Tweet
IRAQI'S REFUGEE CLAIM DENIED
Marina Jimenez
Globe and Mail, Canada
March 7 2007
Family stunned that 71-year-old widow's application rejected --
after six years
An elderly Iraqi widow who dreams of reuniting with her four siblings
in Canada waited six years for her immigration application to be
processed, only to be rejected after a visa officer decided her
dependency on family members was invented for immigration purposes.
Arakse Nalbandian and her siblings are devastated by the decision,
and say Citizenship and Immigration Canada made a mistake when it
rejected her application to come to Canada for humanitarian reasons.
"When I was born, my mother was paralyzed and Arakse looked after me.
She was like a mother," says Murad Nalbandian, Arakse's younger
brother and a Toronto chartered accountant, who has supported his
sister financially for years. "Now I don't want her to be alone and
have to die somewhere strange."
Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees,
says that of all displaced people in the world, "you would have
thought Iraqis would have a strong case."
The refugee council is releasing a report today profiling people
already in Canada whose humanitarian applications were rejected after
waiting as long as five years for them to be processed. (These cases
are usually processed in two to three years, a CIC spokesperson said,
although applications made outside the country are unusual, and may
take longer depending on the complexity.)
Ms. Nalbandian, now 71, fled Iraq in 1991 and went to neighbouring
Jordan with her daughter and son. They could not get legal status
there, and had to pay a fine every three months for overstaying their
visitors' visas. Ms. Nalbandian visited her siblings in 1993 and then
returned to Jordan.
Seven years later, with her existence in Jordan still precarious and
afraid to face the violence in Iraq, she applied to come to Canada.
Her three brothers and sister, who were by then all running prosperous
businesses, agreed to sponsor her financially.
Ms. Nalbandian waited three years for her June, 2003, interview with a
visa officer at the Canadian mission in Damascus. Notes from her file,
obtained under Access to Information, show that the officer felt a
"case can be made for her [to come to Canada] on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds."
But the case went nowhere -- even though Ms. Nalbandian was told
to expect a decision imminently. The family made several written
inquiries trying to determine the status of the case. Two Toronto
MPs tried to intervene.
An undated hand-scrawled note from an immigration officer, also
obtained by the family under access to information legislation,
notes that the department was aware of the delay: "Should we not have
interviewed her by now?"
A CIC spokesperson could not explain the delay in the case, nor give
a comment, citing privacy concerns.
In 2006, Ms. Nalbandian was reinterviewed. Much to her family's
surprise, her case was rejected. Her lawyer, Randy Hahn, successfully
appealed the case.
Mr. Justice F. E. Gibson of Federal Court ruled that Ms. Nalbandian's
dependency on her siblings was bona fide and "not created for
immigration purposes."
"Refugee's level of dependency, both economically and emotionally, was
extremely high. . . . Stability of the relationship between refugee and
siblings was well established," he wrote in a Sept. 20, 2006, judgment,
ordering that the case be reheard. "Other alternatives, outside of
continued physical isolation of refugee, appear to be non-existent."
However, a second visa officer at the Damascus embassy rejected her
case in January, 2007.
The officer wondered why Ms. Nalbandian's children, refugee claimants
in Holland, couldn't afford to sponsor her. The officer didn't believe
Ms. Nalbandian's claims that the ties between her and her children
had been severed. "I am concerned you are creating dependency [on
your siblings] for immigration purposes," concluded Saad Zia, the
embassy's second secretary.
Murad Nalbandian asserts that the familial bonds between his sister
and her extended family, including her 13 nieces and nephews, are
very strong. "Our sister is more bonded to us than to her kids," he
said. A letter signed by 17 members of the family notes that "Arakse
would be enveloped in a close family environment . . . and should be
able to reap the benefits of a large and warm extended family."
Instead, Ms. Nalbandian is destined to spend her final years alone
and vulnerable. Recently, she was the victim of two purse snatchings
in Jordan, and this year, relocated to Armenia. She still hopes a
second appeal will win her the right to come here.
"There is something wrong with a system where a woman can submit an
application that is lost/ignored for six years, rejected, and then
after the court says the decision is unreasonable, rejected again,"
Mr. Hahn said. "It seems mean spirited."
Marina Jimenez
Globe and Mail, Canada
March 7 2007
Family stunned that 71-year-old widow's application rejected --
after six years
An elderly Iraqi widow who dreams of reuniting with her four siblings
in Canada waited six years for her immigration application to be
processed, only to be rejected after a visa officer decided her
dependency on family members was invented for immigration purposes.
Arakse Nalbandian and her siblings are devastated by the decision,
and say Citizenship and Immigration Canada made a mistake when it
rejected her application to come to Canada for humanitarian reasons.
"When I was born, my mother was paralyzed and Arakse looked after me.
She was like a mother," says Murad Nalbandian, Arakse's younger
brother and a Toronto chartered accountant, who has supported his
sister financially for years. "Now I don't want her to be alone and
have to die somewhere strange."
Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees,
says that of all displaced people in the world, "you would have
thought Iraqis would have a strong case."
The refugee council is releasing a report today profiling people
already in Canada whose humanitarian applications were rejected after
waiting as long as five years for them to be processed. (These cases
are usually processed in two to three years, a CIC spokesperson said,
although applications made outside the country are unusual, and may
take longer depending on the complexity.)
Ms. Nalbandian, now 71, fled Iraq in 1991 and went to neighbouring
Jordan with her daughter and son. They could not get legal status
there, and had to pay a fine every three months for overstaying their
visitors' visas. Ms. Nalbandian visited her siblings in 1993 and then
returned to Jordan.
Seven years later, with her existence in Jordan still precarious and
afraid to face the violence in Iraq, she applied to come to Canada.
Her three brothers and sister, who were by then all running prosperous
businesses, agreed to sponsor her financially.
Ms. Nalbandian waited three years for her June, 2003, interview with a
visa officer at the Canadian mission in Damascus. Notes from her file,
obtained under Access to Information, show that the officer felt a
"case can be made for her [to come to Canada] on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds."
But the case went nowhere -- even though Ms. Nalbandian was told
to expect a decision imminently. The family made several written
inquiries trying to determine the status of the case. Two Toronto
MPs tried to intervene.
An undated hand-scrawled note from an immigration officer, also
obtained by the family under access to information legislation,
notes that the department was aware of the delay: "Should we not have
interviewed her by now?"
A CIC spokesperson could not explain the delay in the case, nor give
a comment, citing privacy concerns.
In 2006, Ms. Nalbandian was reinterviewed. Much to her family's
surprise, her case was rejected. Her lawyer, Randy Hahn, successfully
appealed the case.
Mr. Justice F. E. Gibson of Federal Court ruled that Ms. Nalbandian's
dependency on her siblings was bona fide and "not created for
immigration purposes."
"Refugee's level of dependency, both economically and emotionally, was
extremely high. . . . Stability of the relationship between refugee and
siblings was well established," he wrote in a Sept. 20, 2006, judgment,
ordering that the case be reheard. "Other alternatives, outside of
continued physical isolation of refugee, appear to be non-existent."
However, a second visa officer at the Damascus embassy rejected her
case in January, 2007.
The officer wondered why Ms. Nalbandian's children, refugee claimants
in Holland, couldn't afford to sponsor her. The officer didn't believe
Ms. Nalbandian's claims that the ties between her and her children
had been severed. "I am concerned you are creating dependency [on
your siblings] for immigration purposes," concluded Saad Zia, the
embassy's second secretary.
Murad Nalbandian asserts that the familial bonds between his sister
and her extended family, including her 13 nieces and nephews, are
very strong. "Our sister is more bonded to us than to her kids," he
said. A letter signed by 17 members of the family notes that "Arakse
would be enveloped in a close family environment . . . and should be
able to reap the benefits of a large and warm extended family."
Instead, Ms. Nalbandian is destined to spend her final years alone
and vulnerable. Recently, she was the victim of two purse snatchings
in Jordan, and this year, relocated to Armenia. She still hopes a
second appeal will win her the right to come here.
"There is something wrong with a system where a woman can submit an
application that is lost/ignored for six years, rejected, and then
after the court says the decision is unreasonable, rejected again,"
Mr. Hahn said. "It seems mean spirited."