Sex offender had his deportation order quashed for second time


by Sukhram  Ramkissoon 

Sukhram Ramkissoon

Max (not his real name), a 64-year-old man from the Caribbean who was twice ordered deported recently had his deportation order quashed by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).

I represented Max at all his hearings and will summarize the facts of his case as follows. His second removal order was issued in March 2015 when he was found “inadmissible “on the grounds of serious criminality with respect to his convictions in August 2013 on two counts of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference. These offenses are punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.                                                                                                 

Max came to Canada in 1992 at the age of 33 and permanently resided in Canada.  He has six children, five of whom are adults. Three of his children reside in his home country with their partners; one daughter lives in the United States and two of his children live in Canada. He has not seen his 19-year-old son since he was 11 months old and has a 15-year-old daughter who resides with him since she was one year old; he holds sole custody.

He was previously ordered deported in 2003 because of a conviction in 1998 for assault with a weapon for which he received 60 days intermittently and probation.  He also had several other criminal convictions from 1993 to 1998, ranging from three assaults, using threats, and failing to comply with bail conditions.

Max appealed this deportation order, which was made in 2010, and I represented him at his hearing. He was fortunate to receive a stay of removal for three years from the IAD and this stay order was quashed in 2015. As previously mentioned, he was again ordered deported in 2015 for the convictions in 2013 and he also appealed this order to the IAD.

His matter again came up for hearing in 2017 and again I represented him at this appeal. Max did not call any witnesses; however, numerous documents were filed to support his request for a stay on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds. At his hearing, he fully explained all the circumstances of the various offenses and convictions, the hardships he would experience if he returned to his country, and his concerns about the best interest of his daughter.

Max testified that his 2011 conviction was a result of a crime committed in October 2005 and that the CBSA and the IAD were fully aware of the pending charges when his deportation order was quashed in 2010.    In this case, he was found to be a part of a conspiracy to import cocaine into Canada. The panel noted that while Max “was clearly found to be culpable, his involvement in this crime was minimal and was in the nature of “willful blindness.”

However, the presiding member of the panel further stated that “in considering the likelihood of rehabilitation and risk of re-offending, I am troubled by the lack of responsibility Max has demonstrated in his testimony.”   

Max testified that with respect to his sexual charges and convictions, it was a result of his tripping over a chair that led to him into physical contact with the victim. He also implied that the victim brought charges as a form of reprisal for his refusal to give her money and insisted that he was entirely innocent. He noted that the victim reported the matter to the police several days after the alleged incident. Max said that he is ashamed and embarrassed by his 2013 conviction and maintains he was not guilty of the offenses for which he was convicted

The panel noted the likelihood of Max not re-offending to be moderate and that he presented himself as intelligent and articulate. The panel believed that he is capable of exercising better judgment.  They further noted that Max is well established in Canada; he has been a Transport Driver since 2005 and earns approximately $3,800 to $4600 biweekly. He lives in a house with his daughter on a rent-to-own basis and owns two vehicles.

Max testified that it would be very hard for him to find employment in his home country.  He explained that he has resided in Canada for more than 25 years and it would be hard for him to find work at his age. He further pointed out that would be labeled as a deportee and as a result would be harassed or worse.

With respect to the best interests of Max’s daughter, the panel considered several factors. It noted that the child would face challenging circumstances in terms of accommodation, likely a considerably reduced standard of living, a disruption to her education, and cultural adjustments.  The panel ruled, that it is not in the best interests of the child to relocate with her father to his home country.

After considering his testimony and submissions, the panel stayed Max’s removal for five years with terms and conditions. Upon the reconsideration, Max provided documents of his compliance with all the terms and conditions of his stay, save and except some outstanding fines to the Minister and the IAD.

Recently the Minister submitted to the IAD that Max has complied with all the conditions of his stay and consequently the IAD canceled his removal order and allowed his appeal. Max now intends to apply for Canadian citizenship. Good luck, Max.

SUKHRAM  RAMKISSOON  is a member of CICC and specializes in Immigration Matters at No 3089 Bathurst Street, Suite 219A,Toronto. Phone 416 789 5756.