmigrationMinister@novascotia.ca>

Dear Mr. Amos:

Thank you for your email dated March 18, 2017 to the Honourable Lena
Metlege Diab, Minister of Immigration for the Province of Nova Scotia,
regarding David and Kathryn Wright. As I am Director of Programs for
the Office of Immigration, Minister Diab has requested that I respond
to your email.

I have been following this story in the news as well and am sorry to
hear about the difficulties of Mr. & Mrs. Wright in moving to Nova
Scotia.

In Canada, immigration is a shared responsibility between the
provinces and the Canadian government via Immigration, Refugees and
Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Provinces can nominate individuals for
permanent residency through provincial nominee programs; however, IRCC
has the final authority with respect to all admissions to the country.

I note that you have already contacted the federal Minister of
Immigration, the Honourable Ahmed Hussen, with your concerns. You may
also wish to contact your Member of Parliament as these decisions are
solely a federal responsibility.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write to me and for
sharing your views on such an important issue.

Yours truly,

Original signed by
Shelley Bent
Director of Programs

c. Honourable Lena Metlege Diab, ECNS

--- On Mon, 3/20/17, magicJack <voicemail@magicjack.com> wrote:

> From: magicJack <voicemail@magicjack.com>
> Subject: New VM (3) - 0:23 minutes in your magicJack mailbox from 4166562526
> To: "DAVID AMOS"
> Date: Monday, March 20, 2017, 7:15 PM
> Dear magicJack User:
>
> You received a new 0:23 minutes voicemail message, on
> Monday, March 20, 2017 at 07:15:53 PM in mailbox 9028000369
> from 4166562526.

https://lighthousenow.ca/article.php?title=Public_Safety_Minister_s_response_concerning_U_S_c

2018-03-21

Public Safety Minister’s response concerning U.S. couple “disappointing”

File photo
Kathryn and David Wright.

It looks like an American couple who have been fighting to remain in Voglers Cove could be denied their appeal.

At a recent city council meeting, Bridgewater's mayor expressed dismay with the response from federal Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale concerning the immigration difficulties facing an American couple who call Voglers Cove home.

David Mitchell called Goodale's written reply "disappointing" as it implies Ottawa will not change its mind about denying Kathryn and David Wright's ability to become permanent Canadian residents.
"I feel for the Wrights," Mitchell said during town council's March 12 meeting. "Certainly that community is going to feel the impact of them not being around."

Goodale said in his letter that the Privacy Act prohibits him from speaking to specific cases.
"The decision to remove someone is not taken lightly, and persons are dealt with on a case-by-case basis," Goodale said in the letter dated February 13. "It is imperative for the integrity of the system that once all legal avenues of review are exhausted, a person subject to a removal order respects the law and leaves Canada or is removed.

"I assure you that the Government and the CBSA [Canada Border Services Agency] are committed to the equitable application of Canada's immigration laws."

The Wrights lived in Voglers Cove during the 1970s, having achieved landed immigrant status. They left for economic reasons, but with the intention of returning. That status was invalidated after they arrived back in Voglers Cove in 2012 because they didn't possess the specific number of days required to maintain permanent residency status.

The couple, now in their 70s, successfully appealed to Ottawa and received permanent residency status. Ottawa countered with a successful appeal of its own and the Wright's status was denied again.

Earlier this year, the Main Street of the South Shore was one of the municipal government stops where supporters of the Wrights sought letters to forward to Ottawa as part of a compassionate grounds appeal. Advocates for the couple say the Wrights face possible permanent expulsion.

In late January Bridgewater Town Council heard from advocates championing the Wrights.

Christina Andrews, reading from a prepared text, told council: "Considering that rural Nova Scotia is struggling to attract qualified migrants, the Wrights have proven themselves as a welcome addition to our collective population."

Continued Andrews: "We find this couple to be personally and professionally valuable to the fabric of our community. They are highly qualified, well-integrated, low-maintenance, fully functioning citizens of Canada whose practice is to give with open hands and leave things better than they found them."

Mitchell himself described the Wrights as contributors and not burdens to the community and said he is perplexed at the permanent residency flip-flop.

Kathryn founded a free library program at the Voglers Cove Community Hall and is involved in writing groups in the Bridgewater area. David is a founding member of the United Communities volunteer fire department and is an experienced technical designer who helps people with business and personal projects. He's also known for his guitar talents.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1542810-last-chance-to-stay-voglers-cove-couple-fights-deportation

Last chance to stay: Voglers Cove couple fights deportation

ANDREW RANKIN The Chronicle Herald
Published February 4, 2018 - 9:09pm

It was as if the past five years of relentless uncertainty suddenly seized David Wright on that bitter cold day in Cherry Hill, Lunenburg County, last week.

Standing on the shoulder of Highway 331, the slight 74-year-old man turned and faced the United Communities Fire Department. For a brief moment Wright battled back tears.

The American was among a handful of locals who founded the volunteer fire department back in 1974.
“It’s the site of the best breakfasts on the shore,” said Wright with a smile.

Whether hosting fundraisers or dances, the building continues to serve its purpose of uniting the communities it serves: Cherry Hill, Broad Cove and Voglers Cove.

Wright remains a united communities volunteer firefighter and the building is his proudest contribution to a place that provided him and his wife Kat with the one thing they needed 45 years ago: a home.
But the Wrights are facing a deportation order and could be banished from their Voglers Cove home in as little as a month’s time.

Over a five-year period, the soon to be 75-year-old couple have exhausted every option of persuading Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for permission to live out the rest of their lives in Voglers Cove.

Their future hinges on the outcome of a final, last-ditch hope for permanent residency: a 300-page humanitarian application that their lawyer Lee Cohen submitted to the federal Immigration Department last December.

It essentially calls on the federal government to do the compassionate thing for a couple who have invested nearly all their resources into Voglers Cove. They have no place else to go.

“We are now almost 75,” said Kat. “We have no property, no real estate, no nothing in the United States to go back to. If we were removed, I can’t even think of it. It would just be impossible.

“But if it comes down to that we’ve said, ‘Yes, if we have to leave, then we’ll leave.’ We’re not going to hide out in the woods or anything. We won’t have a lot of money. What’s left of our life savings is in this house. We have no family that could take us in.”

The couple survives on modest social security payments and some part-time work.

They are facing their current predicament because they didn’t follow immigration rules.

They arrived in Voglers Cove from the U.S. in 1972 with today’s equivalent of permanent residency.

They wanted out of a country they deemed in a downward spiral and were motivated by David’s dream of becoming a lobster fisherman.

That dream was realized after a dozen seasoned Voglers Cove fishermen took the newcomer on and showed him the ropes. Despite eventually acquiring a 9.4-metre vessel and traps of his own, he endured three fruitless seasons and ultimately went broke. Meanwhile, Kat had found employment at the community fish plant and at local newspapers. But they couldn’t make ends meet.

They were torn. They had made close friends and found a community they could call home. But they couldn’t make a go of it. The writing was on the wall and they ultimately followed the advice of a local fishermen to go back home to Boston and save until they had enough money to settle in Voglers Cove for good.

In fact, the community raised the $150 that the Wrights needed to return.

“When we made the decision, our wonderful neighbours here, who had taken us in like family even back then, threw a farewell party for us,” recalled Kat. “They collected enough money for us to afford to get a ticket on the ferry. I know they had as little money as we did. Even now when I think about it, it brings me to tears.”

They had every intention of moving back to Nova Scotia in the years that followed. Maintaining their permanent residency required them to split their time living in Canada. For every five years, they had to live 730 days in Canada. Over the years, their efforts of finding work on the South Shore and other parts of the country proved fruitless and they didn’t spend the required days in Canada.

They continued to work and save, visiting when they could. Thirty-five years after leaving their South Shore home they decided to come back. In January 2012, they arrived at the U.S. border in Woodstock, N.B., with all their belongings in tow.

They’ve been fighting deportation ever since.

“We thought we’d be away for a couple of years, three or four years, and we’d come back and there would be no problem,” said Kat. “We were young, naive, probably foolish.

“Nobody said if you go out of the country (for an extended period of time), you’re going to lose your status. It just never occurred to us.”

Despite such dire prospects, the Wrights have picked up where they left off. Kat founded the community’s Read and Share Corner, a free library at the Voglers Cove Community Hall. She spearheaded a book donation drive that offers a wide selection of books for all ages, particularly children.

The community has rallied behind them throughout their ordeal. They’ve garnered letters of support from local municipalities, including Lunenburg, Shelburne and last week, Bridgewater. Back in Sept 2016, about 50 residents made the 128-kilometre trip from Voglers Cove to Halifax where the couple’s case was heard at an immigration appeal hearing for the second time in 19 months. They were succesful in their first appeal but the federal government sucessfully appealed that decision and ultimately the deportation still stands today.

But the official who made the call was compassionate in his ruling.

“The tribunal also wishes to reiterate that this was a very difficult decision as these are quality individuals. If the criteria would have been would you want these people as your neighbours, objectively almost anyone would probably wish so,” said Haig Basmajian in his decision.

Cohen remains hopeful that the Wrights’ final effort, the humanitarian application, will sway Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, but he said the odds aren’t great. A decision in the first step of the application process could come within one to eight months.

“It asserts a number of humanitarian reasons why it would be disproportionately harsh for David and Kat to have to leave Canada regardless of where they might have to go to.

“But they’re almost entirely subjectively based. Any time I do a humanitarian application for a client I make sure they know in advance before they officially retain my services, it’s a high-risk application. Success rates are not high.”

Cohen, who has represented the couple since 2012, is not accusing anyone within the immigration system of unfair treatment of the Wrights. If anything many have gone out of their way in accommodating the couple, he said. The problem, he suggests, is the system itself, and its failure to recognize the couple as the kind of immigrants Canada and Nova Scotia needs.

“In an unanticipated kind of way, David and Kat are caught in that paradox that Canada is saying, on the one hand we want immigrants, but on the other hand on the precipice of throwing out two people who have made significant contributions to a community that would not be as well off as they are today but for David and Kat.

“I think the story is about two very senior people who have been very dedicated to their local community in Nova Scotia, who have no real family other than the people in Voglers Cove and surrounding area, who have become their family.”

Cohen encourages people to write letters of support for the Wrights and send them to either Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or his Halifax law office.

“(If we lose) it would break my spirit,” said Cohen. “It’s a very humanitarian story. After they returned to Voglers Cove after a lengthy absence, they continued to contribute to this very day, this very minute.

“The narrative has to be, does Nova Scotia want people or do we not want people? Are we going to say publicly that Nova Scotia is open to immigration and then behind closed doors design a system that is actually more exclusionary than inclusionary? You can’t have it both ways.”

---------- Original message ----------
From: Minister
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:47:01 -0400
Subject: RE: ATTN Karen Ludwig I just called and left a message for David Hickey after I heard Matthew Clark of Harvey talk on CBC about the CIC
To: David Amos

La version française suit.
This is an automatic acknowledgement of your e-mail addressed to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Please note that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is experiencing a significant increase in the volume of correspondence received and we will strive to respond to your enquiry in as timely a manner as possible.

If this is a request for case information, the responsibility placed on us by the Privacy Act to protect all personal information precludes us from responding to you with case specific information using e-mail, unless we are able to verify that you are entitled/authorized to receive the case specific information. Therefore, only general information would be provided in response to your enquiry.

We will not respond to e-mails concerning the following:

---------- Original message ----------
From: Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:47:00 +0000
Subject: Autoreply / Réponse automatique
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com

Thank you for contacting Minister Ahmed Hussen’s Parliamentary office. Please be advised your matter will be dealt with promptly or forwarded to the respective office/department.
Please be advised for all Immigration, Refugee, Citizenship Canada related matters it is best to contact your Member of Parliament first. If you're unaware who your M.P. is please use this link

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx

Once again thank you for contacting our office. Have a nice day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nous vous remercions d'avoir contacté le bureau parlementaire du ministre Ahmed Hussen. Veuillez noter que votre message sera traité dans les plus brefs délais ou transféré au ministre responsable.
Pour toute question au sujet d’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada, il est préférable de vous adresser directement votre députe. Si vous ne savez pas qui est le députe de votre circonscription, veuillez cliquer sur le lien suivant:

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC&Language=F

Nous vous remercions pour votre intérêt, bonne journée.

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:47:14 +0000
Subject: RE: ATTN Karen Ludwig I just called and left a message for David Hickey after I heard Matthew Clark of Harvey talk on CBC about the CIC
To: David Amos

Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick. Please be assured that your email will be reviewed.

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel sera examiné.

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:46:55 -0400
Subject: ATTN Karen Ludwig I just called and left a message for David Hickey after I heard Matthew Clark of Harvey talk on CBC about the CIC
To: Karen.Ludwig@parl.gc.ca, "Catherine.Harrop" , stewart.laverne@dailygleaner.com, Minister@cic.gc.ca, Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca, premier , "David.Coon" , "blaine.higgs" , "Matt.DeCourcey" , "Matt.DeCourcey.c1" , pm , "Gerald.Butts"
Cc: David Amos , "terry.seguin"

Telephone: 506-466-3928
E-Mail: Karen.Ludwig@parl.gc.ca

https://www.facebook.com/pg/CitCanada/about/?ref=page_internal

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Canadianimmigrationstruggles/about/?ref=page_internal

https://www.telegraphjournal.com/telegraph-journal/story/48188057/british-man-living-in?source=story-related

stewart.laverne@dailygleaner.com,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/matthew-clark-immigration-harvey-1.3728290

Immigration paperwork stands to separate Harvey newlyweds

Matthew Clark may need to leave bride behind and return to England due to trouble getting work permit

By Catherine Harrop, CBC News Posted: Aug 19, 2016 6:00 PM AT

Matthew Clark says if he can't get a work permit, he'll be forced to leave the country. (Catherine Harrop/CBC)

Matthew Clark of Harvey has run into paperwork difficulty trying to obtain a work permit and landed immigrant status and says unless Canadian Immigration and Citizenship straightens things out, he will have to decide to either not work until next summer, or leave behind his Canadian bride Katherine to return to work in England.

""It's just a beautiful country, but if they won't give me a work permit, I will be forced to leave, because I can't go two years without working," said Clark, 26. "I don't think anyone would want to go without working. It's not on."

Last November Clark paid $550 for a physical, got a security check through London, and filled out the many documents required to apply for an open work permit and landed immigrant status. He had to do it before his visitor's visa ran out on Jan. 9, 2016.

Receipt for Dec. 11 package

He has a receipt showing he sent off the package on Dec. 11. Another receipt for Jan. 29, 2016, indicates the day CIC sent his package back to him, saying he was missing a signature. He signed it, and sent it back to them the same day.

Matthew and Katherine Clark's wedding photos. (Catherine Harrop/CBC)

The problem is, it appears CIC has decided his application wasn't received before his visitor's visa ran out.

That means instead of getting a work permit in around four months, it will be around August of next year. The Clarks didn't find that out until they contacted MP Karen Ludwig's office in June out of frustration.

Clark is livid.

"At the moment, I feel like, by letting immigrants coming into the country and going through the process, you're also giving immigrants a bad name, because we can't work, and we can't contribute, and it's not our fault at all. I'm trying my utmost to work."

'Implied status'

"It's my understanding he [Matthew] should have had 'implied status,'" from the time the application was first received by CIC in December, said Janet Blair, who worked for Citizenship and Immigration from 1991 to 2005.

"Asking for further payment for his work permit in March suggests they [CIC] didn't close the file in January."

Blair says Citizenship and Immigration Canada should have told him if they were denying his work permit.
Blair helped the Clarks check over their submissions, saying everything looked in order. She says the department should review the process it followed.

MP's office calling

David Hickey works in MP Karen Ludwig's office and has been calling CIC to make enquiries on behalf of the Clarks.

Hickey says he has been told that 'no matter how big, no matter how small the infraction …the original application was incomplete.'

He says "every sympathy falls with Matt," but had no comment about whether or not Ludwig will bring up the case with Immigration Minister John McCallum.

Clark believes he is not alone with his frustration with the bureaucracy of immigration. He has started a Facebook site called 'Immigration Struggles' to hear from others.

"It could affect my chances, [being outspoken], but I'm a firm believer that if nothing's said, and no one stands up to this, then nothing is ever going to change," says Clark.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/immigration-england-new-brunswick-1.4032343

Immigration paperwork interrupts 'happily ever after' for Harvey couple

A glitch in immigration paperwork could send Briton back home after recent marriage to Canadian

By Elizabeth Fraser, CBC News Posted: Mar 20, 2017 5:22 PM AT

Matthew Clark of Harvey hoped to get a work permit and become a permanent resident of Canada after he married a Canadian in 2015. Instead, he might be returning home to England for good. (Catherine Harrop/CBC)

Love knows no bounds — except maybe if Citizenship and Immigration Canada is involved.

Matthew Clark has been trying to get a work permit and permanent resident status since he and his wife, Katherine, were married in 2015.

But instead of making progress down that road, Clark is about to fly home to the United Kingdom because, he says, of a glitch in his paperwork.

And there's no guarantee the Harvey resident will be able to return to Canada.

Clark, a former physical education teacher, started running into obstacles last year when his application for a work permit was returned to him. He'd forgotten to sign one of the many documents required by Canada's Department of Immigration.

"My opinion of Canada isn't exactly great at the moment," said the frustrated Clark, who had looked forward to married life in Canada, away from the large crowds of the U.K.

"The place itself is beautiful but the way … it's run I just can't believe some of the stuff that's happening."

Immigration paperwork stands to separate Harvey newlyweds

Clark, who met his wife teaching in Britain a few years ago, sent off his application for a work permit in December 2015.

He didn't hear from anyone until the end of January 2016, when a form came back highlighting a signature line he overlooked in the pile of paperwork, bank statements and photographs required as proof of the couple's relationship.

"The document was like a novel," he said during an interview with Information Morning Fredericton.
That same day, Clark sent back the paperwork with the proper signature, only to see it bounce back again in March.

'It messes with people's lives'

Then, Clark said, he received a notice from Immigration saying there was a form he didn't fill in that asked for additional family information. He said the department also asked for an additional payment for a work permit.

Clark contacted Karen Ludwig, the member of Parliament for New Brunswick Southwest, whose office contacted the Immigration Department.

That's when Clark learned his application had been accepted and he would be getting a work permit by the end of July.

Two weeks into August, he called Ludwig's office again and was told was given the wrong information. There would be no work permit.

"It's not even the permanent residency that's the biggest issue here," Clark said. "I just want to be able to work."

The Immigration Department said it could not comment on a specific case without a person's signed consent. CBC tried for a comment from Ludwig's office, which said it is working on a response.

Information Morning - Fredericton

Matthew Clark - Immigration

00:00 14:29

"It was just an ongoing battle from August until now," he said. "The information I've been given from the CIC has been nothing but appalling.

"You have Prime Minister Trudeau constantly saying in the media, 'Canada is a diverse country, Canada needs immigrants to boost its economy,' but you have an immigration system in place that is there to catch people out, instead of helping them," he said.

With his visa running out, Clark has already bought his plane ticket home and leaves March 26. While there, he'll visit family and hopes to return to Canada on April 13, the day his return ticket is dated.
But he isn't so sure.

"Essentially I've been red-flagged," Clark said.

"They [government officials] prefer you to be in the country being a burden on society, instead of contributing to society," he said. "It messes with people's lives."

With files from Information Morning Fredericton

---------- Original message ----------
From: Minister
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:09:53 -0400
Subject: RE: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos

La version française suit.
This is an automatic acknowledgement of your e-mail addressed to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Please note that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is experiencing a significant increase in the volume of correspondence received and we will strive to respond to your enquiry in as timely a manner as possible.

---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:09:44 -0400
Subject: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: Minister@cic.gc.ca, Ahmed.Hussen@parl.gc.ca, ImmigrationMinister@novascotia.ca, info@lenadiab.ca, justmin , Richard.Woodbury@cbc.ca, mlcohen@eastlink.ca, patricklove@eastlink.ca, earth5@eastlink.ca, barb.mckenna@tc.tc, PREMIER , pm , "Gerald.Butts" , leader , "elizabeth.may" , "lisa.raitt" , "Kellie.Leitch" , info@chrisalexander.ca, info@jasonkenney.com, "erin.otoole" , "maxime.bernier" , brad.trost@parl.gc.ca, "andrew.scheer" , Kevin , "rona.ambrose" , MulcaT , Craig Munroe , Liberal / Assistance , "Bill.Morneau" , premier , postur , mark.eyking@parl.gc.ca, "Matt.DeCourcey" , "hon.ralph.goodale" , mcu , "jan.jensen" , oldmaison , andre , COCMoncton
Cc: David Amos , Sabrina.Fabian@cbc.ca, "ht.lacroix" , "hon.melanie.joly" , "Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc" , Hal.Higgins@cbc.ca, president

http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/03/attn-ministers-lena-metlege-diab-and.html

Saturday, 18 March 2017
ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about
David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration
on CBC

Lawyers such as you should know for fact that if I can help Randy Quaid and several others remain in Canada over the years when Monte Soleberg, Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander did the dirty work torturing immigrants for the Harper Government then I can help the Wrights as well particularly now that the LIEbranos have the mandate again N'esy Pas Mr Prime Minister Trudeau "The Younger" and Dizzy Lizzy May???

https://immigration.novascotia.ca/minister

Nova Scotia Immigration

The Honourable Minister of Immigration,
Justice and Attorney General, Lena Metlege Diab
Nova Scotia Office of Immigration
1469 Brenton Street 3rd floor
Halifax NS B3J 2Y3
Phone: (902) 424-5230
Fax: (902) 424-7936
ImmigrationMinister@novascotia.ca

The Honourable Ahmed D. Hussen MP
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
365 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 1L1
Telephone: 613-954-1064
Fax: 613-952-5533
Minister@cic.gc.ca

M. Lee Cohen
Lee Cohen has been practicing law in Canada since 1981. His practice is dedicated exclusively to matters related to immigration, refugees and human rights. He has assisted hundreds of foreign nationals seeking entry into Canada and has extensive experience preparing all categories of immigration applications and procedures for people.

M. Lee Cohen & Associates
7071 Bayers Road, Suite 5009,
Halifax, Nova Scotia,
B3L 2C2
Phone: 902-423-2412
Fax: 902-425-0109
Email: mlcohen@eastlink.ca

https://southshoreconnect.cioc.ca/record/MDL0235

Voglers Cove Community Hall Association
8544 Hwy 331
Voglers Cove, NS B0J 2H0

Contact Patrick Love, Chair;
Phone: 902-935-3300;
Email: patricklove@eastlink.ca
Alternate Contact
Bruce Newell, Vice Chair;
Phone: 902-677-2287;
Email: earth5@eastlink.ca
Mailing Address c/o Patrick Love
8375 Rte 331, RR 2, Mill Village
Voglers Cove B0J 2H0

http://www.theadvance.ca/news/local/2017/3/15/vogler_s-cove-couple-lose-their-deportatation-appeal.html

Vogler’s Cove couple lose their deportatation appeal

Barb McKenna barb.mckenna@tc.tc
Published on March 15, 2017

Shown in this 2005 photo, Kathryn and David Wright say having to leave Voglers Cove, N.S., would be devastating.

Dave and Kat Wright of Vogler’s Cove have lost their deportation appeal – which means they are on the list to be deported to the United States. But the couple plans to continue fighting to stay in Canada.

VOGLER'S COVE - A couple from Vogler’s Cove who have been fighting a deportation order to the United States have lost their appeal to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board.

David and Katherine Wright were given a removal order from Canada in 2011,The couple moved from the U.S. to Canada in 1972, and received landed immigrant status. They settled in Vogler’s Cove, where David tried lobster fishing, but after five disastrous years, David took a job in the United States.

They stayed there for 35 years.

In 2011, the couple returned to Vogler’s Cove, which they say they consider their home. They have the support of the community behind them.

But the federal government handed them a removal order – saying they did not meet the required 730 days in Canada per five years that would allow them to maintain their landed immigrant status.

They appealed that decision, and in 2014 they won the appeal on compassionate grounds.

But the federal government appealed, and after a hearing last fall, the decision has been released.

The Wright’ appeal has been dismissed.

The judge who heard the case, Haig Basmajian, said the decision was very hard to make.

“The tribunal also wishes to reiterate that this was a very difficult decision as these are quality individuals. If the criteria would have been would you want these people as your neighbours, objectively almost anyone would probably wish so.” he wrote.

“However, as mentioned from the outset there are criteria and limitations to discretionary power. It does not give the authority to modify or change existing legislation.”

The judge noted that although the Wright’s are well established in Vogler’s Cove, and have the support of their small community behind them, they have no family here.

The decision also said there would be no hardship for the couple to return to the United States.

“The tribunal cannot substitute itself to the legislator’s authority regarding some aspects which were brought up or implied, whether it is to give special consideration for individuals who immigrate and establish themselves and integrate themselves in small rural areas versus large urban centers where most immigration takes place, or if friends can substitute family, especially in the context of a small rural community with a declining population, or regarding the fact that there seems to be an absence in Canadian immigration legislation for individuals who simply want to retire full time in Canada, or even in this case, if a stay could be granted by opting out of the provincial medical coverage regime, he wrote.

“And the tribunal would be overstepping its boundaries by considering these aspects. The tribunal did however attempt to take a large and generous interpretation into the unique considerations of this case, however unfortunately, objectively, it could not find sufficient aspects to overcome the mentioned shortcomings regarding the appellants’ residency obligations.”

The Wrights say they intend to continue fighting to stay in their beloved Vogler’s Cove.
Their lawyer, Lee Cohen, will be at Vogler’s Cove Community Hall on April 2 at 3 p.m. to engage the community on the Wright’s behalf.

At the same time, Cohen is filing a Humanitarian and Compassionate Appeal to the government of Canada.
The couple are seeking letters of support from local people organizations, professionals, political and community leaders to augment that appeal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/david-wright-kathryn-wright-deportation-order-immigration-1.4028868

Couple in N.S. hopes for last-minute reprieve from 'devastating' deportation

Americans David and Kathryn Wright say they belong in Voglers Cove, where they have lived for 5 years

By Richard Woodbury, CBC News Posted: Mar 18, 2017 6:30 AM A

Shown in this 2005 photo, Kathryn and David Wright say having to leave Voglers Cove, N.S., would be devastating. (Submitted by Kathryn A. Wright)

A tiny community of about 200 people on Nova Scotia's south shore is rallying behind a husband and wife from the U.S. who are under a deportation order to leave Canada.

David and Kathryn Wright say they're heartbroken at the thought of leaving Voglers Cove, a picturesque hamlet on the Medway River that they've called home for five years.

"It's devastating," said Kathryn Wright. "We love Voglers Cove. We've always wanted to be here and the idea of having to leave is just mind-boggling.

"We're in our 70s. We have no place to go. Everything we own is here."

Loved by community

In late December, the couple lost their appeal of a removal order before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Despite ruling against the Wrights, the board noted in its decision that "almost anyone" would want the pair as neighbours.

The couple are active members of the community in Voglers Cove, tucked away between Liverpool and Lunenburg. Kathryn Wright helped set up a library at the local community hall and organizes book readings, while her husband volunteers as a radio operator with the local fire department and helps out with their breakfast fundraisers.

"They're extremely community-minded, which is why the whole community has rallied behind them. In a community as small as 200, every person counts," said Eric Hustvedt, the municipal councillor for Voglers Cove and some other nearby communities.

A meeting in support of the Wrights at the Voglers Cove Community Hall in July 2016 drew a large crowd. (Submitted by Kathryn A. Wright)

Deportation order issued

He pointed to the couple's most recent immigration appeal hearing, which was held in Halifax in September.

Around 50 people made the 128-kilometre trek from Voglers Cove to support the couple. There were so many supporters that they had to take turns being shuffled in and out of the room to watch the proceedings.

The couple's lawyer, Lee Cohen, said it's unusual for people outside of family members to attend such hearings, let alone dozens of community members.

The board made its ruling on Dec. 22, 2016, giving the Wrights 30 days to voluntarily leave the country. After 30 days, the removal order turned into a deportation order.

The ruling is the latest roadblock in the couple's efforts to build a life in Canada.

Their story began in 1972 when the couple first moved to Nova Scotia from Massachusetts to follow David Wright's dream of being a lobster fisherman and the couple's quest to live in a safe and welcoming place. That plan didn't work out and five years later, the couple moved back to the U.S., but always intended on coming back to Canada.

'Live happily ever after'

While the couple made occasional visits to Canada, they decided to return permanently in January 2012 and were armed with landed immigrant status cards they received in the 1970s. That immigration classification is known as a permanent resident today.

"They figured that all they had to do was drive into Canada, report at the port of entry and make their way to Nova Scotia and live happily live after," said Cohen, who has represented the couple since 2012.

To maintain one's permanent residency, a person must spend at least 730 days total — or two years, off and on — in Canada over a five-year period. But the Wrights fell far short of that requirement.

David Wright had been in the country for only about 200 days total, while his wife had spent about 140 days in Canada.

Despite these issues, the border agent let them into the country, said Cohen, as they were still permanent residents, a judge hadn't ruled they weren't and they hadn't voluntarily given up their permanent residency.

"The border official did technically have to let them in if they insisted on coming in," said Cohen.

Appeal history

The border agent then issued a removal order, which the Wrights appealed before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The matter was heard on Feb. 26, 2014.

A panel of the board's immigration appeal division later ruled the removal order be set aside and that the Wrights hadn't lost their permanent residency status. The panel said there were sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds for them to stay that outruled their non-compliance of residency obligations.

The federal government then appealed the case in Federal Court, which was heard on Dec. 9, 2014, and it later overturned the previous decision.

This triggered a requirement that the matter be heard again by the immigration appeal division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The hearing was held on Sept. 21, 2016, and while it later upheld the Federal Court ruling, the person who oversaw the hearing had kind words for the Wrights.

"The tribunal also wishes to reiterate that this was a very difficult decision as these are quality individuals. If the criteria would have been would you want these people as your neighbours, objectively almost anyone would probably wish so," said Haig Basmajian in his decision.

Case argued on humanitarian grounds

Appeals can be argued based on the law or on equity (humanitarian reasons), or both. Cohen has argued the case solely on humanitarian grounds in all three instances. His clients don't dispute the removal order isn't legally valid.

Lawyer Lee Cohen says the Wrights are being put through a lot of needless stress, fear and uncertainty by immigration officials. (CBC)

Rather, the Wrights see Voglers Cove as their home and don't think they'd be able to afford to live in the U.S. given housing and health-care costs.

The couple said they live on a combined annual income of $20,000 plus social security benefits in Voglers Cove, where a oceanfront home can be bought for less than $150,000.

"There's no place where we have a community of people or family in one spot in the United States ... We're living really on the edge of what we can afford here and we're settled here," said Wright.

"It works here. I don't know it would work anywhere else financially."

Fear of living in Trump's America

The Wrights said they're also leery of the political climate in the U.S., which is why they left in the first place in 1972.

Back then, they were concerned about the right-wing turn of the country under the Nixon administration and social problems such as riots and assassinations.

"It's much worse than it was back then," said Wright.

"Nixon, at least, was semi-rational. The orange one [President Donald Trump] isn't," added David Wright.

Now that the deportation order is in effect, the Wrights are having a so-called pre-removal risk assessment done. With their appeal hopes exhausted, the Wrights hope the assessment finds there's a reason why deporting them would be unsafe or pose a threat to their liberty.

The federal immigration minister could intervene in their favour.

'We really belong here'

Both the Wrights and Cohen can't understand why, with Nova Scotia's aging population and shrinking rural communities, authorities are trying to have them removed from the country.

"We really belong here," said Kathryn Wright.

"Nova Scotia needs us, as well as lot of other people, to live in rural Nova Scotia."

With files from Maritime Noon

http://www.southerngazette.ca/news/regional/2016/7/5/vogler-s-cove-couple-hire-famous-maritim-4578975.html

Vogler's Cove couple hire famous Maritime immigration lawyer to fight deportation
Barb McKenna barb.mckenna@tc.tc
Published on July 5, 2016

VOGLER'S COVE, NS - The Maritime’s most famous immigration lawyer, Lee Cohen, has taken on the case of David and Kathryn Wright.

The couple who live on Nova Scotia's South Shore are fighting to stay in Canada after having received a removal order to the United States from the federal government.

The couple gained landed immigrant status in 1972, but had to leave after David lost his fishing gear three years in a row. They moved back to the United States for 35 years, but returned to Canada in 2012. They were immediately ordered removed, but fought the order through the Immigration and Refugee board and won on compassionate grounds. The federal government appealed, and now a new hearing is scheduled for September.

Cohen says the couple always intended to stay in Canada, and he says the law entitles them to stay in the country.

“They were permanent residents at one point and there is law in Canada that allows the immigration system to look sympathetically at their case to determine whether they have extinguished or abandoned their permanent resident status.”

Cohen says they were already able to convince an adjudicator that the couple should stay on humanitarian grounds.

He says he will fight very hard for the couple.

“Kat and Dave were extremely credible witnesses, and I think that’s why they were successful in the first round. I think the board member probably came into that hearing doubting that they would succeed, and then after sitting down in a full day hearing, the board member was impressed with their credibility and their integrity.”

He says the board member was also impressed by the support of the residents of Vogler’s Cove. About 20 showed up at the hearing, which Cohen says is very uncommon.

“Most common is to have nobody there. And I think that too was very impressive to the board member,” he says.

“One of my challenges is to help the board understand the difference from Halifax, or from Montreal to Toronto. And Kat and Dave are well established in their community.”

He says he plans do exactly what they did the last time “but we will do more, we really did hit a home run the last time and we have to do that again,” he says.

“We may very well want to call local community members to express their support of the couple.”

Cohen, based in Halifax, says there are many humanitarian criteria that the Wright’s qualify for.

The lawyer is known for representing high-profile immigration cases. One such case involved a family who lived in a church basement for a more than a year. They were eventually granted citizenship.

The hearing is scheduled for September.

http://www.journalpioneer.com/news/regional/2016/6/30/couple-fights-federal-order-to-deport-th-4575702.html

Couple fights federal order to deport them to U.S. from Nova Scotia's South Shore

Barb McKenna barb.mckenna@tc.tc
Published on June 30, 2016

David and Kathryn Wright are fighting to stay in Canada after they received an federal removal order to leave their home in Vogler’s Cove.

©TC Media

VOGLER'S COVE, N.S. - David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove are fighting a deportation order that says they have to return to the United States, and they have the support of the small South Shore community behind them.

The couple first moved to Vogler’s Cove from the U.S. in 1972, and received landed immigrant status.

“Our intention was to become Canadian citizens,” says Kathryn. The couple became heavily involved in the community, David worked as a firefighter and Kathryn started a library.

“We fell in love with the people of Vogler’s Cove with open arms,” Kathryn says.

But it was David’s dream of lobster fishing that ruined their plans of staying in Vogler’s Cove at the time.

After five years of fishing, David ran into trouble. A few bad years caused him to lose all his gear, and he found himself out of work. The couple tried to find work elsewhere in the province, but were unable to.

Then they got an offer from David’s father to join a firm in the United States – so they decided to move. They didn’t plan to stay in the United States for 35 years, and over those years they applied for jobs in Canada, but were not able to find any.

In 2011, they decided it was time to come back to Vogler’s Cove. They sold their home, bought a house in Vogler’s Cove, and headed to the border.

That’s when they ran into trouble.

“They let us in, and gave us a removal order,” says David.

The reason was because the couple had spent 35 years outside of Canada, and did not meet the required 730 days in Canada per five years that would allow them to maintain their landed immigrant status.

The Wright’s hired Immigration Lawyer Lee Cohen to fight the removal order, and in 2014, they won the right to stay in Canada, under compassionate grounds.

The hearing officer noted that 20 people from Vogler’s Cove showed up at the hearing to support them.

But the federal department of immigration appealed that decision, and now the couple has found themselves facing another removal order. An appeal hearing is scheduled for September.

The Wright’s say the entire community is behind them. Their lawyer met with the tiny community of only about 100 people last week and about 50 people showed up in support.

The Wright’s are now in their 70’s, and say being deported would be devastating to them.

“Everything that we own is here in Vogler’s Cove,” says Kathryn. “We would be living in poverty in the United States.”

They say they also feel like the community is more “home” to them than anywhere they’ve ever lived.

“The people of Vogler’s Cove are our family. These people are my tribe,” says David.

Both are still working.

The couple are asking people to write in support to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

The appeal hearing is scheduled for Sept. 21 in Halifax.

http://canadianpublius.blogspot.ca/2006/06/soleberg-on-clements-shares.html

Tony Clement owns shares in a private pharma company. Some people think that puts him in a conflict of interest.

According to PoliticsWatch.com, Tony thinks it's "none of your business!" Tony says he has taken the advice of the Ethics Commissioner and that he shouldn't be taking ethics lessons from Liberals.

A bit odd though.

Only a few months ago, his boss Harper was calling the Ethics Commissioner a "liberal appointee."

So I guess, Tony is taking ethics lessons from a liberal... but I digress...

Me? I think he should keep his shares. He's followed the Ethic Commish's ruling, and we should all get on with our lives.

But no-one voted for me. What do our duly elected leaders have to say...?

"The one way to clear this thing up is to get rid of the company, " said Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Monte Soleberg to Louise Elliot at CP.

Ooops, I am sorry, Monte was talking about CSL and Paul Martin's kids owning the company on February 6, 2004.... what a difference an election makes...

Uh-oh ... here come the "principles of convenience" again ...

Here is a blogger challenge - let's see who can come up with another Tory urging a liberal to sell due to risk of conflict of interest....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/syrians-refugees-cohen-lawyer-target-1.3317584

Immigration lawyer Lee Cohen says 'this is not the time to dither' on refugees

Bringing 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada before the end of the year is 'ambitious,' but 'possible'

By Hal Higgins, CBC News Posted: Nov 13, 2015 12:40 PM AT

Syrians attend a distribution of watermelons near the Akcakale crossing gate between Turkey and Syria at Akcakale in Sanliurfa province on June 16, 2015. Canada has pledged to take 25,000 refugees before the end of the year. (Bulent Kilic/AFP/Getty)

Noted Halifax lawyer Lee Cohen says in spite of the short time frame, the new federal government's goal of welcoming 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada before the end of the year is entirely possible.

Cohen, who has dedicated his practice to matters related to immigration, refugees and human rights since 1981, was in Sydney taking part in a law conference.

The promise made by the Liberal government is "ambitious," but "it is possible if the will is there," he told CBC Radio Cape Breton's Information Morning.

Noted Halifax immigration lawyer says Canada's goal of bringing 25,000 Syrian refugees to the country by the end of the year is possible to achieve. (CBC)

He noted Canada opened its doors to tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees between 1975 and 1985. And the first step to welcoming Syrian refugees has already been taken, he says — identifying who they are.

"A lot of the families are already identified," he says. "And that's being done by people on the ground there now. And it's largely being done by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees operating on the ground there.

"So a lot of this work has been going on for many, many months. In fact, for a couple of years."

When asked if Canada needs more time to get ready for the influx, he said: "This is not the time to dither."

He argues that Syrian refugees won't be put off by less-than-ideal accommodations in the short term in Canada. He says the conditions under which they're currently living are deplorable and they need help immediately.

He suggests they could be temporarily housed at military bases across the country until other arrangements can be made.

Regardless of whether the goal of 25,000 can be reached, Cohen says the time to get on with the job is now.
"If we don't hit the target, it's not a failure."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/syrian-refugees-halifax-entrepreneurs-economy-1.3317089

Syrian refugees will help stimulate economy, says Halifax Chamber of Commerce

Refugees 'come into Nova Scotia, create wealth, create jobs, increase tax revenue,' says board chair

By Sabrina Fabian, CBC News Posted: Nov 13, 2015 6:27 AM AT

In February 2014, Nova Scotia's Ivany Report recommended that the province receive 7,000 new immigrants annually. (Reuters)

As Canada prepares to welcome 25,000 new refugees from Syria before the end of the year, the business community in Nova Scotia is eagerly awaiting their arrival.

Some believe an influx of new and ambitious refugees could help stimulate the economy.
In February 2014, Nova Scotia's Ivany Report recommended that the province receive 7,000 new immigrants annually.

Canada committed to resettle 25,000 refugees by Jan. 1

With the co-operation of the federal government, Nova Scotia would receive its proportional share — 2.7 per cent — of all new international immigrants to Canada, the report recommends.

The current five-year average is 2,400 immigrants per year.

Rob Batherson, chair of the board of directors of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, says that 7,000 immigrants would help maintain or even increase the overall population.

Rob Batherson is the chair of the board of directors of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce and a businessman. He says that 7000 immigrants would help maintain or even increase the overall population. (CBC News)

"We've had stagnant population now for quite some time and we have an aging population as well. So gradually the working age population is shrinking ... We need new, younger people to come into the economy to contribute, to set up businesses, employ other Nova Scotians and expand our tax base rather than manage with a shrinking tax base."

Batherson said Syrians, like other immigrant groups that have come to the province in the past, are likely to be entrepreneurs and have a strong willingness to work.

"For example, many of today's most successful business leaders were refugees from Lebanon, from the civil war in the '60s and '70s," said Batherson. "[They] come into Nova Scotia, create wealth, create jobs, increase tax revenue. So what I'm excited about with the potential with more Syrian refugees coming in is who in that class of refugees will be the next Nova Scotia success story for the next 30 years?"

Cape Breton ready for refugees

In Cape Breton, members of the Lifeline Syria Cape Breton committee met with Sydney-Victoria MP Mark Eyking and a representative from Glace Bay MP Rodger Cuzner's office on Thursday afternoon.

They met to push forward the group's message that it is prepared to welcome refugees.

Amanda McDougall, manager of Immigration Partnerships at Cape Breton University and a member of the group, participated in the discussion. She echoed Batherson's statements.

Amanda McDougall hopes the government will consider settling refugees in smaller urban centres like Sydney, which stand to gain a lot from an influx of new immigrants. (Cape Breton University)

"We've had [an] influx of huge numbers of immigrants and refugees throughout our history. It's proven that when refugees come here, they come with a more entrepreneurial spirit. There's a different type of work ethic. Families come, businesses grow, opportunities grow."

McDougall hopes the government will consider settling refugees in smaller urban centres like Sydney, which stand to gain a lot from an influx of new immigrants. On the flip side, the community can do a lot for its new residents.

"You would really get more bang for your buck in terms of supports for refugees. When you're putting a small amount of money into refugee services here, it's really creating such a wonderful outpouring to the entire community and refugees are going to receive a lot more one-on-one support," McDougall said.
She admits areas outside metro Halifax lack certain immigration settlement services that refugees would be seeking.

McDougall said she has asked that the government assist in providing those services in the immediate future and that eventually they be more evenly spread out in the province.

Nova Scotia's Immigration Minister Lena Diab is expected to make an announcement on the province's role in the refugee crisis on Friday following a meeting with her federal counterpart, John McCallum.

---------- Original message ----------
From: Minister
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 07:09:53 -0400
Subject: RE: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos

La version française suit.
This is an automatic acknowledgement of your e-mail addressed to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Please note that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is experiencing a significant increase in the volume of correspondence received and we will strive to respond to your enquiry in as timely a manner as possible.

If this is a request for case information, the responsibility placed on us by the Privacy Act to protect all personal information precludes us from responding to you with case specific information using e-mail, unless we are able to verify that you are entitled/authorized to receive the case specific information. Therefore, only general information would be provided in response to your enquiry.

We will not respond to e-mails concerning the following:

*   Assessment of points/qualifications.
*   Calculation of time for citizenship eligibility.
*   Travel documents/requirements for travel to other countries.
*   Inquiries about U.S. Immigration.
*   General information about visiting, living, working or studying in Canada.
*   Information requests regarding a case where there is a lack of specific information provided (full name(s) with correct spelling, address, date(s) of birth, country of birth, applicable file number, office of application, etc.).
*   Allegations of fraud. Please refer to http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/protection/fraud/report.asp.
*   Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application refusals. Please refer to http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=422&top=16.
*   The use of an authorized representative (www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/representative/rep-who.asp).
*   Opinions about recent announcements/news releases/cases.
*   General enquiries about Canada’s Syrian refugees resettlement plan (please consult our Website at #WelcomeRefugees).

For more information about IRCC, including online services, please visit: www.cic.gc.ca.

E-mail is not a secure channel of communication. IRCC is not liable for the unauthorized disclosure of personal information or the misuse of that information by a third party where we have taken reasonable means to verify the identity of the party.

-----------------------------------------

La présente est un message automatique pour accuser réception de votre courriel adressé au ministre de l’Immigration, des Réfugiés et de la Citoyenneté.

Veuillez noter qu’Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté Canada (IRCC) connaît une augmentation importante du volume de correspondance reçue et que nous nous efforcerons de répondre à votre demande le plus rapidement possible.

Si votre courriel vise à obtenir de l’information sur un cas, compte tenu de l’obligation que nous avons de protéger tous les renseignements personnels conformément à la Loi sur la protection des renseignements personnels, nous ne pouvons vous répondre par courriel à moins d’être en mesure de confirmer que vous avez le droit ou l’autorisation de recevoir l’information demandée. Par conséquent, seuls des renseignements généraux vous seront fournis.

Nous ne répondrons pas aux courriels concernant les éléments suivants :

*   L’attribution des points et l’évaluation des qualifications.
*   Le calcul du temps passé au Canada aux fins de l’admissibilité à la citoyenneté.
*   Les documents de voyage et les exigences pour se rendre dans un autre pays.
*   Renseignements au sujet des services d’immigration des États‑Unis.
*   Comment visiter, vivre, travailler ou étudier au Canada.
*   Les demandes d’information portant sur un cas pour lequel certains renseignements précis n’ont pas été fournis (nom complet bien orthographié, adresse, date de naissance, pays de naissance, numéro de dossier applicable, bureau où la demande a été présentée, etc.).
*   Un cas présumé de fraude. Veuillez consulter : http://www.cic.gc.ca/francais/information/protection/fraude/signaler.asp.
*   Le refus d’une demande de visa de résident temporaire. Veuillez consulter : http://www.cic.gc.ca/francais/centre-aide/reponse.asp?qnum=422&top=16.
*   Le recours aux services d’un représentant autorisé. Veuillez consulter : http://www.cic.gc.ca/francais/information/representants/representant-qui.asp.
*   Un point de vue concernant une nouvelle, un communiqué de presse ou un cas en particulier.
*   Les demandes de renseignements généraux à propos du plan de réinstallation des réfugiés syriens du Canada. Veuillez consulter : #Bienvenueauxréfugiés.

Pour de plus amples renseignements à propos d’IRCC, y compris les services offerts en ligne, veuillez consulter : www.cic.gc.ca.

Le courriel n’est pas un moyen de communication sûr. IRCC n’est pas responsable de la divulgation non autorisée de renseignements personnels à une tierce partie ou de l’utilisation malveillante de cette information par celle‑ci lorsque nous avons pris tous les moyens raisonnables pour vérifier l’identité de cette tierce partie.

---------- Original message ----------
From: Justice Minister
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:09:48 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos

Thank you for your email to the Minister of Justice. Please be assured that it has been received by the Department. Your email will be reviewed and addressed accordingly. Thank you.

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Joly, Mélanie (PCH)"
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:09:51 +0000
Subject: Accusé de réception / Acknowledge Receipt
To: David Amos

Merci d’avoir écrit à l’honorable Mélanie Joly, ministre du Patrimoine canadien.

La ministre est toujours heureuse de prendre connaissance des commentaires de Canadiens sur des questions d’importance pour eux. Votre courriel sera lu avec soin.
Si votre courriel porte sur une demande de rencontre ou une invitation à une activité particulière, nous tenons à vous assurer que votre demande a été notée et qu’elle recevra toute l’attention voulue.

**********************

Thank you for writing to the Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage.

The Minister is always pleased to hear the comments of Canadians on subjects of importance to them. Your email will be read with care.
If your email relates to a meeting request or an invitation to a specific event, please be assured that your request has been noted and will be given every consideration.

---------- Original message ----------
From: Green Party of Canada | Parti vert du Canada
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:10:07 +0000
Subject: Re: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos

-- Please reply above this line --

(Français à suivre)

Thank you for contacting the Green Party of Canada. Due to the high
volume of email we receive, we cannot guarantee that all inquiries
will be answered. With our small team, we do our best to respond as
staffing and resources permit.

---------- Original message ----------
From: "Gallant, Premier Brian (PO/CPM)"
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:10:03 +0000
Subject: RE: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos

Thank you for writing to the Premier of New Brunswick. Please be assured that your email will be reviewed.

Nous vous remercions d’avoir communiqué avec le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel sera examiné.

---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur FOR
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:11:18 +0000
Subject: Re: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler?s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos

Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received

Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office

---------- Original message ----------
From: "MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)"
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:09:51 +0000
Subject: RE: ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigaration on CBC
To: David Amos

The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.

Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos commentaires.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/oic-ddc.asp?lang=eng&txtToDate=&txtPrecis=immigration&Page=secretariats&txtOICID=&txtAct=&txtBillNo=&txtFromDate=&txtDepartment=&txtChapterNo=&txtChapterYear=&rdoComingIntoForce=&DoSearch=Search+/+List&pedisable=true&pg=4&viewattach=33079&blnDisplayFlg=1

PC Number: 2017-0167

Date: 2017-02-24

His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Act and subsection 8(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, approves that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration enter into an Atlantic immigration pilot program bilateral agreement, substantially in accordance with the annexed model agreement, with each of the following provinces:

(a) Nova Scotia;

(b) New Brunswick;

(d) Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sur recommandation du ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration et en vertu du paragraphe 5(1) de la Loi sur le ministère de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration et du paragraphe 8(1) de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, Son Excellence le Gouverneur général en conseil approuve la conclusion, par le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration, avec chacune des provinces ci-après, d’un accord bilatéral concernant le programme pilote en matière d’immigration au Canada atlantique, conforme en substance au modèle d’accord ci-joint :

a) la Nouvelle-Écosse;

b) le Nouveau-Brunswick;

c) l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard;

d) Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc3/2015fc3.html

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2015/2015fc3/2015fc3.pdf

Date: 20150105

Docket: IMM-4693-14

Citation: 2015 FC 3

Ottawa, Ontario, January 5, 2015

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Kane

BETWEEN:

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Applicant

and

David Morrow Wright

Kathryn Anne Wright

Respondents

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration brings this application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IAB], dated May 2, 2014, which found that there were sufficient humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds to grant relief pursuant to paragraph 67(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act] to overcome the respondents’ inadmissibility to Canada for failure to comply with their residency requirements as permanent residents.

[2] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is granted.

Background

[3] The respondents, Mr and Mrs Wright, are citizens of the United States of America [USA] who first settled in Vogler’s Cove, Nova Scotia in 1972 and became permanent residents of Canada. Mr Wright worked as a lobster fisherman but that proved challenging. Mrs Wright worked at various community newspapers. In 1977, Mr and Mrs Wright left Canada for more stable employment offered by Mr Wright’s father in the USA. They did not attempt to find work in any other part of Nova Scotia or elsewhere in Canada at that time or subsequently.

[4] From 1977 to 2012, the Wrights lived in several cities in the USA and Mr Wright worked in a variety of occupations. The Wrights then returned to Vogler’s Cove to resettle 35 years later.

[5] The Wrights evidence is that in the intervening 35 years they visited Canada occasionally, including Montreal and Quebec City and some business trips for Mr Wright to Scarborough. They returned to visit Vogler’s Cove once in 2005 and made annual visits again in 2006, 2007 and 2008 to look for a house, and ultimately purchased a house in 2010. In January 2012, they returned to Vogler’s Cove to live.

[6] On January 25, 2012, the Canadian Border Services Agency [CBSA] prepared an inadmissibility report against both Mr and Mrs Wright for failure to comply with their residency obligations as permanent residents. The Act requires that permanent residents be present in Canada for a total of at least 730 days in each five year period (paragraph 28(2)(a)). The CBSA considered the five year period preceding the date of the Wrights return to Canada in January, 2012 and found that Mr Wright had been in Canada for 201 days and Mrs Wright for 140 days during this five year period.

[7] The Minister’s delegate considered the inadmissibility reports and determined that the reports were well-founded and that no H&C grounds justified exempting the Wrights from their residency requirements and, as a result, a removal order was issued.

[8] The Wrights appealed the removal order to the IAD.

The decision under review

[9] The IAD considered the appeal, conducted an in person de novo hearing and issued its decision on May 2, 2014. The decision was communicated to the parties around May 23, 2014.

[10] The decision notes that the Wrights (i.e. the appellants before the IAD and the respondents in this application for judicial review) did not challenge the validity of the removal orders and the IAD agreed that the removal orders were valid. The Wrights argued that H&C grounds existed. The IAD agreed and found that they demonstrated sufficient H&C grounds on a balance of probabilities to warrant special relief pursuant to paragraph 67(1)(c) of the Act, thereby overcoming their breach of the residency obligation.

[11] The IAD set out the factors which guided its evaluation on H&C grounds. Although the IAD correctly stated that this Court has confirmed such factors, the footnote references in the decision are decisions of the IRB or IAD rather than Federal Court decisions. The IAD considered each factor identified and made several findings.

[12] The IAD found that the duration of the Wrights establishment in Canada, which was seven years since 1972 “is not insignificant without being compelling”.

[13] The IAD found that the Wrights establishment in Canada “today” (i.e. in 2014) and since their return is “more important than it was in 1977 and that it is also more important than their establishment in the USA, today.” The IAD found this to be a positive factor.

[14] The IAD also found that the Wrights had imperious (meaning compelling) reasons to leave Canada because Mr Wright’s work and dream of lobster fishing was not viable and “because of the importance of their economic difficulties”. The IAD concluded that they could not afford to linger in Canada where employment was not available in their area.

[15] The IAD notes that during the 35 year absence, Mr Wright had several jobs in various parts of the USA. Mr Wright never sought employment in Canada. The Wrights purchased their first house in 1983 and sold and purchased other homes as they moved across the country. The IAD noted that they did not return to Canada at the first opportunity and found this to be a negative factor.

[16] The IAD notes that the Wrights do not have any children nor do they have family in Canada but that they consider their friends in Vogler’s Cove, with whom they have maintained contact, as family. The IAD remarked that ten members of the Vogler’s Cove community attended the hearing to support the Wrights. The IAD concluded that this continuing connection with their friends is a positive factor.

[17] With respect to their integration in the Canadian community, the IAD focused on their integration into Vogler’s Cove. Mr Wright was a volunteer firefighter in the 1972-77 period and since his return in 2012 has been participating in fundraising. Mrs Wright has been active in a community library. Both have been socially active with other members of the community. The IAD concluded that this is a positive factor.

[18] With respect to the hardship the Wrights would encounter if their appeals were dismissed and the removal order was enforced, the IAD notes that, based on their testimony, they would be devastated to pack up and leave because their hearts are in Vogler’s Cove. The IAD also notes that considering their age and their pension income, it would be difficult for them to travel between two homes in the USA and in Canada.

[19] The IAD notes “It is not that their life is in danger or at risk if they were to live in the USA but the simple fact of moving would be traumatic at an age where life can certainly not be taken for granted”. The IAD concluded that the Wrights would experience “serious” hardship if they had to leave.

[20] The IAD then summed up the positive and negative factors and concluded that the positive factors are “more important” than the negative factors and that the appellants have established on a balance of probabilities that there are sufficient H&C grounds to grant special relief and set aside the removal orders.

[21] The IAD summarized the following positive factors:

• The friends that the Wrights consider as family in Canada and their continuing connection to Canada;

• The Wrights’ “important establishment in Canada, more important than their very limited one in the USA at the time of the hearing and also more important than when they were landed or when they left Canada in 1977”;

• The Wrights had imperious reasons to leave Canada in 1977;

• The continuous time the Wrights spent in Canada after the issuance of the deportation orders;

• Their “important integration” in the Vogler’s Cove community outside of their family and their contribution to that community; and,

• The “important hardship” that the Wrights would experience if their appeals were dismissed “even if their lives would not be at risk in the USA”.

[22] The IAD summarized the following negative factors:

• “The importance of the legal impediment though not insurmountable”;

• The “more important” length of time the Wrights spent in the USA compared to the length of time spent in Canada since their landing;

• The Wrights did not come back to Canada at the first available opportunity; and,

• The Wrights’ extended family is in the USA (which the IAD notes has limited weight because the family is not close).

Issues

[23] The primary issue is whether the decision of the IAD is reasonable; this includes whether the IAD failed to consider relevant evidence, made findings contrary to the evidence, and considered irrelevant evidence.

[24] A preliminary issue is whether the Court should extend the time for the service of the application for leave by the applicant on the respondents.

Standard of Review

[25] The parties agree that the standard of review of the decision of the Minister’s delegate is the standard of reasonableness.

[26] Where the standard of reasonableness applies, the role of the Court is to determine whether the decision “falls within ‘a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law’ (Dunsmuir, below, at para 47). There might be more than one reasonable outcome. However, as long as the process and the outcome fit comfortably with the principles of justification, transparency and intelligibility, it is not open to a reviewing court to substitute its own view of a preferable outcome.” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 (CanLII), [2009] 1 SCR 339 at para 59, citing Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2008] 1 SCR 190).

[27] As the respondents note, a reasonable decision is one that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination (Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817, [1999] SCJ No 39 at para 63 [Baker]).

The relevant legislative provisions of the Act, sections 28 and 67, are set out in Annex A.

Preliminary issue - Extension of time for service on the respondents

[28] The applicant’s motion to extend the time for service of the application for judicial review and to ratify the late service is granted. The few days delay in serving the respondents was more than adequately explained by the applicant; the applicant established its intention to file; and, the respondents agreed that the explanation is reasonable and conceded that the extension of time for service should be allowed.

Is the decision of the IAD unreasonable?

The applicant’s position

[29] The applicant submits that although the Court has not defined the H&C factors to be considered in the case of a breach of residency obligations, the IAD has endorsed, albeit with slightly different wording, a list of non-exhaustive factors.

[30] The applicant submits that, overall, the decision does not respect the policy of the Act. Immigration to Canada is a privilege, not a right, and is governed by the Act. Although the goals of permanent residency include the successful integration into Canadian society, there are also obligations on permanent residents, which includes their physical presence in Canada (or one of the alternatives to physical presence set out in section 28, such as working abroad for a Canadian company). The applicant submits that the IAD did not interpret paragraph 67(1)(c) and the exceptional relief based on H&C grounds in light of the objectives of the Act.

[31] The applicant argues that in order to make a positive H&C finding, the IAD was required to consider: whether the Wrights have maintained such strong ties to Canada for 35 years; whether the Wrights’ reason for leaving Canada was so important; whether their contribution to their community since their return promoted the objectives of the Act; and, whether their return to the USA would put them in an unbearable situation. The applicant notes that these issues should have been considered against the backdrop of the circumstances that the Wrights have no family in Canada and that, although they have friends, they had not visited their friends for approximately 30 years, and they had lived in the USA for 63 years out of their current lifetime of 71 years.

[32] The applicant argues that the IAD failed to consider relevant evidence and considered irrelevant evidence and, as a result, reached findings that were not based on the evidence before it.

[33] The IAD failed to consider the extent of the breach of the Wrights’ residency obligation. The IAD considered the Wrights’ absence from Canada only in the five year period preceding their return in 2012, but failed to properly consider that they were absent for 35 years and failed to comply with their previous residency obligations in each five year period. Although the IAD found their breach to be “not insignificant”, the applicant argues that it is far more than this – it is overwhelming.

[34] The applicant further submits that the IAD’s assessment of the Wrights’ length of time in Canada and degree of establishment and its conclusion that the Wrights’ establishment in their community was “more important”, failed to properly take into account the length of time spent in Canada (seven years in two separate periods) as opposed to the time spent out of Canada (more than 60 years).

[35] The applicant also argues that there is no evidence to support the IAD’s finding that the Wrights’ establishment since 2012 is greater than it was or had been in the USA or in Canada in the 1972-77 period.

[36] The applicant agrees that there is no doubt that the Wrights are good neighbours and are well liked in their community, but submits that the evidence of their integration falls short of establishment. The applicant submits that Mrs Wright’s volunteering a few hours per week at the library and Mr Wright’s attendance at meetings of the volunteer firefighters, coupled with social visits with neighbours, are not sufficient to base a finding of establishment or integration.

[37] The applicant further notes that Mr Wright continues to do the same work he did in the USA prior to returning to Vogler’s Cove via his consultancy work, and that all his clients are in the USA. Similarly, Mrs Wright does some editorial work, also for clients in the USA. The applicant submits that this work could be undertaken from the USA once again. This also shows that the Wrights remain integrated to some extent in the USA and could reintegrate there. The IAD simply failed to consider this in the context of its analysis of their degree of establishment.

[38] With respect to the IAD’s finding that the Wrights’ had no imperious (i.e. compelling) reason to leave Canada, the applicant notes that although the IAD found this to be a negative factor, it failed to consider that the Wrights had no reason for not returning to Canada earlier and did not do so until 2008 when they began to search for a house. Even after they found a house in 2010, they remained in the USA until 2012. The IAD accepted that the Wrights could not relocate until their home in Massachusetts was sold; however, they had already purchased the house in Vogler’s Cove and done renovation work before they sold their house in Massachusetts.

[39] There was no evidence that the Wrights ever attempted to find work in Canada. The IAD concluded that they had no choice but to leave for a job offer by family in the USA. The IAD failed to consider that they made no attempt to find work in Vogler’s Cove, in Nova Scotia, or elsewhere in Canada. The IAD simply accepted that they had no other options. The applicant notes that moving across the USA was not an impediment to the Wrights, yet the only place they sought to work in Canada, which would have been required in order to maintain their permanent resident status, was the small community of Vogler’s Cove.

[40] The applicant submits that the IAD failed to consider Mr Wright’s own evidence that his ability to earn money was in the USA. Although Vogler’s Cove was the Wrights’ dream destination, the USA was the chosen location to earn a living for the past 35 years. The applicant submits, therefore, that the Wrights’ attachment is really to the USA and not to Canada.

[41] The applicant also argues that the IAD’s finding that the Wrights have continuing connections to Canada is not supported by the evidence. According to the IRB and IAD guidelines, two elements should be considered in assessing this factor; connection to family members in Canada and the dislocation of the family in Canada if removed from Canada.

[42] The applicant notes that the IAD rephrased the factors to substitute friends as family. Although they assert close ties with friends in Vogler’s Cove, the applicant notes that the IAD and the IRB factors refer to family connections. In addition, the objectives of the Act include promoting the reunification of families, but do not include the objective of reunification of friends.

[43] Moreover, the IAD’s finding regarding the Wrights’ connections with their friends is not supported by the evidence. The evidence clearly indicates that the Wrights did not return once to Vogler’s Cove in at least a 24 year period, although they visited other parts of Canada.

[44] The applicant also argues that it was unreasonable for the IAD to find that the Wrights had no financial ability to return to Vogler’s Cove earlier because their own evidence was that they had travelled to other parts of Canada and that Mrs Wright had travelled abroad.

[45] In addition, the IAD did not take into account Mr Wright’s statement, in response to a direct question, that he was returning to Canada for retirement.

[46] With respect to the assessment of hardship, the applicant submits that there must be hardship beyond the normal consequences of removal. The IAD’s finding that the Wrights would suffer serious hardship if they were required to leave Canada is not supported by their own evidence. Mr Wright indicated in response to specific questions relating to the impact of his return to the USA that “I suppose I could” (Certified Tribunal Record, at p 466) and that the impact would be primarily economic because they would have to maintain two residences.

[47] The applicant submits that the IAD also failed to consider that the Wrights took out a line of credit to purchase the house in Vogler’s Cove and paid it off once their home in Springfield, Massachusetts was sold. The IAD did not consider that the Wrights could do the same again upon their return to the USA. As a result, the IAD’s consideration of the economic impact on removal was not supported by the evidence. The applicant notes that, understandably, they cannot afford two homes but submits that this type of economic impact is a normal consequence of removal of a person who does not have status in Canada.

[48] The applicant also notes that the record before the IAD included financial information which establishes that, although the Wrights are not wealthy, they have a mortgage free house, a monthly pension income, a tax free savings account and that Mr Wright continues to do his consultancy work, with several clients in the USA.

[49] Mrs Wright indicated that leaving would be emotionally difficult but that she could keep in contact with her friends as she had in the past.

[50] Although the IAD considered the Wrights’ age as relevant to the hardship factor, their age was not an impediment to relocation two years ago and there is no evidence that moving back to the USA would be traumatic.

[51] Separation from friends and the disruption and economic impact of relocation are the normal consequences of a removal order. The facts do not support a finding of either “serious” hardship or “important hardship” as found by the IAD.

[52] The applicant emphasizes that the Minister is not asking the Court to reweigh the evidence and rebalance the factors for and against a finding that there were sufficient H&C grounds, rather that the Court determine whether the IAD’s findings are supported by the evidence. The IAD reached an unreasonable conclusion because it failed to consider relevant evidence, made findings contrary to the evidence and considered irrelevant evidence.

The respondents’ position

[53] The respondents submit that their 35 year absence is not the issue. The issue is whether the IAD reasonably found that there were sufficient H&C factors to overcome the breach of their residency obligation. This discretion has been delegated to the IAD as it is the expert body and is aware of the objectives of the Act. The respondents submit that regardless of the length of time away or the degree of their non-compliance with the Act, the IAD was alert to all the relevant factors and provided cogent reasons for its findings.

[54] The respondents argue that the applicant is merely challenging the conclusion of the IAD which the applicant disagrees with and, given that the Court cannot reweigh the evidence considered by the IAD, the applicant has failed to establish how the decision is unreasonable. The respondents note that the IAD conducted a full day hearing, found them to be highly credible, and carefully analyzed the facts and the circumstances of their absence from Canada. The respondents argue that the applicant has not rebutted the presumption that the IAD considered all the evidence.

[55] The respondents’ position is that the decision is intelligible, transparent and justified. The Court should, therefore, defer to the expertise of the IAD.

[56] The respondents dispute the applicant’s characterisation of the onus on those seeking special relief and the IAD’s task in assessing the H&C grounds. They argue that there is no requirement for the situation upon removal to be unbearable, nor does the hardship have to be undue or disproportionate, as established in the context of section 25 of the Act. The respondents note that paragraph 67(1)(c) requires only that there be “sufficient” H&C grounds.

[57] The respondents also dispute the allegation that the IAD considered irrelevant evidence or failed to consider relevant evidence. The IAD is presumed to have considered all the evidence and need not mention every piece of evidence in its reasons.

[58] With respect to the length of time the Wrights remained outside of Canada, the respondents contest the applicant’s position that the length of their absence cannot be overcome by H&C factors. There is no limit on the number of years of absence which cannot be overcome by H&C grounds; if that were Parliament’s intention, the Act would provide for such a limit. The IAD considered the length of time they were outside of Canada, yet still exercised its discretion to overcome their breach of the residency obligation due to the H&C grounds.

[59] The respondents also note that, although the IAD focussed on the five year period preceding their return in 2012, it did not ignore the length of their time out of Canada and assessed this as a negative factor.

[60] The respondents take issue with the applicant’s characterisation that their reasons for leaving were only economic and that this was not a sufficient reason. The respondents, however, agree that they did not make any attempt to find work in Canada and their testimony indicated that when faced with a firm offer of employment in the USA and given that they were nearly destitute in 1977, it was reasonable for them to leave.

[61] The respondents submit that, contrary to the applicant’s argument, the IAD specifically acknowledged that they made no attempt to return to Canada at the first opportunity as they moved to various cities in the USA and assumed various jobs. The IAD found this to be a negative factor.

[62] With respect to establishment and integration in the community, the respondents argue that they were as integrated and established as possible in their community given its small size. Contrary to the applicant’s argument that the Wrights’ volunteer work and social activities do not constitute sufficient reintegration or establishment, the IAD recognised that this was indeed sufficient. They submit that the size and character of the community informs what it means to be active in the community. In Vogler’s Cove, there is little more one could do to be more established.

[63] The respondents note that the list of factors to be considered by the IAD is not exhaustive; the IAD is entitled to consider any factor that arises from the particular circumstances of the case. The IAD reasonably considered the Wrights continuing connections to their friends in Vogler’s Cove as part of the particular circumstances of their case and not as a substitute or an extension of the factor regarding connections to family.

[64] The respondents also dispute the applicant’s argument that the IAD failed to consider that their return was for the purpose of retirement. Mr Wright’s testimony about retiring to Vogler’s Cove was taken out of context. The transcript of Mr Wright’s testimony indicates that his reference to retirement was based on a definition put to him by counsel for the Minister, meaning retirement from full time employment in the USA. Mr Wright continues to work and has transferred his business to Canada. Although he is in receipt of social security benefits, these are payable at the age of 65 years of age regardless of retirement from full time employment. The respondents submit that this testimony does not support the applicant’s contention that the Wrights had no continuing intention to return to Canada during their “active” life.

[65] The respondents argue that the IAD’s failure to refer to any particular piece of evidence is not fatal. The IAD had the opportunity to witness the Wright’s testimony and found them to be highly credible. The IAD identified the factors to be considered, made a finding on each one and on a balance of probabilities, found there were sufficient H&C grounds to overcome the breach of the obligations of permanent residents.

[66] Generally, the respondents argue that the IAD is an expert tribunal and given that it conducted a thorough hearing and a careful analysis of the evidence and assessed the relevant factors both for and against H&C grounds, its exercise of discretion is reasonable and entitled to deference.

The decision of the IAD is not reasonable

[67] The IAD was impressed by the Wrights and understood their dream to live in Vogler’s Cove. There is no dispute that their testimony was candid and credible. Nor is there any issue about their adaptability to the community or that they would be good residents. However, the criteria for immigration are more onerous, as are the criteria for overcoming a breach of the obligations of permanent resident status.

[68] The reasonableness standard of review requires more than a clearly worded decision that identifies the factors considered and the conclusions reached. The standard of reasonableness requires that the findings and overall conclusion withstand a somewhat probing examination. Where evidence is not considered or is misapprehended and where the findings do not follow from the evidence, the decision will not withstand the probing examination.

[69] As the respondents noted, the standard for a somewhat probing examination was noted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker at para 63:

[63] I will next examine whether the decision in this case, and the immigration officer’s interpretation of the scope of the discretion conferred upon him, were unreasonable in the sense contemplated in the judgment of Iacobucci J. in Southam, supra, at para. 56:

An unreasonable decision is one that, in the main, is not supported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination. Accordingly, a court reviewing a conclusion on the reasonableness standard must look to see whether any reasons support it. The defect, if there is one, could presumably be in the evidentiary foundation itself or in the logical process by which conclusions are sought to be drawn from it. [emphasis added]

[70] In Ambat v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 292 (CanLII) [Ambat], Justice Near (as he then was) noted at paras 32 and 33:

[32][…] The IAD is free to weigh each factor, and is consequently free to give no weight to any given factor depending on the circumstances. The Respondent cited Justice Yves de Montigny’s decision in Ikhuiwu, above, at para 32:

[32] The applicant disagrees with the IAD's conclusions that the circumstances of this case do not warrant the exercising of the panel member's discretion in providing humanitarian and compassionate relief in his favour. Unfortunately for him, the fact that he is not happy with the manner in which the IAD weighed all of the relevant H&C factors is not sufficient for this Court to intervene.

[33] Similarly, in the present matter, absent some indication that evidence had been ignored or facts misapprehended, there is no basis for this Court to intervene.

[71] The present case can be distinguished from Ambat because evidence has been ignored and facts have been misapprehended. As a result there is a basis for the Court to intervene.

[72] In Canada (MCI) v Sidhu, 2011 FC 1056 (CanLII), the Court found the decision of the IAD to be unreasonable because evidence was overlooked, although the Court agreed that some of the IAD’s findings were reasonable. The Court noted at para 50:

[50] Finally, the Board found that the respondent and his family would suffer severe hardship if the respondent’s application was denied. […]

Again, the Court finds that while such a finding would be open to the Board, the Board has a duty to consider all of the evidence. […] In preferring the respondent’s evidence that he would suffer extreme hardship, the Board had a duty to confront this contrary evidence.

[73] As in Sidhu, some of the findings of the IAD with respect to the applicable factors are reasonable, but other key findings are not. In particular, the IAD’s findings that the Wrights had continuing connections to Canada, had an important (which I interpret as meaning significant) establishment in Canada, and would suffer serious harm if removed, were not supported by the evidence. The IAD had a duty to consider all of the evidence.

[74] The applicant suggested that the Court had not defined the applicable factors governing H&C grounds where permanent residents have failed to comply with their residency obligations. While it is true that the Court has not precisely defined the specific factors, the Court has confirmed that the factors identified by the IRB and IAD are appropriate and are adaptable to the different contexts where H&C grounds may justify overcoming a breach of the Act.

[75] In Sidhu, the Court confirmed, as it has in other cases, the relevant factors to be considered to determine if H&C grounds justify a breach of the residency requirement, noting at para 43 that the factors set out by the IRB in Ribic v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] IABD 4 (QL), were endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Chieu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), [2002] 1 SCR 84, 2002 SCC 3 (CanLII) at paras 40-41 and para 77.

[76] The Court in Sidhu, further noted at para 43 that the Ribic factors were established in the context of the exercise of discretion in the face of a deportation order, but have been adapted by the IRB and IAD for other contexts, noting for example Tai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 248 (CanLII) at paras 36 and 47 [Tai], and Shaath v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 731 (CanLII) at para 20 [Shaath].

[77] In Tai, above, Justice Shore noted that the Ribic factors had been extensively relied on for H&C assessments and he applied these same factors in the context of section 28. Section 28 is an analogous provision to paragraph 67(1)(c) to determine if H&C grounds justify a breach of the requirements for permanent residence.

[78] The Ribic factors are:

a) The degree of establishment in Canada including employment and skills training;

b) The reasons for leaving Canada;

c) The reasons of continued or lengthy stay abroad;

d) Whether any attempts were made to return to Canada at the first opportunity;

e) The family support available in Canada;

f) The impact that the removal has on a person and his family;

g) The hardship which the appellant would suffer if he was removed from Canada.

[79] In the present case, the IAD referred to similarly worded factors adapted from other IAD and IRB decisions. As the respondent noted, the list is not exhaustive and some factors may not be applicable depending on the facts of a particular case.

[80] As noted, some of the IAD’s findings are reasonable.

[81] The IAD reasonably found the Wrights’ overall length of absence from Canada to be “important” and a negative factor. Again, I interpret important to mean significant.

[82] The IAD found that the legal impediment to their permanent resident status – i.e. their absence from Canada in the five year period considered – to be a negative factor, but added that this was not insurmountable. While this may be so, the IAD did not acknowledge that in that five year period, which requires only 730 days of physical presence, or two out of five years, the Wrights were present only a small fraction of the required time. Regardless, it was a negative factor and while the IAD does not appear to have attached significant weight to the breach, it is not for the Court to reassess weight.

[83] I do not share the respondents’ characterisation of the applicant’s argument as that the length of the Wrights’ absence cannot be overcome by H&C factors. The applicant’s argument is that that the IAD focussed on only the five year period preceding their resettlement and, although the length of absence was found to be a negative factor, the IAD did not consider that the Act requires a permanent resident to be present for at least 730 days out of each five year period. Although it may appear to be an argument about not attaching sufficient weight to the negative factor, it is really about not acknowledging the requirements of the Act.

[84] Several other findings of the IAD are not supported by the evidence and are not reasonable.

[85] The IAD found that the Wrights’ “important establishment in Canada, more important than their very limited one in the USA at the time of the hearing and also more important than when they landed or when they left Canada in 1977” to be a positive factor.

[86] The IAD first found that the duration of the Wrights’ establishment in Canada, which was seven years since 1972, “is not insignificant without being compelling”. That is an understatement. A period of establishment of seven years out of the preceding 40 or out of their lifetime cannot reasonably be considered as “not insignificant”.

[87] This finding was part of the overall positive finding that the Wrights’ establishment in Canada was “important”. (As noted, I have interpreted the IAD’s use of the term “important” to mean significant.) Their two year period since 2012 cannot reasonably be considered significant, nor can seven years out of 40 or out of 70 years be considered a significant period of establishment in Canada.

[88] The IAD assessed the continuous time the Wrights spent in Canada after the issuance of their removal orders as a positive factor, noting that they continually resided in Vogler’s Cove after 2012, yet this is not a factor relevant to establishment in the period assessed by the CBSA.

[89] The IAD found their integration in the Vogler’s Cove community outside their family and their contribution to that community to be important (i.e. significant).

[90] As the respondents note, the Wrights may have done all that is possible to integrate into the small village of Vogler’s Cove. However, the factors to be considered by the IAD refer to integration in the Canadian community which could include the region, the province and the country more broadly, given that immigration is to Canada and not to a specific locale.

[91] I agree with the applicant that the evidence does not support the IAD’s finding that the Wrights’ establishment since 2012 is greater than it was in 2012 or had been in the USA previously or in Canada in the 1972-77 period. Their establishment since 2012 is minimal; social activities with friends, volunteer hours and occasional fundraising for the volunteer firefighters. There is also evidence of remaining establishment in the USA through the Wrights’ work for American clients, which is the same work they did before relocating to Vogler’s Cove. The IAD appears to have not considered this evidence.

[92] The IAD’s finding that the Wrights had imperious (meaning compelling) reasons to leave Canada in 1977 is also not supported by the evidence. Lobster fishing was not economically viable. The IAD concluded that the Wrights had no ability to “linger” in the area and look for a job when a solid job offer was presented to them in the USA. While it may be understandable that the job offer in the USA was too good to pass up, any expectation that their permanent resident status would not be jeopardised by their departure is not realistic. Nor is the IAD’s finding that they had no other options; the IAD failed to consider what the options would have been for a young couple beyond the small village of Vogler’s Cove.

[93] The respondent sought to characterise the IAD’s positive finding that the Wrights had a continuing connection to Canada through their friends that they consider as family in Canada as part of the special or particular circumstances the IAD is permitted to consider. However, the IAD clearly equated the connections with friends as a substitute for family. The Act promotes reunification of families. The Ribic factors refer to family support and the impact of the removal on the person and their family. In the present case, the IAD stated at the outset the factors it would consider including “the continuing connections the appellants have to Canada, including connections to family members here and whether the dismissal of the appeal would cause the dislocation of the family in Canada”. However, in applying that factor, the IAD then noted that the Wrights have no family in Canada so went on to extend the family factor to friends. I agree with the applicant that this reinterpretation by the IAD does not reflect the objectives of the Act or the factors the IRB and IAD have relied on, and that the Court have endorsed in other decisions.

[94] Even if the IAD considered the Wrights’ connection to Canada via their friends in Vogler’s Cove as a special circumstance, the finding is not based on all the evidence before the IAD. It is apparent that the Wrights have supportive friends in Vogler’s Cove now, but their own evidence was that their contact with these friends in their 35 year absence was sporadic and minimal, amounting primarily to Christmas cards and occasional other correspondence. The Wrights did not return to Vogler’s Cove to visit from 1977 until 2005 although they did travel to other Canadian cities occasionally. They then returned to Vogler’s Cove once in 2005 and then again only once a year until they purchased a house and then moved in 2012.

[95] The IAD also found that the Wrights would suffer serious or “important” (interpreted as significant) hardship while noting that their lives would not be at risk in the USA.

[96] This finding is not supported by the evidence and is unreasonable.

[97] The Court has considered many applications for judicial review arising from H&C determinations in the context of other provisions of the Act, including sections 25, 28 and 67 and, although the wording of the provisions varies slightly, the provisions do not refer specifically to “hardship” but to “humanitarian and compassionate considerations” or “sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations”. However, the jurisprudence has consistently confirmed that the hardship to be considered along with other factors to determine whether sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations exist must be more than the hardship that would normally result from removal (for example, Ambat, above, at para 27; Shaath, above, at para 42).

[98] The respondents’ argument that the considerations relevant to an H&C decision pursuant to section 67 differ from those under section 25, and that unusual or disproportionate hardship is not required, fails to appreciate the overall guidance of the analogous jurisprudence. There is no reason, in my view, for some hardship to be sufficient in the context of considering H&C grounds to overcome a breach of permanent resident status when in other contexts, such as refugee protection, the criteria established by the IRB and IAD and confirmed by the Courts calls for unusual, undue or disproportionate hardship; more than the normal and expected consequences of removal from Canada.

[99] Although the IAD did find that the consequence of the Wrights’ removal would be serious hardship, which appears to acknowledge its understanding that more than the expected or normal hardship of removal is required for such a finding, the evidence before the IAD was of inconvenience, disappointment and emotional upheaval, along with the economic impact of maintaining two residences. Mr Wright indicated that he “supposed” that he could have two residences although this would not be easy. By their own evidence, the Wrights acknowledged that they could cope with removal although they clearly do not want to leave. They acknowledged that it would be difficult to retain two residences on a pension income but did not say that this would be impossible, or that they would not spend as much time as possible in Vogler’s Cove, even if they cannot retain their permanent resident status.

[100] The IAD failed to consider that the Wrights had both employment income and pension income and were not destitute nor would they be homeless in the USA, given that they had purchased and sold several homes in the USA and most recently divested themselves of their home in Massachusetts in 2012. In addition, their age was no more an impediment to relocation than it was in 2012, yet the IAD considered it to be so.

[101] In conclusion, on the basis of a somewhat probing examination, I find that the IAD did not consider relevant evidence that would have had a bearing on its findings with respect to several of the factors, in particular the Wrights’ establishment in Canada, their continuing connections with Canada in the intervening 35 years and the serious hardship they would suffer if removed. This would, in turn, have a bearing on the weight to be attached to those factors and on the overall assessment of whether there are sufficient – not just some- humanitarian and compassionate grounds to justify the exceptional relief of overcoming the breach of their obligation to be physically present in Canada 730 days in each five year period.

[102] The appeal must be reconsidered by a different panel of the IAD, and in that reconsideration the IAD must assess each relevant factor and then consider all the factors cumulatively to determine if sufficient H&C grounds justify the exceptional relief to overcome the breach of the residency requirement.

Proposed Certified Question

[103] The respondent proposed the following question for certification:

Is the nature and character of a community a relevant consideration when assessing the degree of establishment in Canada?

[104] The test for certifying a question was set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Liyanagamage, [1994] FCJ No 1637, 176 NR 4 at para 4. The question must be one which transcends the interest of the immediate parties to the litigation and contemplates issues of broad significance of general application and must be determinative of the appeal. In other words, and as noted in subsequent cases, in order to be a certified question the question must be a serious question of general importance which would be dispositive of the appeal.

[105] The question proposed by the respondents is not appropriate for certification. The issue in the present case is whether the IAD reasonably found that there were sufficient H&C grounds to overcome the respondents’ breach of the residency requirement in accordance with paragraph 67 (1)(c). As the IAD noted, this entails the consideration of several factors. No single factor is determinative. Moreover, the IAD did not indicate the specific weight it attached to any specific factor and the balancing of positive and negative factors was not a mathematical calculation. Whether or not the nature and character of the community is a relevant consideration, the overall determination of sufficient H&C grounds would not necessarily differ.

[106] In addition, the proposed question is specific to the facts of this application; the respondents’ settled in the small village of Vogler’s Cove and may have been as active as possible given the nature of that community, but this question does not transcend the interests of the respondents. It is not an issue of broad significance of general application.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is granted and the decision of the IAD is quashed. The appeal of the decision of the Minister’s delegate shall be reconsidered by a differently constituted panel of the IAD. No costs are awarded.

No question is certified.

"Catherine M. Kane"

Judge

ANNEX A

The relevant legislative provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are:

28. (1) A permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.	28. (1) L’obligation de résidence est applicable à chaque période quinquennale.
(2) The following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection (1):	(2) Les dispositions suivantes régissent l’obligation de résidence :
(a) a permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that five-year period, they are	a) le résident permanent se conforme à l’obligation dès lors que, pour au moins 730 jours pendant une période quinquennale, selon le cas :
(i) physically present in Canada,	(i) il est effectivement présent au Canada,
(ii) outside Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,	(ii) il accompagne, hors du Canada, un citoyen canadien qui est son époux ou conjoint de fait ou, dans le cas d’un enfant, l’un de ses parents,
(iii) outside Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province,	(iii) il travaille, hors du Canada, à temps plein pour une entreprise canadienne ou pour l’administration publique fédérale ou provinciale,
(iv) outside Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-law partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public administration or the public service of a province, or	(iv) il accompagne, hors du Canada, un résident permanent qui est son époux ou conjoint de fait ou, dans le cas d’un enfant, l’un de ses parents, et qui travaille à temps plein pour une entreprise canadienne ou pour l’administration publique fédérale ou provinciale,
(v) referred to in regulations providing for other means of compliance;	(v) il se conforme au mode d’exécution prévu par règlement;
(b) it is sufficient for a permanent resident to demonstrate at examination	b) il suffit au résident permanent de prouver, lors du contrôle, qu’il se conformera à l’obligation pour la période quinquennale suivant l’acquisition de son statut, s’il est résident permanent depuis moins de cinq ans, et, dans le cas contraire, qu’il s’y est conformé pour la période quinquennale précédant le contrôle;
(i) if they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately after they became a permanent resident;
(ii) if they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately before the examination; and
(c) a determination by an officer that humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to a permanent resident, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the determination, justify the retention of permanent resident status overcomes any breach of the residency obligation prior to the determination.	c) le constat par l’agent que des circonstances d’ordre humanitaire relatives au résident permanent — compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché — justifient le maintien du statut rend inopposable l’inobservation de l’obligation précédant le contrôle.
[…]	[…]
67. (1) To allow an appeal, the Immigration Appeal Division must be satisfied that, at the time that the appeal is disposed of,	67. (1) Il est fait droit à l’appel sur preuve qu’au moment où il en est disposé :
(a) the decision appealed is wrong in law or fact or mixed law and fact;	a) la décision attaquée est erronée en droit, en fait ou en droit et en fait;
(b) a principle of natural justice has not been observed; or	b) il y a eu manquement à un principe de justice naturelle;
(c) other than in the case of an appeal by the Minister, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.	c) sauf dans le cas de l’appel du ministre, il y a — compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché — des motifs d’ordre humanitaire justifiant, vu les autres circonstances de l’affaire, la prise de mesures spéciales.
(2) If the Immigration Appeal Division allows the appeal, it shall set aside the original decision and substitute a determination that, in its opinion, should have been made, including the making of a removal order, or refer the matter to the appropriate decision-maker for reconsideration.	(2) La décision attaquée est cassée; y est substituée celle, accompagnée, le cas échéant, d’une mesure de renvoi, qui aurait dû être rendue, ou l’affaire est renvoyée devant l’instance compétente.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:	imm-4693-14
STYLE OF CAUSE:	THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION v DAVID MORROW WRIGHT, KATHRYN ANNE WRIGHT
PLACE OF HEARING:	Halifax, nova scotia
DATE OF HEARING:	DECEMBER 9, 2014
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:	KANE J.
DATED:	JANUARY 5, 2015

APPEARANCES:

Ian Demers	For The Applicant
M. Lee Cohen, QC Scott McGirr	For The Respondents

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec	For The Applicant
Lee Cohen Law Inc Halifax, Nova Scotia	For The Respondents

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2016/2016canlii100875/2016canlii100875.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQATZGF2aWQgbW9ycm93IHdyaWdodAAAAAAB&resultIndex=2

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2016/2016canlii100875/2016canlii100875.pdf

Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada

Immigration Appeal Division

Commission de l’immigration
et du statut de réfugié du Canada

Section d’appel de l’immigration

IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : MB2‑01248 MB2‑01249

Client ID No. / N^o ID client : 6502‑2255 6502‑2465

Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision

REMOVAL ORDER

Appellant(s)	David Morrow WRIGHT Kathryn Anne WRIGHT	Appelant(e)(s)

and		et

Respondent	The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness	Intimé(e)


Date(s) of Hearing	September 21, 2016	Date(s) de l’audience


Place of Hearing	Halifax, Nova Scotia	Lieu de l’audience

Date of Decision	December 22, 2016	Date de la décision

Panel	M^e Haig Basmajian	Tribunal

Counsel for the Appellant(s)	M^e Lee Cohen	Conseil(s) de l’appelant(e) / des appelant(e)(s)


Designated Representative(s)	N/A	Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s)

Counsel for the Minister	Lyzann Penwarn	Conseil du ministre

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] The following are the reasons regarding the appeals filed by Mr. David Morrow WRIGHT and his wife Kathryn Anne WRIGHT (the appellants) pursuant to section 63(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act^{^[1]} pertaining to the departure orders which were issued on January 15, 2012 in the case of Mr. Wright[2], and on January 25, 2012 in the case of Mrs. Wright[3]. Both orders were issued at the point of entry of Woodstock, New Brunswick and were regarding the fact that both appellants in the five-year preceding periods would have been in Canada for less than 730 days which is the minimal requirement. In the case of Mr. Wright, it would have been around 200 days, and in the case of Mrs. Wright approximately 140 days during the reference period.

[2] On February 26, 2014, their appeals were allowed based on the fact that the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) had found that there were sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to compensate for the shortcomings regarding their compliance with the residency obligations. This decision was appealed and on January 5, 2015, the Federal Court[4] granted the application for judicial review and quashed the decision of the IAD and ordered that a de novo hearing be conducted with a different IAD panel. As such, a hearing took place in Halifax on September 21, 2016. An additional delay was granted until the end of October in order to file additional documents pertaining to the appellants’ income tax declarations.

[3] Similarly to the first hearing they had with the IAD, the appellants were not contesting the legal validity of the immigration officer’s decision, rather they were asking special relief in light of all of the circumstances pursuant to paragraph 67(1)c) of the Act[5]. In simpler words, they were appealing on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

[4] For these types of appeals, there is a considerable amount of jurisprudence which has evolved over the years notably since the Bufete Arce[6] decision which outlined the principal criteria which vary upon each case and of course which are not exhaustive. The main aspect are:

1) The degree of non-compliance with the residency obligations;

2) The initial and subsequent establishment in Canada;

3) The reasons for departure from Canada as well as the reasons for which they have remained outside of Canada;

4) The reasonable attempts of the appellants to return to Canada when they first had the possibility;

5) The hardship which the appellants would encounter if this appeal were dismissed;

6) The ties which the appellants have in Canada particularly with family members;

7) The difficulties which the family members would have if this appeal were denied;

8) The best interest of any child directly impacted by this decision.

[5] Given the fact that the appellants are not contesting the legal validity of this decision, and based on the evidence at hand, the tribunal finds that the decisions rendered by the immigration officer are valid in law. Both appellants testified during the hearing. For the tribunal their testimonies were very credible. They did not attempt to avoid any questions or embellish any of their answers.

[6] Regarding the first aspect regarding the degree of non-compliance, it is quite significant. The minimal threshold regarding residency obligations is quite low, of 730 days over a five-year period. In this case, during the reference period the appellants were in Canada between 140 and 200 days. This is a considerable degree of non-compliance. As such, a significant amount of humanitarian and compassionate considerations will be necessary.

[7] Regarding the initial and subsequent establishment of the appellants, obviously this case is quite unique. The appellants came to Canada in the early 1970’s and lived here between 1972 and 1977. They became permanent residents in the meantime. Their story is quite well documented in the original hearing and Federal Court decision.

[8] Mr. Wright came here with the dream of being a lobster fisherman, however, like many at the time in that field he had difficulties making ends meet, and as such, the appellants moved to the US in 1977.

[9] Obviously when they came here in the early 1970’s they had a certain degree of establishment which should be taken into consideration and also since 2012 they have a certain amount of establishment. Actually a rather strong one in Vogler’s Cove where they currently live and where they lived initially. They have strong ties to this small community of roughly 200 homes which are not in doubt. However, as mentioned by the appellants’ counsel, the elephant in the room in this case is the fact that they were away for 35 years. They essentially severed all ties with Canada from 1997 until 2012, other than a few short visits.

[10] For the tribunal it is essential to consider this period as a whole. These were arguably the most productive years of the appellants which were spent in their country of birth: the United States. As such, yes for two periods, from 1972 to 1977, and from 2012 until presently there are strong periods of establishment. However, for the remaining period of 35 years, clearly there is no establishment in Canada or ties during this period. During those years they lived exclusively in the United States where they owned property and worked. As such, for the tribunal, both these aspects should be taken into consideration. On one hand, yes there are two periods of strong establishment of roughly nine to ten years, however, there is a period of 35 years, since they became permanent residents, which was spent outside of Canada. As such the tribunal cannot consider this as a positive aspect for the appellants in this case.

[11] Regarding the reasons for departure from Canada and the reasons for which they stayed in the United States in this case, for such a long period, as described consistently in this case, the reasons for departure in 1977 was for economic reasons and after a period where the appellants felt they had the financial wherewithal to return to Canada 35 years later, they did so. The tribunal has no doubts that had they found a job to their liking at the time, they would have certainly remained in Canada. However, ultimately it is a choice.

[12] The tribunal, for these types of appeals, obviously takes into account the profiles of the appellants. In this case, they are two very intelligent, well-spoken and very likeable individuals who are well-rounded, have worked in different fields, and it is obvious that they have great communication and interpersonal skills given how they have been able to establish strong ties, notably in the community of Vogler’s Cove where, for both hearings that they had at the IAD, close to 40 people from the community traveled nearly two hours to be present with them at their appeals and offered several affidavits and letters of recommendation.

[13] Obviously the tribunal believes that part of this is positive for their appeal but it also outlines their profile and capabilities. For the tribunal, these two individuals made a choice in 1977. With the talents and profiles which they have, the tribunal believes that had they spent more time here, they probably would have been able to find work. Obviously, just like for many people in their twenties, maybe at first it would not have been the jobs of their choice, they probably would have been underemployed for a time. Like many from small communities, they might have been forced to move across the country or in an environment which would not be their first choice. However, the tribunal, by considering their profile, on a balance of probabilities, believes that they could have found work in other fields and other places in a country such as Canada at the time. For example, it was briefly discussed during the hearing if they had sought opportunities out west where the resource boom was starting to happen around those years. The appellants answered no that they wanted to concentrate themselves mostly in the Maritimes and they sought some opportunities in Ontario. Again, the tribunal believes that with their profile including mastering one of our official languages, ultimately they could have found, on a balance of probabilities, opportunities in Canada and that it was a choice. They could have even taken advantage of social programs in the interim of finding a job, which to their credit, they did not desire, however, it was still a legal avenue for them to stay in Canada.

[14] Also for the tribunal, during the 35 years they could have been more aggressive to find opportunities to return to Canada. They answered that they tried on some occasions but were under the impression that because they were not Canadians they were not given opportunities. The tribunal has some doubts regarding this, notably in terms of the number of jobs that they would have applied for. They did answer that it wasn’t that many and also they taught that because they were not Canadian it would be harder. However, the tribunal asked them if they mentioned that they were permanent residents and they answered that they did not.

[15] They did say that they can’t believe how fast the years went by and obviously the tribunal can certainly understand, as all of us are unfortunately bound by the persistence of time and it is hard to believe for all of us sometimes how fast the years go by, however, in the case at hand, the tribunal is of the opinion that during these 35 years they could have been more proactive and aggressive in their pursuit of returning to Canada. As such, overall it is a negative aspect for the appellants in this appeal.

[16] Obviously this also covers the aspect of reasonable attempts to return. As mentioned, for the tribunal, during these 35 years of absence, especially as the appellants testified that they were able to each further their employability and skills during this time, they could have found ways to move back here in a shorter time span. Especially that they both worked for periods of their careers, as they do presently, as freelancers as such can be at a distance from their clients, even since returning here most of their clients are in the States.

[17] Obviously this evolved in the early 2000 with the growth of the internet, however, the tribunal cannot conclude that in the 35 years, on a balance of probabilities, that there were strong attempts to try to come back at the first opportunity. Unfortunately for the appellants, they were always waiting for the perfect time to come back, which would be when they would have enough savings. However this, as they said, took a lot longer than they expected.

[18] Regarding the hardship that they would encounter if this appeal were not granted, there was some fair amount of time which was spent on this during the appeal, notably regarding the cost of housing and of healthcare in the US versus in Canada, and the fact that they feel so much attachment to their community in Vogler’s Cove, none of this is put in doubt in any way. Obviously there is different social contract in the United States and in Canada, which on one hand, we do pay higher taxes here in general, and in exchange, some of our expenses for some services such as healthcare and education are generally much less.

[19] As for housing, the tribunal is of the opinion in this case, there is also the difference between living in a small community versus living in a larger urban area. The examples which were given for housing were mostly in Boston, some were given for smaller places like Springfield. However, for the housing aspect, the appellants for over 35 years, were able to live in the United States where they were able to purchase and sell homes and they currently own their home mortgage free in Vogler’s Cove and have some savings and some family in the US. As such, the tribunal, on a balance of probabilities, does not think that housing would be an issue. It would probably not be in the house of their choice – their dream home is in Vogler’s Cove. However, they would be able, per the tribunal, to find some type of housing. This, for the tribunal, would not constitute hardship, to not be able to live in the house and city of your choice within the United States.

[20] As for healthcare, also some time was spent on this. There are programs, especially for seniors, like the appellants, for healthcare in the United States per their testimony. As such, and by considering that the United States is one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest nation in the world, that the appellants are individuals who are born in that country and who were able to live productively for several decades, the tribunal believes that they would have the resourcefulness and knowledge to be able to overcome any difficulties in returning to their country in which they have spent the vast majority of their lives.

[21] As such, the tribunal does not conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that there would be any significant hardship if they were to return to the United States. There would be some, but not a level of great significance.

[22] Concerning ties to Canada and to family members who would be presently in Canada, the appellants do not have any family members in Canada. They do have strong ties, and it was one of the positions of the appellants to consider their friends as family. For the tribunal ultimately, there is some positive aspects to this as it shows a strong network in Canada and that they do have ties here. They have a strong degree of establishment presently in Canada and a very considerable degree of integration. The appellants are very involved in their community. Mrs. Wright set up a community library. Mr. Wright was a voluntary fireman. They have many friends and social ties. This is all very positive and this should be taken into consideration.

[23] On the other hand, the reality is they do not have any family members here. They have some family in the United States, for which they testified that they are friendly with but they are not necessarily close. However, the reality is they do not have any family either in Canada. However, obviously they have some strong ties here in their community and this obviously should be taken into consideration, just like the fact that they don’t have family here should be also taken into consideration. There would be no difficulties which their family members would have if this appeal were not granted.

[24] Considering the best interest of any children directly impacted by this decision, the appellants did not mention that there would be any children who would be directly impacted by this decision. It is not a relevant factor in this case.

[25] The tribunal wishes to add that the appellants have affected some children in Canada in a positive way by setting up a library for which many children have attended, especially for story time sessions for which Mrs. Wright is the instigator. Obviously this is something which is going to have an impact in the long term in their community, however, unfortunately, it is not a factor which the tribunal could take into consideration for this aspect.

[26] As such, by considering all of the aspects, the tribunal does not find that there is sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds, on a balance of probabilities, to overcome the shortcomings during the reference period. As mentioned in the Federal Court decision, a considerable aspect is the 35 years which were spent outside of Canada. Obviously, as stated in the decision, it would not have been impossible to overcome this, however when the tribunal considers all the aspects, it finds that there are not sufficient aspects to overcome this and the other negative aspects.

[27] The tribunal also wishes to reiterate that this was a very difficult decision as these are quality individuals. If the criteria would have been would you want these people as your neighbours, objectively almost anyone would probably wish so. However, as mentioned from the outset there are criteria and limitations to discretionary power. It does not give the authority to modify or change existing legislation. The tribunal cannot substitute itself to the legislator’s authority regarding some aspects which were brought up or implied, whether it is to give special consideration for individuals who immigrate and establish themselves and integrate themselves in small rural areas versus large urban centers where most immigration takes place, or if friends can substitute family, especially in the context of a small rural community with a declining population, or regarding the fact that there seems to be an absence in Canadian immigration legislation for individuals who simply want to retire full time in Canada, or even in this case, if a stay could be granted by opting out of the provincial medical coverage regime. Some of these aspects have been covered in other cases. And the tribunal would be overstepping its boundaries by considering these aspects. The tribunal did however attempt to take a large and generous interpretation into the unique considerations of this case, however unfortunately, objectively, it could not find sufficient aspects to overcome the mentioned shortcomings regarding the appellants’ residency obligations.

NOTICE OF DECISION

As such, for all these reasons, this appeal is dismissed.

	*(signed) Haig Basmajian*
	M^e Haig Basmajian
	22 December 2016
	Date

/dl

Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, you may make an application to the Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court. You may wish to get advice from counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application.

[1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27), as amended.

[2] Appeal Record, p 5.

[3] Appeal Record, p. 8.

[4] Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Wright, (F.C, no. IMM-4693-14), Kane, January 5, 2015, 2015 FC 3 (CanLII).

[5] Supra, note 1.

[6] Dorothy Chicay Bufete Arce v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (VA2-02515), Kim Workun, June 16^th,
2003, and approved in Nekoie v. M.C.I, 2012 FC, p. 363.

http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/Eng/BoaCom/Pages/MemCom.aspx

Immigration Appeal Division

Paul Aterman, Deputy Chairperson
Elaine Doyle, Office of the Assistant Deputy Chairperson, Eastern Region
Veronica Zanfir, Office of the Assistant Deputy Chairperson, Central Region
Maryanne Kingma, Assistant Deputy Chairperson, Western Region


Eastern Region	Central Region	Western Region
Suzanne Alary	Rose Andrachuk	Larry Campbell
Edward E Aronoff	Gabriel Clermont-Daigneault	Craig Costantino
Haig Basmajian	Teresa Tak Yan Cheung	Lynne P. Cunningham
Mark Chernin	Kirk Dickenson	Kashi Mattu
Caroline Labranche	Catherine Gaudet	George Pemberton
Mélanie Raymond	Suzanne Gilbert	Sterling Sunley
Marie-José Rivest	Patricia Greenside	Roxane Vachon
Marilyne Trudeau	Kevin Fainbloom
	Alice Jung
	David P.F. Lee
	Michael McCaffrey
	Ziyaad Mia
	Stuart Mutch
	Vandana Patel
	Lloyd Richards
	Julie Ryan
	Marian Sami
	Dominique Setton
	Michael Sterlin
	Julie Wagner

Haig Basmajian

Member at Immigration & Refugee Board

Immigration & Refugee Board

University of Ottawa

Montreal, Canada Area

Member (Administrative Judge) - Commissaire

Company Name Immigration & Refugee Board

Presiding over hearings and rendering decisions

Senior Contracts Manager

Company Name Bombardier Aerospace

Senior Advisor - Artist Management

Company Name Cirque du Soleil

Dates Employed Apr 2003 – Aug 2005

Employment Duration 2 yrs 5 mos
Lawyer

Company Name SAAQ

Dates Employed 2002 – 2003

Employment Duration 1 yr

Location Montreal, Canada Area
Government Affairs coordinator

Company Name CAE

Dates Employed 2000 – 2001

Employment Duration 1 yr

Saturday 18 March 2017

ATTN Ministers Lena Metlege Diab and Ahmed Hussen I just heard about David and Kathryn Wright of Vogler’s Cove troubles with Immigration on CBC

'Not Canadian': Hussen, MacLeod exchange sharp words over asylum seeker 'crisis'

Ontario's immigration language is 'irresponsible, divisive ... fearmongering,' says Hussen

Public Safety Minister’s response concerning U.S. couple “disappointing”

Last chance to stay: Voglers Cove couple fights deportation

Immigration paperwork stands to separate Harvey newlyweds

Matthew Clark may need to leave bride behind and return to England due to trouble getting work permit

Receipt for Dec. 11 package

'Implied status'

MP's office calling

Immigration paperwork interrupts 'happily ever after' for Harvey couple

A glitch in immigration paperwork could send Briton back home after recent marriage to Canadian

'It messes with people's lives'

Vogler’s Cove couple lose their deportatation appeal

Couple in N.S. hopes for last-minute reprieve from 'devastating' deportation

Americans David and Kathryn Wright say they belong in Voglers Cove, where they have lived for 5 years

Loved by community

Deportation order issued

'Live happily ever after'

Appeal history

Case argued on humanitarian grounds

Fear of living in Trump's America

'We really belong here'

Immigration lawyer Lee Cohen says 'this is not the time to dither' on refugees

Bringing 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada before the end of the year is 'ambitious,' but 'possible'

Syrian refugees will help stimulate economy, says Halifax Chamber of Commerce

Refugees 'come into Nova Scotia, create wealth, create jobs, increase tax revenue,' says board chair

Cape Breton ready for refugees

Background

The decision under review

Issues

Standard of Review

The relevant legislative provisions of the Act, sections 28 and 67, are set out in Annex A.

Preliminary issue - Extension of time for service on the respondents

Is the decision of the IAD unreasonable?

The applicant’s position

The respondents’ position

The decision of the IAD is not reasonable

Proposed Certified Question

The relevant legislative provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are:

Immigration Appeal Division

Haig Basmajian

Member at Immigration & Refugee Board

Immigration & Refugee Board

University of Ottawa

Montreal, Canada Area

Company Name Immigration & Refugee Board

Dates Employed Nov 2009 – Present

Employment Duration 7 yrs 5 mos

Location Montreal, Canada Area

Senior Contracts Manager

Company Name Bombardier Aerospace

Dates Employed Sep 2005 – Nov 2009

Employment Duration 4 yrs 3 mos

Location Montreal, Canada Area

Senior Advisor - Artist Management

Company Name Cirque du Soleil

Dates Employed Apr 2003 – Aug 2005

Employment Duration 2 yrs 5 mos

Lawyer

Company Name SAAQ

Dates Employed 2002 – 2003

Employment Duration 1 yr

Location Montreal, Canada Area

Government Affairs coordinator

Company Name CAE

Dates Employed 2000 – 2001

Employment Duration 1 yr

University of Ottawa

Degree Name LLL-LLB

Field Of Study law

Dates attended or expected graduation 1995 – 1999

Concordia University

Degree Name Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com.)

Field Of Study Marketing

Dates attended or expected graduation 1992 – 1995

Vanier College

Degree Name DEC

Field Of Study Business Administration and Management, General