My wife was falsely accused of working in Canada without a visa and then wrongfully found guilty of doing so on the basis of anonymous statements written in broken English by functionally illiterate officers. I do not refer to them as functionally illiterate withthe iintent to offend, but we must call a spade a spade.The report was saturated with grammatical, orthographic, and even serious lexical errors making it difficult to even decypher parts of it! This is in addition to logical incongruencies in the report.
The first judge, referring to the officers, exclaimed at one point, probably in awe: 'How could they have been so wrong!?' He swiftly decided in My wife's favour, stating in his decision that, given the problems with the report, the Minister's counsel (who had resisted sharing the names of the officers saying that my wife's counsel would need to go through the Access to Information Act to get their names and who then had the audacity, when my wife's counsel retracted her request for expediency, to claim that my wife's counsel could no longer question the content of the report as a result of her retraction) could have called an officer as a witness to explain its content.
The CBSA appealed.
Shockingly, the second judge was not even aware of some of the content of the report that he ought to have read until my wife's counsel pointed it out to him.
Even more shockingly, he appeared to have totally misunderstood the first judge's words. He claimed that when the first judge asked 'How could they have been so wrong?!,' he revealed doubt about my wife's claims and so should have expected her to answe that question. A basic high-school-level linguistic analysis of the question shows that the word 'how' at the beginning of the question indicates that the first judge was probably already at least starting to believe my wife and was simply exclaiming a rhetorical question in awe at the discovery, based on the available proof, that the officers had been so wrong. Furthermore, sutras the first judge logically recognized that he could not expect my wife to answer a question that an officer ought to answer, the appeal actually stated that the onus was on my wife to answerthat question.
Effectively, the appeal judge appears to have accepted the officer statements a priori as true based on an appeal to authority, failed to understand the statements and transcripts, failed to apply basic logic in his expectations of what my wife could answer, concluded.a priori that an officer could not possibly be so wrong in spite of the evidence, made a few other non sequiturs.
My wife then faced an excision order for one year. Since her first counsel said nothing more could be done, we began to prepare to leave Canada. The news affected some members of my , one who became angry at the system and another depressed. I myself was struck with depression.
When a friend found out, she referred us to another lawyer who said there was a solution on compassionate grounds. Though this gave us hope, we also learnt that we'd need to prove the genuineness of our marriage. Needless to say, after my observations of functionally illiterate officers and judges making decisions over our lives, I went into another emotional spiral. How do we.trust functional illiterates to make wise.decisions? Since we don't take many photos, wete in a bit of a panic. Luckily, as I dug through my electionics, I did find some along with s treasure trove of e-mail receipts, flight itineraries and letters that I thought I'd deleted long ago.
Still distrustful of their competence, I'm still digging through everything I have. My fad joked that maybe.we should offer to have sex in the interview room as a demonstration.
I've had to see a physician and take more than a week off work and lost my apostate for a short time because if this.
Are immigration officials not aware of the psychological impact that not only their actions but even their demonstrations of competence can have on the mental health of Canadian spouses especially after witnessing a functionally illiterate judge finding a person guilty on the basis of an anonymous report written in broken English filled with incongruities?
His are we ti trust such an unpredictable system? And if we can.t trust in the system's competence if even functional literacy then how can we feel at ease when forced ti put our lives in their hands?
The first judge, referring to the officers, exclaimed at one point, probably in awe: 'How could they have been so wrong!?' He swiftly decided in My wife's favour, stating in his decision that, given the problems with the report, the Minister's counsel (who had resisted sharing the names of the officers saying that my wife's counsel would need to go through the Access to Information Act to get their names and who then had the audacity, when my wife's counsel retracted her request for expediency, to claim that my wife's counsel could no longer question the content of the report as a result of her retraction) could have called an officer as a witness to explain its content.
The CBSA appealed.
Shockingly, the second judge was not even aware of some of the content of the report that he ought to have read until my wife's counsel pointed it out to him.
Even more shockingly, he appeared to have totally misunderstood the first judge's words. He claimed that when the first judge asked 'How could they have been so wrong?!,' he revealed doubt about my wife's claims and so should have expected her to answe that question. A basic high-school-level linguistic analysis of the question shows that the word 'how' at the beginning of the question indicates that the first judge was probably already at least starting to believe my wife and was simply exclaiming a rhetorical question in awe at the discovery, based on the available proof, that the officers had been so wrong. Furthermore, sutras the first judge logically recognized that he could not expect my wife to answer a question that an officer ought to answer, the appeal actually stated that the onus was on my wife to answerthat question.
Effectively, the appeal judge appears to have accepted the officer statements a priori as true based on an appeal to authority, failed to understand the statements and transcripts, failed to apply basic logic in his expectations of what my wife could answer, concluded.a priori that an officer could not possibly be so wrong in spite of the evidence, made a few other non sequiturs.
My wife then faced an excision order for one year. Since her first counsel said nothing more could be done, we began to prepare to leave Canada. The news affected some members of my , one who became angry at the system and another depressed. I myself was struck with depression.
When a friend found out, she referred us to another lawyer who said there was a solution on compassionate grounds. Though this gave us hope, we also learnt that we'd need to prove the genuineness of our marriage. Needless to say, after my observations of functionally illiterate officers and judges making decisions over our lives, I went into another emotional spiral. How do we.trust functional illiterates to make wise.decisions? Since we don't take many photos, wete in a bit of a panic. Luckily, as I dug through my electionics, I did find some along with s treasure trove of e-mail receipts, flight itineraries and letters that I thought I'd deleted long ago.
Still distrustful of their competence, I'm still digging through everything I have. My fad joked that maybe.we should offer to have sex in the interview room as a demonstration.
I've had to see a physician and take more than a week off work and lost my apostate for a short time because if this.
Are immigration officials not aware of the psychological impact that not only their actions but even their demonstrations of competence can have on the mental health of Canadian spouses especially after witnessing a functionally illiterate judge finding a person guilty on the basis of an anonymous report written in broken English filled with incongruities?
His are we ti trust such an unpredictable system? And if we can.t trust in the system's competence if even functional literacy then how can we feel at ease when forced ti put our lives in their hands?
