|
|
| Subject: Obtaining a Stay of Removal |
|
|
|
To Everyone
When you think you have been wronged or told to leave Canada sometimes the best option is to file a Stay of Removal with the Federal Court of Canada.
If you have extenuating circumstances many times a Federal Court Judge will stop your removal.
The issues the Federal Courts consider most often is whether the Immigration Officers decision was reasonable. In cases of H&C the most common issue is whether or not the application is based on common sense and the length the application has been not processed. To obtain a Stay of Removal after getting a negative PRRA decision Counsel has to weigh all the factors including the likelihood of succeeding on appeal.
Robert Gertler
Gertler Etienne Law Office
[28-07-2011,17:17]
[**.234.247.137]
Robert G. |
|
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
You guys and your "common sense".
Could you please show me where in the municipal, provincial and FEDERAL law says that the application has to based on "common sense"?
Last time I read it, says that it has to be based on facts and it is up to the applicant to present supporting documentation and as far as I know... common sense doesn´t constitute a piece of supporting documentation.
The only thing that a federal court can stop a removal is if an officer missed any steps or made a decision based on a fact that is not contemplated by the federal law or if the applicant presents evidence that wasn´t considered during the assesment by the officer.
If there is no evidence to rule the officer´s decision. The decision is final. Give me an average of how many Stay of Removals are issued by the federal court vs how many are rejected? It is a shot in the dark. The average is as good as how many PRRAs are successfull.
Going after a Stay of Removal in a Federal Court with the same evidence that was presented in the PRRA is nothing but a waste of time for the applicant, besides the fees that the poort applicant has to pay to a lawyer that isn´t going to do anything to represent him/her in a court of law.
Common sense???? What´s common about it?
[28-07-2011,17:42]
[***.115.153.178]
DocD |
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
DocD
You should stay in your area of limited knowledge like looking for a Grandmother to detain because she has a jar of engine oil. How about confiscating that extra bottle of Cognac from an elderly person who can´t afford to buy one on his own pension.
To show one compassion H&C it has to be common sense to the average Canadian. Your not going to give away spare change to someone that looks totally fit to work. Well would you.
Like this Stay of Removal Mr. Gertler won for one of my clients.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/04/10/17941681.html
Nice to see your posting Robert it made common sense to me. Then again it is an area that I have knowledge in unlike a CBSA Officer who works in a tiny little airport with virtually no international flights.
Roy
cvimmigration.com
[28-07-2011,19:17]
[***.206.23.159]
Roy |
ALLERGY SAVES THE DAY (in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
5 to 7k
[28-07-2011,20:33]
[**.232.244.253]
Anonymous |
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
Roy,
Congratulations in your Stay of Removal, so the removal order has been deferred, then what? It hasn´t been cancelled, the applicant isn´t a PR yet, so what are you guys celebrating?
Sometimes, the truth isn´t pretty but I have no issues telling it and calling the things for its name.
I want readers to understand that the law doesn´t have any feelings nor the officers who are assessing applications when it comes down to these things it is not personal for them it is a job.
Leave the common sense at home, when you are cooking so you don´t stick your fingers in a hot bawl of soup. In a Federal Court bring envidence and supporting documentation that the invisible cloud that you guys call "common sense" isn´t the ticket to win an appeal or a Stay of Removal.
You are posting a Stay of Removal that you win. Good for you and I respect what you have done but you did win based on the evidence and documentation that was presented. Nothing more and nothing less.
How many Stay of Removals are NOT successful in court on a daily basis? versus.... the ones that are successful.
A Stay of Removal is a shot in the dark. The odds of wining are as high as getting a PRRA approved.
Be carefull with the message that you are projecting to the readers, you are giving a false sense of hope that in most cases is denied in a court of law.
[29-07-2011,01:24]
[***.166.254.152]
DocD |
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
boys... play nice.
[29-07-2011,01:44]
[**.180.239.117]
Sharon |
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
DocD
I used this example because of what the CIC Officer claimed.
Now I believe he made no common sense.
The CIC Officer reviewing my H&C submissions claimed that the emergency Drug needed was available in hospitals in the Philippines in a vial form. That there were no EpiPen Pens that pre-measure dosages that are in Public Schools in Ontario and carried by children with the Peanut allergy.
He claimed that Nicholas who is five could carry around in his pocket a glass vial and a syringe.
If he had an attack a 5 year-old could take out the Vial break the top off. Then remove a syringe from his pocket, attach the needle, insert the syringe into the vial and withdraw the correct amount of Drug to save his life while chocking to death.
I had submitted studies showing parents and adults could not 78% of the time not withdraw the correct amount using a syringe.
That also the CIC Officer claimed Coecidrine, Benydril and other drugs are available over the counter in the Philippines. LOL Like they would help with a Life threatening attack.
Okay maybe Mr. Gertler should of said the CIC Officer is an *()&&*^^% but he would not do that.
Roy
cvimmigration.com
[29-07-2011,07:05]
[***.206.23.159]
Roy |
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
Since when are our laws not based on common sense?
Is that not why the English got rid of debtors prison?
Is not our Judicial System based on English (COMMON) Law?
Roy
cvimmigration.com
[29-07-2011,07:13]
[***.206.23.159]
Roy |
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
I would probably agree more with Robert if he said that the officer was an ^%$#*. That is a far better statement than "common sense".
Quoted by Roy "I had submitted studies showing parents and adults could not 78% of the time not withdraw the correct amount using a syringe".
There...you....go! You HAD to show EVIDENCE didn´t you? There was no common sense there, you provided a clear evidence along with your case and with the help of your lawyer.
It´s not matter of making sense of it or not. It is matter of a relevant and clear evidence provided to the judge. Good move...and again congratulations for doing the right thing. I mean it.
Now.. regarding our English based common law system.
Prior to the Norman Conquest, there was a network of local courts administering law across England, with three main law ´areas´, such as Wessex. The Normans began to institute a common law regime across England.
By the time of Henry II, the process of superseding the network of local courts was well under way. Henry established a practice whereby his officials regularly visited the counties to investigate the administration of the king´s local representatives and to administer justice.
By the fourteenth century, this system had evolved into a set of King´s Courts, which were now known as the common law courts, since they administered the law that was common to the whole realm.
As opposed to statutory law, common law is considered to be judge-made law. Each case is decided on the basis of the most relevant precedents, let me said again.... MOST RELEVANT PRECENDENTS but if a direct precedent can not be found the judge ´discovers´ the precedent by providing a judgement that seems most consistent with the existing body of common law - in other words what the judge´s predessors would have determined had the case arisen much earlier.
Clear as mud?
Since there is going to be no agreement on this, you keep using your "common sense" don´t forget the supporting evidence though and I will continue to confiscate illegal cognac in the little tiny airport with no international flights LOL.
BTW, sorry I can´t use common sense for it. I have to refer to a book and apply the law that is written on it. It is not common sense, but it is a pretty "common" book amongst federal law enforcement officers.
[29-07-2011,11:38]
[***.115.153.178]
DocD |
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
Roy,
Because of cultural differences, upbringing etc, your common sense is probably different from mine. How´s is the law going to be upheld if everyone interpret the law differently.
Common sense tell me we should stop spending money on defense and divert the money to our healthcare but others might differently.
Common sense tells me to stop refugee from landing here and instead instruct them to apply from abroad thus saving us $$$ but you will probably disagree.
[29-07-2011,12:00]
[***.124.134.110]
Anonymous |
(in reply to: Obtaining a Stay of Removal)
Anonymous ***.124.134.110
You sound like you have common sense to me but I would change things so it would be more fair and cost nothing.
Being someone who lives east of Toronto who sees all these dead soldiers coming home when they shut down the 401 I agree that we should be spending more on Health Care instead of fighting in Afghanistan. I support the troops but not that particular Mission.
Regarding your comments about asylum seekers. I had to take a course and pay $500.00 for submitting a PRRA and saying I can´t understand why 42% of all refugee claimants win! Lawyer went to Federal Court and the Judge said my logic was valid and said my evidence was sufficient to win the PRRA.
I can prove I won a PRRA!
I believe all refugee claimants should get a FAIR hearing but something has to be done about those that approve such a high percentage. If the acceptance rate was between 15% - 25% that would greatly decrease the amount of claimants arriving at our airports.
So the average amount of asylum seekers is 3o thousand and if the acceptance rate dropped to twenty percent the amount of asylum seekers would drop to 15 thousand. Fifteen thousand is a far more manageable number and more real refugee´s would be given a better chance of success.
Roy
cvimmigration.com
Roy
cvimmigration.com
[29-07-2011,13:45]
[**.229.22.154]
Roy |
