Страницы: -
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -
26 -
27 -
28 -
29 -
30 -
31 -
32 -
33 -
34 -
35 -
36 -
37 -
38 -
39 -
40 -
41 -
42 -
43 -
44 -
45 -
46 -
47 -
48 -
49 -
50 -
51 -
52 -
53 -
54 -
55 -
56 -
57 -
58 -
59 -
60 -
61 -
62 -
63 -
64 -
65 -
66 -
67 -
68 -
69 -
70 -
71 -
72 -
73 -
74 -
75 -
76 -
77 -
78 -
79 -
80 -
81 -
82 -
83 -
84 -
85 -
86 -
87 -
88 -
mployment authorization in Israel), about the refusal of
the Ministry of Culture and Education to allow me a professional course
(what was a routine procedure in Israel), about the refusal of the
National Insurance to issue me welfare when I was unemployed (this was
a precondition of the Labor Exchange for registering me), about
Tax Agency's refusal to give me the tax exemption as all fresh
newcomers, and so on. I also presented receipts of the registered mails to
Israeli Ministry of Police and Ministry of Eternal Affairs with the
copies of the letters, responses from the Ministry of Culture and Education,
and course "Talpiot", medical documents, testimonies, and so on. I
presented innumerous orders from Israeli draft board to appear for
tests and interrogations as the proof that the necessity of traveling
to the draft board so often distorted my normal life, affected my
employment possibilities, and deteriorated our financial situation
because the draft board situated not in our city, and the buses tickets
were extremely expensive for us, fresh immigrants. I presented Israeli
Tax Agency's official requests, submitted to
me in violation of Israeli laws about fresh immigrants, which ordered
us to present a report about busyness we never had, and deteriorated
our financial situation because we had to hire a lawyer to compose such
a report. Plus, the Tax Agency documents were submitted to us
from Jerusalem in violation of Israeli district rules. And also my wife
presented medical, judicial, governmental, and other official documents,
which corresponded to events, which happened to her and the children.
And Mister Judge called that all "sources fiables"! Incredible! Then,
my lawyers quoted sometimes the same documents, which the Ministry of
Immigration used against our claim, but different paragraphs. If
these are the "sources fiables", then it had to correspond to IRB, too,
because they used the same sources!
In paragraph [8] of His conclusion Mister Judge wrote: documentary
prove shows that claimants could turn for help to Israeli authorities -
and obtain the help. If police refused to cooperate, there are multiple
other organizations. He completely ignored the fact that we turned for
help to Israeli authorities, to all possible governmental institutions,
to all possible organizations (see above), but were refused. Only the list
of organizations we turned to consist of two pages. Plus, in support of
our claim we presented official documents as the proof that we really
turned to all these institutions. Now it is clear that He simply
refused to compare our arguments with the Ministry's of Immigration, to take
our arguments into consideration and present them objectively, but
simply copied the Ministry's point of view and presented it as His own.
IN OTHER WORDS, HE REFUSED TO JUDGE! So, He violated the whole legal
procedure itself, turning the Federal Court procedure into
clownery, and producing a decision, which had to be prepared in
advance, without any connection with the Federal Court hearing,
documents, presented by us, or judgement of the arguments presented by
two sides.
He also claimed that the analysis of IRB's evaluation of our personal
claim is not in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court: this is why he
replaced it by a generalized statement about how good the state of
Israel treats the Russian-speaking people. Even if our case would
missed with another one, I see here a violation of the legal procedure
itself - because we appealed not the results of the theoretical dispute
around human rights in Israel, which - as any other dispute - can not
be solved synonymously, but the practical IRB's decision about our
personal refugee claim, which affected our personal lives and brought
us to a suicidal situation!
He also claimed that the analysis of IRB's evaluation of our personal
claim is not in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court: this is why he
replaced it by a generalized statement about how good the state of
Israel treats the Russian-speaking people. Even if our case would
missed with another one, I see here a violation of the legal procedure
itself - because we appealed not the results of the theoretical dispute
around human rights in Israel, which - as any other dispute - can not
be solved synonymously, but the practical IRB's decision about our
personal refugee claim, which affected our personal lives and brought
us to a suicidal situation!
In the same time Mister Dubй was sincere or rather cynical enough to
tell me the truth: he pointed that people like me, who claim something
that the powerful circles do not want to recognize, "see miracles in
the middle of reality". I understood very good what he wanted to say by
that. To fight what the powerful politicians made an opinion and hope
that an ordinary man like me could win was to expect a miracle! If the
state of Israel and powerful Jewish communities decided to stop
admission of the Russian speaking refugee claimants in Canada, they did
it, and stopped all "Russian" refugees, including me. More persistent I
was, more evidences I presented that I was persecuted, more
unbeatable material proof I found, more strong they wanted to reject
me.
NEXT DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT NUMBER 10
HUMANITARIAN AND COMPASSIONATE CASES
CONTENTS:
1. Part 1: Humanitarian Cases, Main Part
2. Part 2: Exceptional contribution, which Gunins could bring to
Canadian cultural heritage
3. List of Photos: Adjustment to PART 2
4. List of Documents: Documents, Chacklist-2
5. Explaination
PART 1
Lev Gunin - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - File Number
2948-6524/95/76/23/18 IMM - 1462-97
(In Addition to Form IMM 5283 (02-98) E)
REASONS
ADJUSTMENT TO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION HUMANITARIAN & COMPASSIONATE
CASES
Grounds for Exemption - Adjustment to Paragraphs A and B
[ A) Canadian Immigration law requires applicants for permanent
residence to obtain an immigrant visa outside Canada, before coming to
Canada. Explain why you believe that your application for permanent
residence should be processed from within Canada as an exception]
[ B) What hardship would you have if appeal from outside Canada?]
MAIN PART
ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF MAIN PART
Main part describes each paragraph from the listed above in details. In
Main Part, these paragraphs called Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, etc.
Each description contains the general descriptions, which are a part of
this document, and a number of referrals, data, and links, which
correspond to other documents with further detailing, proof,
description, and explanation.
(There are 2 big chapters of reasons why Applicants can not apply from
outside Canada: First 7 Groups [A] and Second 7 Groups [B]).
Documents, which this document refers to, are:
a) PIF of the immigration file (PIF)
b) Audio-cassettes from the refugee hearings (CASSETTES)
c) Documents from Applicants' file, which was founded and maintained by
their lawyer (LAWYER'S FILE)
d) Package of documents, composed by Applicants for the
post-determination officer and for the Federal Court (APPLICANTS)
e) All documents, which were composed by the Ministry of Immigration in
Applicants' case (MINISTRY)
f) All material proof and supplementary documents, such as medical
documents, newspapers, affidavits, legal, official and other
documents, which were added after the 1-st of April, 1998
(SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2)
g) Documents, which illustrate and explain why Applicants could bring
an exceptional contribution into Canadian cultural heritage
(EXCEPTIONAL CONTRIBUTION, WHICH GUNINS COULD
- Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 2 -
BRING TO CANADIAN HERITAGE).
REMARK: Decisions taken by the Post-Determination officer and by
Federal Court in Applicants' case does not matter for evaluation of the
documents described in paragraphs d), e), and f) because these
documents might not being taken into consideration when the decisions
were made (see all decisions in our case). It is also obvious that the
same document might have different values and meaning for different
immigration programs, and must be evaluated from the Humanitarian and
Compassionate grounds point of view only.
ATTENTION!
We absolutely demand that before reading this document you read first
the copies of our three letters to the High Commissioner of
Refugees. Without reading them you could not understand the most
delicate and sensitive issues of our situation. If you'll study this
document first, it might make a wrong impression. So, we claim that it
is absolutely necessary to read above mentioned three document
before. These 3 letters are enclosed and attached right after this
document.
FIRST 7 GROUPS OF REASONS (PARTS)
[ A) Canadian Immigration law requires applicants for permanent
residence to obtain an immigrant visa outside Canada, before coming to
Canada. Explain why you believe that your application for permanent
residence should be processed from within Canada as an exception]
1. Applicants consider themselves as people without citizenship (see
below)
2. Passport of the principal Applicant has been expired; its extension
is not possible through Israeli consulates in Canada (see below)
3. It is also impossible to extend the expired passport in Israel,
because there passports are confiscated from some refugee claimants (see
below)
4. In spite of the refugee board's negative decision in Applicants'
case the danger to their security, health or even lives still exist in
Israel.
The Refugee Board (IRB) did not reject Applicants' claim completely,
but accused the family in provoking persecutions by refusal to change
their believes and religious orientation. Doing that, the IRB denied
Applicants one of the basic human rights: not to be persecuted for their
believes and opinions (see below). During debates in the Federal Court
Immigration representative, Mrs. Murphy, went even further,
replacing the question about credibility of our refugee claim and IRB's
decision by attacks on my personality (see ADJUSTMENTS FOR
APPEAL TO UN REFUGEE TRIBUNAL). The Federal Court Humanitarian &
Compassionate Cases - page 3 -
judge, Monsieur Le Juge J. E. Dubй, committed several legal mistakes,
missing up our case with an unreal one (we never received an IRB's
decision with "aucune crйdibilitй" remark; if we would appeal the "no
minimal credibility" formula, we had no chances to win, but a positive
decision to allow us the judicial control was already issued by the
Federal Court's judge, Monsieur Le Juge Tremblay-Lamer). He also
claimed that the analysis of IRB's evaluation of our personal claim is
not in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court: this is why he replaced it by
a generalised statement about how good the state of Israel treats the
Russian-speaking people. Even if our case was missed with another
one, I see here a violation of the legal procedure itself - because we
appealed not the results of the theoretical dispute around human
rights in Israel, which - as any other dispute - can not be solved
synonymously, but the practical IRB's decision about our personal refugee
claim, which affected our personal lives and brought us to a suicidal
situation! (see the copy of an appeal to UN High Commissioner for
Refugees because of our drastic situation after the Federal Court's
negative decision; also compare the texts of IRB's Conclusive Decision
- see in the folder MINISTRY, Federal Court's positive decision to
allow us the hearing for the Judicial Control, and Mister Judge Dubй's
decision in our case - see in the folder SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2)
5. The principle Applicant submitted a request to Israeli government to
abandon his Israeli citizenship (see explanations below)
6. If after 4 years in Canada Applicants' children would be sent away -
this would be an inhuman action.
7. Members of Applicants' family can bring an exceptional contribution
into Canadian cultural heritage (see below)
DESCRIPTIONS
PART 1 - (a)
Thesis: Applicants consider themselves as people without citizenship.
Applicants claim that they were actually deported from their native
country (Belarus) to Israel against their will (see folder APPLICANTS,
document # 2)
They also claim that in Warsaw Israeli officials prevented them from
going to Germany and took them to Israel by force (see: APPLICANTS,
document #2, pages 7,8,9)
- Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 4 -
Therefore, in spite of their protests and disagreements Applicants were
taken to the state of Israel (see: APPLICANTS, document # 2,
pages 7,8,9)
Applicants believe that Israeli citizenship was thrust on them, and
they would like not to use it for the independent immigration procedure
from outside Canada
Any attempts to force Applicants to use the citizenship, which - they
believe - was given to them against their will, would severely violate the
basic principles of human rights and freedoms
This is one of the reasons why they must be given a possibility to
apply from within the country
Applicants also submitted several messages to Israeli government in Lev
GUNIN's name asking the Israeli government to terminate his
Israeli
citizenship. The copy of these letters and the responses from Israeli
side are enclosed (see them among SUPPLEMENTARY
DOCUMENTS-2, Requests for Citizenship Termination).
In 1993, Applicants applied to the consulate of Belarus in Tel-Aviv,
asking for restoration of their Belorusian citizenship, but were denied.
This part mainly refers to next documents:
1) APPLICANTS, Document #2
2) APPLICANTS, Supplements
3) Copies of the letters to Israeli government and consulate, and the
responses (SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, Requests for
Citizenship Termination, doc. 9, 10, 11, etc.)
PART 2 - (a)
Thesis: Passport of the principal Applicant has been expired; its
extension is not possible through Israeli consulate in Canada
The Israeli passport of one of the Applicants (Lev GUNIN's passport)
has been expired already by March 1998 (see the photocopy of the
passport: SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, documents 4, 4-a).
- Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 5 -
If even an obstacle to use Israeli passports, described in the Part 1,
would not exist, an extension of Lev Gunin's expired passport is not
possible anyway because of the next reasons:
1) Israeli consulates practice refusals to extend passports of Russian
speaking refugee claimants (see SUPPLEMENTARY
DOCUMENTS-2, document number 5).
2) Israeli consulates not just reject the requests to extend an Israeli
passport, but also practicing humiliation over Russian speaking visitors
(see SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, document number 6).
3) A stamp "claimed a refugee status in Canada" is placed in passports
of those, who claimed the refugee status in Canada, instead of the
extension (see SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, document number 7).
PART 3 - (a)
Thesis: It is also impossible to extend the expired passport in Israel,
because passports are confiscated from refugee claimants (See:
SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, document number 8)
Because Lev Gunin's Israeli passport has been expired, Applicants can
not go outside Canada for obtaining a Canadian immigration visa.
The only country they could go to is the state of Israel. However, it
is widely known that when people who claimed a refugee status in
Canada return to Israel, their passports might be confiscated: if
Israeli authorities know that they claimed a refugee status. Madam Judith
Malka, the immigration officer, member of the IRB assigned to
Applicants' refugee file, informed Israeli consulate about Applicants'
refugee
claim (see: APPLICANTS, document 1, INTRODUCTION, and also: pages 7, 8,
9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18). Therefore, Applicants belong to
the category of people, whose passports must be eventually confiscated
in Israel.
All necessary documents are enclosed.
Part 4 - (a)
Thesis: 1) In spite of the refugee board's negative decision in
Applicants' case the danger to their security, health or even lives still
exist in
Israel. The Refugee Board (IRB) did not reject Applicants' claim
completely, but accused the family in provoking persecutions by refusal to
change their believes and religious orientation. Doing that, the IRB
denied Applicants one of the basic human rights:
Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 6 -
not to be persecuted for their believes and opinions. 2)Immigration
representative, Mrs. Murphy, only enforced that attitude in her speech
in the Federal Court. 3)We believe, that giving His negative decision,
the Judge of the Federal Court did severe mistakes violating the legal
procedure itself.
1) See the analyses of the negative decision in folder "APPLICANTS",
Document #5, Conclusive Decision; and in Group of Documents # 4
2) See ADJUSTMENTS FOR APPEAL TO UN REFUGEE TRIBUNAL (folder
SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2)
3) See this document, FIRST 7 GROUPS OF REASONS (PARTS), paragraph 4
Part 5 - (a)
Thesis: One of the Applicants (Mr. Lev Gunin) has submitted a request
to Israeli government to abandon his Israeli citizenship
He was submitting the same request several times, first time in 1994,
when he was in Israel. Since 1994, in Canada, he used to submit
such a -
request once a year, since 1996. The latest request was submitted on
September 10, 1998, by his consultant, Anna-Maria Augestad.
The copies of the requests and other relating documents are enclosed
(see Copies of the letter to Israeli government (consulate) and the
responses in folder Supplementary Documents-2, Requests for Citizenship
Termination).
Part 6 - (a)
Thesis: If after 4 years in Canada Applicants' children would be sent
away - this would be an inhuman action.
The children accommodated in Canada very well, when in Israel they
suffered from neuroses and hiperkinesys (see this document,
SECOND 6 GROUPS OF REASONS, Part one). If they will be sent away from
here, where they feel secure, convenient and equal, back to
the nightmare they lived under when they were in Israel, - this would
be an inhuman action.
See also a letter from Elisabeth Epstein, related to this issue
(SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, doc. 1).
Part 7 - (a)
- Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 7 -
Thesis: Members of Applicants' family could bring an exceptional
contribution into Canadian cultural heritage.
Everything, which relates to this