Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 119

Thread: Нет страны для возвращения?

  1. #81
    Forum Regular Kapitula's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    юго- восток
    Posts
    86,342

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    Лучше уйти в Мексику, пока стены нет.
    В Эстонии тоже неплохо
    оговариваю, что мнение касается только меня, моих дел итд
    в курсе, что все люди разные и у каждого свое мнение

  2. #82
    Forum Master Otec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Пол
    Мужской
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    Как изящно они попытались развернуть этот кейс типа нужно доказвать что ты боишся приследования в стране откуда ты изначально + в странае где ты проживал после включая США.

    Popov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 898 (CanLII)

    [12] Mr. Popov was held in prison for 180 days after his removal order was finalised. This despite the fact that in the United States, aliens must be released from prison 90 days after their removal order is finalised. Mr. Popov has spent over two years in prison in total in relation to this matter.
    [19] On January 23, 2009, the RPD determined that the Applicants are not Convention refugees as they do not have a well-founded fear of persecution in the United States.

    [20] The RPD also found that the Applicants were not people in need of protection in that their removal to the United States would not subject them personally to a risk of their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and in that there are no substantial grounds to believe that their removal to the United States will subject them personally to a danger of torture.

    [21] The RPD found that Mr. Popov and Ms. Doubrovskaia are stateless persons as they are not citizens of the United States or of the Russian Federation. It was also found that they had a former residence in both countries.

    [22] The RPD stated that stateless persons must show that they possess a well-founded fear of persecution in any country of formal residence and that they cannot return to any country of former residence. Also, as the Applicants are claiming protection against the United States, they must establish a fear of persecution in that country.

    [23] The Applicants assert that they will be persecuted in the United States because they have no legal status there. They fear recurrent imprisonment even though they have not violated any criminal laws. Mr. Popov also asserts that he might be specifically targeted on the basis of his political opinion or his imputed political opinion.

    [24] The RPD analysed the existence of state protection in the United States – the Applicants’ country of habitual residence. It based its analysis on Hinzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 171 (CanLII), 282 D.L.R. (4th) 413, 63 Imm. L.R. (3d) 13 (Hinzman), and found that the Applicants had not rebutted the presumption of state protection with clear and concise evidence.

    [25] The RPD found that the Applicants had not exhausted all domestic avenues open to them. In the case of Mr. Popov, he had not appealed the denial for adjustment of status or for cancellation of removal. As for Ms. Doubrovskaia, after her initial application was lost, she never applied to have it reinstated nor did she file a new application after the old one was lost.

    [26] The RPD suggested that if the Applicants are returned to the United States and are arrested for not having status, they risk six months imprisonment at the most. Also, they could agree to the removal order and then demonstrate to American officials that they should be released as they can not be removed to Russia.

    [27] Once this is done, they might receive a work authorization or supervision order. The fact that social and health services would not be available to them and their job opportunities limited is not persecutory but simply the exercise of a country’s right to limit access to certain services.
    Дальше судья растолковал RPD что это не так.

    [42] Although it is true that in Thabet, the Federal Court of Appeal creates a distinction between stateless individuals and those who do have a state, one must read further. The Court answered the certified question before it as follows:

    In order to be found to be a Convention refugee, a stateless person must show that, on a balance of probabilities he or she would suffer persecution in any country of former habitual residence, and that he or she cannot return to any of his or her countries of former habitual residence. (Thabet at paragraph 30) [emphasis added]

    [43] Thabet clearly set outs that it is not sufficient to simply be unable to return to all countries of former habitual residence - the individual must prove that they will suffer persecution in one of those countries.

    [44] In this case, Mr. Popov and Ms. Doubrovskaia, being stateless individuals, must establish that they would suffer persecution in either Russia or the United States – their countries of former habitual residence and that they cannot return to the other. Although it is clear they cannot return to Russia, they have made their claim against the United States and as such must prove that they would suffer persecution in that country.

    [45] In order to do so, they must prove not only a subjective fear but also an objective fear. This requires that they rebut the presumption of state protection and are “required to prove that they exhausted all the domestic avenues available to them before without success before claiming refugee status in Canada” (Hinzman at paragraph 46).

    [46] Consequently, the RPD was correct in finding that the stateless Applicants must have exhausted all domestic avenues in order to establish that they have a well founded fear of persecution in one of their countries of former habitual residence.

    Однако дальше я не понял почему они должны доказывать что в США испробовали все варианты легализации, это потому что они указали США в своем заявлении как страну агрессора [44],[46]?

    И почему вариант "что посилиш в имиграционной тюрьме" возможно год, а потом тебе дадут разрешение на работу это тоже приподноситься RPD как вариант, а не как приследование!


    Did the RPD err in finding that the Applicants had failed to exhaust all avenues of state protection in the United States before coming to Canada?


    [47] In light of Dunsmuir, Cervantes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 680 (CanLII), [2008] F.C.J. No. 848 (QL) at paragraph 7 and Ruiz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 337 (CanLII), [2009] F.C.J. No. 392 (QL) at paragraphs 22 to 26, the standard of review for the Board's assessments of the adequacy and availability of state protection is reasonableness. In applying this standard of review, the Court examines “the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir at paragraph 47).

    [48] The Applicants argue that they have indeed exhausted all relevant avenues of domestic protection available to them.

    [49] In the case of Ms. Dubrovskaia, she argues that she cannot seek a new visa as her first application was misplaced and her U.S.S.R. passport has expired making it impossible for her to make a new visa application. Accordingly, she contends that there are no other avenues open to her.

    [50] Mr. Popov advances that pursuing any further domestic avenues will not assuage the fear that there is a risk that he will be returned to prison and, based on the ineptitude that he has already witnessed, he could be detained for an excessive period of time.

    [51] Furthermore, Mr. Popov argues that the steps that he has already taken are sufficient and that he has exhausted all reasonable avenues open to him. He also underlines that the RPD recognized that due to the nature of his case, it is difficult to determine whether he would actually succeed in his appeals if returned to the United States.

    [52] The Respondent alleges that while the United States do not have an obligation to provide protection to stateless individuals, this protection is in fact provided. In this case, the Applicants have not exhausted all relevant domestic avenues available to them as demonstrated by their ongoing legal proceedings.

    [53] The RPD concluded that the Applicants had not exhausted all avenues of domestic protection. In reaching that conclusion, the RPD not only identified the mechanisms of state protection open to the Applicants and that they had called upon but also identified the remaining avenues open to the Applicants.

    [54] The reasons provided by the RPD are complete and provide a justification for the conclusion reached. The RPD decision is reasonable and justified based on the law and the facts of the case.
    Last edited by Otec; 01-17-2019 at 11:24 PM.

  3. #83
    Forum Master Otec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Пол
    Мужской
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    X (Re), 2015 CanLII 105602 (CA IRB)

    [60] The RPD noted well-established law that a state is presumed capable of protecting its citizens, and that it is for a refugee claimant to provide clear and convincing evidence of the state’s inability to protect. The panel correctly noted that while the test for such protection is one of adequacy, state protection must be effective to be considered adequate.

    [62] ... The Appellant argues that, while the RPD acknowledged that she is stateless, it erred in requiring her to nevertheless rebut the presumption of state protection. She points out that Section 96(b) of IRPA, which deals with stateless individuals, makes no reference to state protection, and submits that it therefore was a fundamental error of law for the RPD to engage in a state protection analysis. She cites the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Thabet, which notes that in the case of stateless claimants, the question of protection does not arise, as persons who are stateless “are without recourse to state protection.”

    [63] It is helpful here to review the purpose of the state protection provisions in IRPA. In Ward, the Supreme Court endorsed the presumption of state protection, and explained, “Although this presumption increases the burden on the claimant, it does not render illusory Canada's provision of a haven for refugees. The presumption serves to reinforce the underlying rationale of international protection as a surrogate, coming into play where no alternative remains to the claimant. Refugee claims were never meant to allow a claimant to seek out better protection than that from which he or she benefits already.”

    [64] The UNHCR Handbook explains, “Whenever the protection of the country of nationality is available, and there is no ground based on well-founded fear for refusing it, the person concerned is not in need of international protection and is not a refugee.

    [65] It seems clear, both from Canadian jurisprudence and the UNHCR’s guidance, that Canada’s protection is a surrogate which is to be offered where there is no alternative protection available to the refugee claimant.

    [66] Prior to June of 2002, refugee protection in Canada was determined on the basis of the Immigration Act.[44] Claims for protection were assessed on the basis of Convention grounds. When the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into force in June of 2002, it provided “complementary protection;” that is, it offered Canada’s protection not only to Convention refugees, but also to “persons in need of protection,” as set out in Section 97.

    [67] While Section 96—which is based on the refugee Convention—does not consider the issue of state protection for stateless claimants, Section 97 is different. Referring both to nationals and to those who do not have a country of nationality, Section 97 offers protection to those who face a risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and “is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.”
    Они добавили в 2002 пункт 97 "Лицо нуждающееся в защите" и это равным счетом распространяется на беженцев с гражданством и лиц без гражданства.

    Quote Originally Posted by Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
    Convention refugee

    96 A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion,

    (a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or
    (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country.

    Person in need of protection

    97 (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally

    (a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or
    (b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
    (i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,

    (ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country,

    (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and

    (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.

    Person in need of protection
    (2) A person in Canada who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations as being in need of protection is also a person in need of protection.

    [70] In the RAD’s view, the Appellant’s status in Israel is important. It seems apparent that the UNHCR Handbook considers “stateless” as those persons with no country to which they can return: “In the case of a stateless refugee, the question of ‘availment of protection’ of the country of his former habitual residence does not, of course, arise. Moreover, once a stateless person has abandoned the country of his former habitual residence for the reasons indicated in the definition, he is usually unable to return.”

    [71] While the Appellant here may technically be stateless, in the sense that she does not hold citizenship of Israel or any other country, she does not fit the description in the Handbook, or even in Thabet, which describes stateless persons as those without recourse to state protection. To put it simply, she does have access to state protection. The evidence before the RPD and the RAD does not establish that Israel refuses to provide protection to permanent residents. When the Appellant was sexually harassed and did not report this to the police, it was not because of her lack of citizenship, but because of her parents’ belief that such reporting would be futile.

    [72] In the RAD’s view, the Appellant is not entitled to Canada’s surrogate protection if alternative protection is available to her. The application of state protection to her claim does not arise out of the language of Section 96(b), but rather out of Section 96 itself. That provision requires that a Convention refugee have a “well-founded fear of persecution.”

    [73] This matter is somewhat similar to that heard by the Federal Court in Vetcels. There the applicants were non-citizen residents of Latvia, and the RPD rejected their claims on the basis of state protection. They argued to the Federal Court, as the Appellant submits to the RAD, that Section 96(b) does not include the principle of state protection. The Court upheld the RPD’s finding and dismissed the application for judicial review.

    [74] The Court relied upon an earlier decision, Popov, which also discussed the position of a stateless person with respect to state protection. That judgement, which also considered Thabet, made a link between state protection and the well-foundedness of a fear of persecution: “…they must prove not only a subjective fear but also an objective fear." This requires that they rebut the presumption of state protection and are "required to prove that they exhausted all the domestic avenues available to them before without success before claiming refugee status in Canada" (Hinzman at paragraph 46).”

    [75] The evidence does not establish that Israel is unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection to permanent residents such as the Appellant. To establish that her fear of persecution is well-founded, the Appellant must prove an objective basis for that fear. To prove that her fear has such objective basis, she must rebut the presumption of state protection.

    [76] For these reasons, it was not an error for the RPD to consider the issue of state protection in the determination of the Appellant’s refugee claim.
    Last edited by Otec; 01-18-2019 at 02:12 AM.

  4. #84
    Forum Master Otec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Пол
    Мужской
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    места в прошлом посте не хватило продолжаю.

    В общем в 2002 году Канада выпустила новый пункт 97 к закону об имиграции по который распространяется на беженцев с гражданством и на беженцев без гражданства.
    Защита Канады предосталяется только в виде замещения защиты родной страны беженца в случае если его страна не может предоставить ему соответствующую защиту.
    Беженец даже без гражданства должед доказывать что его страна не в состоянии или не желает предоставить ему защиту.

    Вывод, несмотря на то что Канада подписала

    • Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951г
    • Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961г
    • Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1967г (США подписала только это)

    процесс и основания для полит. убежища в Канаде ничем не отличается от аналогичного процесса в США.



    Постом выше в пункте [64], [70] и [71] упоминалось руководство UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, U.N. Doc. HCR/IP/4/Eng/REV.1 (1992). или версия 2011г.

    Оба этих руководства в этих пунктах идентичны

    Quote Originally Posted by [64]
    (5) “and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”

    ...

    100. The term unwilling refers to refugees who refuse to accept the protection of the Government of the country of their nationality.12 It is qualified by the phrase “owing to such fear”. Where a person is willing to avail himself of the protection of his home country, such willingness would normally be incompatible with a claim that he is outside that country “owing to well-founded fear of persecution”. Whenever the protection of the country of nationality is available, and there is no ground based on well-founded fear for refusing it, the person concerned is not in need of international protection and is not a refugee.

    12 UN Document E/1618, p. 39.
    Quote Originally Posted by [70]
    (6) “or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”

    101. This phrase, which relates to stateless refugees, is parallel to the preceding phrase, which concerns refugees who have a nationality. In the case of stateless refugees, the “country of nationality” is replaced by “the country of his former habitual residence”, and the expression “unwilling to avail himself of the protection...” is replaced by the words “unwilling to return to it”. In the case of a stateless refugee, the question of “availment of protection” of the country of his former habitual residence does not, of course, arise. Moreover, once a stateless person has abandoned the country of his former habitual residence for the reasons indicated in the definition, he is usually unable to return.


    UN Document E/1618, p. 39.

    Last edited by Otec; 01-18-2019 at 03:01 AM.

  5. #85
    Forum Hero Iteky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The UK
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    Вы грамотный и не глупый чел и я уверен , что вы найдёте свой вариант решения и страну где ваша позиция была бы выйгрышной при этом использовав все варианты в США. Ваше дело и ваш выбор помните только , что Эстония это Эвросоюз и профессия у вас не из последних естьи Австралия и Китай и Новая Зеландия и даже Болгария где вы могли бы преуспеть , но ваш статус сейчас , вот по моему скромному мнению , унизителен и недопустим.

    Комрад мой , решайте это гаффно скорей , время только уходит , а с ним и жизнь , но в одном я могу вам помочь . в смысле есть такое мышление и оно даже более важно чем всё остальное. Удачи...


  6. #86
    *просто сказка* Манюня's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    В ежoвых рукaвицах
    Posts
    111,014

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    кому вы тут все эти трактаты пишите, простите?
    oмайгад

  7. #87
    Forum member XCNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    НЮWORK CITY
    Posts
    63,931

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    Quote Originally Posted by Манюня View Post
    кому вы тут все эти трактаты пишите, простите?
    они сами хотят разобраться во всём этом американском законодательстве иммиграционом,ну типа денег сэканомим и мы сами с усами))
    Иммиграцыя-это попытка послать себя подальше

  8. #88
    Forum Hero Iteky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The UK
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    Quote Originally Posted by Манюня View Post
    кому вы тут все эти трактаты пишите, простите?

    - Прощаю , - это вы меня спрашиваете или интересуетесь ?

  9. #89
    *просто сказка* Манюня's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    В ежoвых рукaвицах
    Posts
    111,014

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    я пытаюсь понять что движет людьми которые строчат вон те простыни как на докладе
    саме себе че то доказывают, приводят ссылки на прецеденты
    странно это всё
    oмайгад

  10. #90
    Forum Hero Iteky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    The UK
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: Нет страны для возвращения?

    Quote Originally Posted by Манюня View Post
    я пытаюсь понять что движет людьми которые строчат вон те простыни как на докладе
    саме себе че то доказывают, приводят ссылки на прецеденты
    странно это всё
    Вот послушайте , пардн , а зачем вам понимать это ? Не лучше ли пройти мимо .............................. - нет?

    Кому есть интерес тот почитывает , ведь у адекватных людей нема полемики по вкусу и цвету ........... нет ?

    Я вот , к примеру , не имею контактов на этом форуме и вообще по жизни с теме кто мне вот " ПОРОВНУ " это же так просто и понятно и справедливо. Мне моё время дорого и я делаю и пишу то , что мне по кайфу ведь культура это талант не напрягать любых людей. Вот призадумайтесь об этом , без обидд и пыли...

    Это вам на память от меня постороннего :


    Не связывайся с людьми, которые тебе не нужны изначально. Вот , никогда не вкладывайся в тех кому достаточно дать денег.

    Не вступай в контакт с агрессивными и подозрительными субъектами , не вздумай даже к ним подходить или смотреть в их сторону.

    Не наживай себе врага до тех пор пока не сможешь его уничтожить , не имей никаких дел с простаками , дураками и низкими людьми - вот никогда и всегда уступай им дорогу.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russian America Top. Рейтинг ресурсов Русской Америки. Terms of Service | Privacy Policy Рейтинг@Mail.ru