Immigration Admissibility hearings. Defence tips.

We talked in the previous article about how relaxed and informal rules in these types of proceedings in the Immigration Division can harm the case of those who are subject to those hearings. The counsel must implement their knowledge, wisdom and art of persuasion to put  doubt on the Minister’s Counsel (the immigration officials who bring the matter to the Tribunal and act to prove that the person concerned is an inadmissible class in Canada (a foreigner or a permanent resident). No doubt that the adjudicator will be vigilant in regards to evidence that came from unknown sources, or affidavits of persons who do not possess an expert’s knowledge, but the counsel representing the “person concerned” (foreign nationals and permanent residents who are seemed to be inadmissible are referred as such) should be prepared to challenge any evidence that looks unreliable. For example, any evidence coming from a foreign country. The counsel must raise the question of inability to cross-examine (ask questions) to the author of that article or information presented into evidence. What if the evidence is coming from the media? Is it reliable? Even though the Tribunal is given several articles of the same information, the counsel must ask the question of whether that material proves the fact that the person is inadmissible or serves only as a contributory factor in assisting the adjudicator in making the right decision. The counsel’s duty is to demonstrate that some articles from the media are based on hearsay (the author heard about the fact from an unknown person or persons), or it does not contain any references to original sources of information. Even though some articles which are used in the proceedings contain the same idea/ information, the counsel must do a close examination of them and possibly find that the information in those articles came from only a single source, and that source supplies correct information of public knowledge. Information that comes from high ranking officials could be considered as reliable, whereas statements from an adverse party should be given lesser value, and potentially no value at all because it is in the interest of an adversary to smear the opposing party and/or lie on facts. It is interesting that in one of my proceedings before the Immigration Division (where I was counsel for the person concerned), the adjudicator dismissed all evidence coming from the prosecutor’s office because that office was located in the Former Soviet Union. The information was actually true, yet it was rejected altogether.