Our Firm > Archived Cases
Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell has extensive experience in complex immigration litigation and appellate advocacy. Members of our firm are available to attend in person and by video and telephone conference at immigration hearings and appeals throughout . The following is a sample of older decisions in cases where members of our firm appeared as counsel.
The case name is provided below where the proceeding was, by operation of law, a matter of public record.
TA3-17716, Refugee Protection Division (2005)
Client
The client was a refugee claimant from Moldova.
Background
The client made a refugee claim in Canada. Due to an oversight, she missed a deadline and her refugee claim was declared abandoned by the Refugee Protection Division. She retained Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell to apply for a re-opening of her claim.
Result
The application was granted, and her refugee claim was allowed to proceed.
Humanitarian & Compassionate Applicant (2005)
Client
A young family of four from Angola was fleeing political persecution.
Background
The family had made a refugee claim with another lawyer, and it was refused. They retained Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell to represent them. Mamann Sandaluk assisted them in filing a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application.
Result
The H&C application was approved by Immigration, and they were allowed to remain in Canada.
TA4-06602, Refugee Protection Division (2005)
Client
The client was a young woman from the Caribbean who had been living in Canada for five years prior to making a refugee claim.
Background
This young woman made a refugee claim in Canada after finding out that she did not have the status in Canada she had believed she held. Her case was based on the abuse she had suffered as a child from her father.
Result
Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell represented her at her refugee hearing. Following her hearing, she was granted refugee status and allowed to remain in Canada and apply for permanent residence.
Laurel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2005)
Client
The client and her children were citizens of the Philippines who had been landed in 1993, shortly after the death of the client's husband.
Background
The client had come to Canada with the intention of establishing a new life for herself and her children. Unfortunately, she was unable to find work and she realized quickly that she would not be able to support herself financially. She returned to the Philippines where she raised her family. In 2003, she was found to be in violation of her residency obligation by the visa post in the Philippines. She appealed the decision to the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Result
After considering the best interests of the children affected by the decision, the Board allowed the appeal, restoring the client's permanent resident status.
Nguyen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2005)
Client
The client was a permanent resident of Canada who had married a woman from Vietnam.
Background
The client's wife was denied admission to Canada because a visa officer believed their marriage to be one of convenience.
Result
After an Alternative Dispute Resolution conference, Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell was able to persuade the Minister to consent to the client's appeal, thereby permitting his wife to come to Canada.
Trehan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Appeal Division (2005)
Client
The client was a permanent resident of Canada who had been deemed to have violated her residency obligation.
Background
After living in Canada briefly, the client returned to India with her husband, a Canadian citizen. While in India, a visa officer determined that she had breached her residency obligation, thereby losing her permanent resident status. Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell represented the client before the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, which the client attended via teleconference.
Result
At the conclusion of the hearing, a Panel of the Appeal Division allowed the client appeal in both law and equity.
Mali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Federal Court of Canada (2004)
Client
The clients were a family of three from Albania, fleeing political persecution.
Background
The clients' refugee claims were denied by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell represented them in their appeal to the Federal Court of Canada.
Result
The appeal was allowed.
Client ID 5281-8944, Appeal Division (2004)
Client
The client, a Canadian citizen, applied to sponsor her husband from Vietnam.
Background
The client had filed an application on her own to sponsor her husband from Vietnam. Her application was denied, and she retained Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell to assist her in an appeal. Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell represented her in her appeal to the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Result
The client's appeal was granted.
Court File No. IMM1616-03, Federal Court of Canada (2004)
Client
The client, a young gay male from Hungary suffering threats and abuse, fled to Canada to make a refugee claim.
Background
The client had retained previous counsel to represent him in his refugee claim, and his claim had been refused. He came to Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell to appeal the decision to the Federal Court. Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell won his appeal in Federal Court, and his claim was re-heard by the Refugee Protection Division.
Result
The Refugee Protection Division granted him refugee status, and he was allowed to remain in Canada.
TA2-01884, Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The client was a young man fleeing political persecution in Albania as a member of the Democratic Party.
Background
The client had participated in politics in Albania, and was threatened and attacked as a result. He fled to Canada and made a refugee claim. He retained previous counsel but he was not properly represented, and so he changed his counsel to Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell to represent him at his refugee hearing.
Result
The claimant was granted refugee status and allowed to remain in Canada.
Client ID 5161-6493, Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The client was a woman fleeing years of domestic violence in Russia.
Background
The client had suffered from decades of domestic abuse at the hands of her husband in Russia. She escaped him and flew to Canada, retaining Mamann, Sandaluk & Kingwell to represent her in her refugee claim.
Result
The client was granted refugee status and allowed to remain in Canada.
Client ID 4146-6614, Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The clients were a family of five Shia Muslims fleeing religious persecution in Pakistan.
Background
The claimants had fled religious persecution in Pakistan. They came to Canada, and Mamann Sandaluk represented them in their refugee claims.
Result
The clients were granted refugee status and allowed to remain in Canada.
Client ID 5207-6101, Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The clients were a young mother and her three young children who had fled domestic abuse in South Korea, and made refugee claims in Canada.
Background
The clients had fled years of severe domestic abuse in South Korea. They arrived in Canada and retained Mamann Sandaluk to assist them in making refugee claims.
Result
The clients were granted refugee status and allowed to remain in Canada.
Sheikh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2004)
Client
The clients were a family from Pakistan who were being deported from Canada for misrepresentation.
Background
The clients had emigrated from Pakistan to Canada, and upon arrival, were ordered deported for misrepresentation. The fought their case for several years with another counsel before retaining Mamann Sandaluk to represent them in their admissibility hearing.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully negotiated with the Minister to withdraw the deportation proceedings, and the family was allowed to remain in Canada.
TA3-06787, Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The client was a young man who had fled political persecution in Iran.
Background
The client had escaped from Iran and first gone to the United States, where he had made an asylum claim. The claim was refused, and so he fled to Canada and retained Mamann Sandaluk to represent him in a refugee claim.
Result
The client was granted refugee status.
TA1-13739, Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The clients were a young family of four from Costa Rica, who had fled to Canada and made refugee claims.
Background
The father of the family had been forced to testify against a criminal gang. As a result, he had been threatened by them and forced to flee the country, coming to Canada. His wife and two children soon followed. They made refugee claims in Canada.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented them in their refugee claims. At the conclusion of their hearing, they were granted refugee status and allowed to remain in Canada.
Karjohn v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2004)
Client
The client had been landed in Canada as a young child. As a youth he began getting in trouble with the law and over the course of 17 years, he amassed a criminal record which included 22 (mostly not serious) convictions. He also developed a serious drug addiction.
Background
In the past four years, the client had made substantial efforts as rehabilitation. He was in recovery from his drug addiction and he had married and started a family. He had also stayed out of trouble with the police for nearly five years.
Result
Following a joint submission by the parties, the Board granted a four year stay of deportation.
TA3-12406 Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The client had converted from the Sunni (majority) sect of Islam to the Shia (minority) sect. After his conversion, the client was harassed and threatened with death physically attacked.
Background
The client had fled Pakistan years ago and stayed illegally in the United States for many years, only traveling to Canada when he began to fear for his safety in that country.
Result
After a hearing at which he was represented by Mamann Sandaluk, the client's refugee claim was granted by the Board.
Yu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2004)
Client
The client was a Canadian citizen who had married a Chinese national after being introduced by a mutual friend.
Background
The visa officer in Hong Kong refused the husband's application for permanent residence because she felt that the client and her husband were not in a "genuine spousal relationship."
Result
After a lengthy Alternative Dispute Resolution meeting, counsel for the Minister of Immigration consented to the client's appeal.
Abella v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2004)
Client
The client was a citizen of the Philippines who, along with her husband, had assumed a parental role for her eldest grandson because his parents were unable to provide for him. Eventually, the client formally adopted her grandson.
Background
When the client attempted to sponsor her adopted child to Canada, the application was refused because the adoption had not "created a genuine parent-child relationship." This decision was appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division.
Result
After a hearing where the client was represented by Mamann Sandaluk, her appeal was allowed and the decision refusing her son admission to Canada was quashed.
TA3-05203, Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The client was a member of the Shia sect of Islam, which is a minority in Pakistan.
Background
The client had been involved in a substantial amount of outreach work with his Shia religious community. When his tutoring program began to attract children of the Sunni sect, he became the target of radical elements of the Sunni sect. He had been harassed, threatened, and physically attacked as a result of the position he held in his community.
Result
After a lengthy hearing at which the client was represented by Mamann Sandaluk, the Refugee Protection Division granted the client's claim to refugee status.
Quaye v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2004)
Client
The client was a citizen of Ghana who had been brought to Canada by her uncle (who lied on her application) with the expectation that she would work and give all of her money to him.
Background
The client left her uncle's home and began to work for herself. A short while thereafter, she began to attend University in Ottawa, where she obtained a bachelor's degree and met her future husband. The client and her husband moved to Toronto where both work in the high-tech industry. Meanwhile, the client's uncle admitted to his fraud and attempted to have her deported.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the client before the Appeal Division and was able to win an order allowing her appeal and quashing her removal order. The client has recently been granted Canadian citizenship.
Fabian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court (2004)
Client
The client, allegedly a former gang leader, was found to be a danger to the public of Canada, which permitted the Government of Canada to remove him to a country where he fears persecution.
Background
Mamann Sandaluk represented the client in a judicial review, challenging the minister's opinion that he represented a danger to the public of Canada. Mamann Sandaluk had already won an interim order staying the execution of the client's deportation order.
Result
A Federal Court judge allowed the application, quashing the Danger Opinion issued against the client.
Jones v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2004)
Client
The client was formerly a green card holder of the United States; he was deported from that country for committing criminal offences.
Background
The client had entered Canada and shortly thereafter, he had met a Canadian single mother with whom he began a romantic relationship. The client's relationship with the family became very close and with hard work the family was able to buy a house and move to a better neighbourhood, where their children flourished. Unfortunately, the client's application for landing as a member of the family class was refused, due to his criminal record.
Result
After a lengthy hearing, the client's appeal was granted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
Yehia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2004)
Client
The client, who was born in Lebanon, immigrated to Canada in 1976. As a youth he developed a serious drug addiction.
Background
After being ordered deported from Canada in 1990 (the order was quashed in 1995 following a stay of deportation), the client was convicted of additional criminal offences. However, since the time that he had re-offended, the client had taken substance abuse counseling and re-established his relationship with his family.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully represented the client before the Immigration Appeal Division. After a lengthy hearing, the Tribunal ordered that the deportation order against the claimant be stayed for a period of six years.
TA1-22387, TA2-13983, Refugee Protection Division (2004)
Client
The client is a Tanzanian national who had lived in the United States for many years. She also has a young daughter.
Background
Because she is a lesbian, the client feared returning to Tanzania due to the fact that she would be persecuted as a result of her sexual orientation. She made a refugee claim in Canada on behalf of herself and her daughter.
Result
At the conclusion of their hearing before the Refugee Protection Division, both the client and her daughter received an order granting them refugee status in Canada.
Woodbine v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Woodbine is a permanent resident of Canada who suffers from schizophrenia.
Background
The claimant was hours away from removal when Mamann Sandaluk negotiated with counsel for the Minister to defer the execution of the removal order so that a motion to reopen his appeal could be considered.
Result
The appeal was ultimately reopened and the deportation order against Mr. Woodbine was quashed, restoring all of his rights as a permanent resident.
TA1-21631, Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
A Zimbabwe national applied for refugee status in Canada.
Background
The client feared that he would suffer persecution as a result of his "Asian" ethnicity.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the Zimbabwe national at a hearing before the Refugee Board and his claim for refugee status was granted.
Rasa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Immigration Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Rasa is a Convention refugee from Sri Lanka who had been convicted of a number of criminal offences.
Background
Following the completion of his sentence, Mr. Rasa continued to be detained by Canadian immigration authorities and spent almost four years in custody. Numerous attempts to secure his release were unsuccessful because immigration officials alleged that he was the leader of a Tamil gang and therefore, a danger to the Canadian public.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Rasa at a hearing where the immigration adjudicator found that he was not a danger to the public. Furthermore, the adjudicator found that Mr. Rasa could be trusted to abide by the terms and conditions of his release and ordered him to be released from Immigration custody.
TA0-13084, Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
An Ahmadi Muslim from Pakistan claimed refugee status. He was afraid of persecution in his country because of his religious beliefs.
Background
The claimant had lived in the U.K. for some time where he made a refugee claim but it was denied. When he came to Canada, he once again, claimed refugee status.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the Ahmadi Muslim who was found to be a Convention refugee despite his previous failed claim in the U.K.
Jetha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Jetha attempted to sponsor his wife to immigrate to Canada.
Background
The application for sponsorship was refused because the Minister believed that the marriage was entered into for immigration purposes.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Jetha at the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and his appeal was allowed
TA1-03347 (Refugee Division) Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
A Zimbabwe national claimed refugee status in Canada.
Background
The client was afraid to return to Zimbabwe because "ex-combatants" sponsored by the Mugabe government had persecuted him.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully represented the Zimbabwe national who was granted Convention refugee status
Ritchie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Ritchie is a landed immigrant to Canada from Jamaica.
Background
Mr. Ritchie was ordered to be deported because he had been convicted of a number of offences.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Ritchie at his appeal and produced persuasive evidence that he had rehabilitated himself. At the conclusion of his deportation appeal, Mr. Ritchie was allowed to remain in Canada on certain terms and conditions
Nhem v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Nhem wanted to sponsor his wife from India to come to Canada.
Background
The application for sponsorship was denied by a visa officer outside of Canada.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Nhem at his appeal and the visa officer's refusal of his wife's sponsored application was set aside
Ragbir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Ragbir is a landed immigrant to Canada.
Background
Mr. Ragbir was ordered deported because he had been convicted of serious offences.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Ragbir at his deportation appeal, where he was granted a stay of deportation after successfully arguing that he had rehabilitated himself
IMM-1461-01, Federal Court - Trial Division (2001)
Client
Two young women fled from the Democratic Republic of Congo to Canada, escaping severe political persecution.
Background
Immigration ordered them excluded from Canada because they did not claim refugee status at the airport. They were also barred from making any future refugee claims.
Result
After difficult negotiations, Mamann Sandaluk convinced Canada Immigration to cancel the exclusion orders and allow the two young women to file refugee claims
Henry v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Henry is a permanent resident of Canada who had been convicted of a number of serious criminal offences.
Background
Mr. Henry was ordered to be deported and he remained in custody at the time of his deportation appeal.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Henry at his appeal hearing where he was granted a stay of deportation
Cheema v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Cheema attempted to sponsor his wife from India to Canada.
Background
The claimant's application was denied twice. A prior appeal where Mr. Cheema was represented by a different law firm had been denied as well.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Cheema at his second appeal and obtained an order allowing the sponsorship application
Rostas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Federal Court) (2002)
Client
Mr. and Mrs. Rostas and their two children from Hungary sought refugee status in Canada because they were members of the Roma ethnic minority group.
Background
Their claim for refugee status was denied by the Refugee Board.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the claimants in their application for a judicial review in Federal Court's Trial Division. The judge determined that the Immigration and Refugee Board had committed an error of jurisdiction by substituting one member of a two-member hearing panel without the consent of the claimants and therefore, the Board's decision was overturned.
TA1-16912, Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
A Chinese businessman claimed refugee status on the basis of his religion.
Background
The claimant was a victim of religious persecution because he practiced traditional fortune telling.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the Chinese businessman's claim and he was found to be a Convention refugee
TA1-16912, Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
A Chinese businessman claimed refugee status on the basis of his religion.
Background
The claimant was a victim of religious persecution because he practiced traditional fortune telling.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the Chinese businessman's claim and he was found to be a Convention refugee.
TA1-08911, Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
The claimant sought to reopen her claim for refugee status.
Background
The claimant had lost her refugee claim because she failed to attend an important hearing.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully re-opened her claim.
Mavani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Mavani is a landed immigrant to Canada.
Background
The client attempted to sponsor his son from India but the application was denied on financial grounds.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Mavani before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Minister consented to an order allowing the appeal.
Jakeer v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Although Mr. Jakeer had been convicted of numerous serious offences, he had rehabilitated himself.
Background
The claimant was ordered deported from Canada because he had been convicted of a number of serious criminal offences both in Canada and the United States.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Jakeer at a deportation appeal and was granted a stay of deportation.
TA1-08111, Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
A Zimbabwe male claimed Convention refugee status.
Background
The claimant had been persecuted because he supported the political opposition in his country.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the claimant before a panel of the Refugee Protection Division and he was found to be a Convention refugee.
TA1-12597, TA1-12598, TA1-12599, TA1-12600, Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
A family of four orphans from Angola applied for refugee status.
Background
The family's claim had already been denied by an earlier decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk helped the orphans bring a second claim to the Board, which determined that they were Convention refugees.
Stewart v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Stewart is a permanent resident of Canada who had been convicted of a number of criminal offences.
Background
Mr. Stewart was ordered deported because of his criminal record in Canada. He appealed the order with the assistance of an immigration consultant but a panel of the Appeal Division dismissed it, finding that he was not credible as a witness and was not well established in Canada.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully appealed on Mr. Stewart's behalf, resulting in an order by the Appeal Division staying the execution of his deportation order.
Najmi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Federal Court - Trial Division (2002)
Client
The Najmi family of five individuals from Pakistan claimed refugee status because they feared persecution from a militant religious group.
Background
The family's claim was denied because the Immigration and Refugee Board doubted the legitimacy of their claim.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the Najmi family's application for a judicial review in Federal Court and the family obtained an order, which quashed the Refugee Division's refusal of their claim.
Sikorski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Sikorski is a permanent resident of Canada and a citizen of Poland who had been convicted of a number of criminal offences including auto theft.
Background
Mr. Sikorski was ordered deported from Canada as a result of his criminal record.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Sikorski before the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and persuaded the tribunal to stay the execution of his deportation to allow their client to demonstrate that he had rehabilitated himself
TA1-03780 Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
A Lebanese male made a refugee claim because he feared for his life if he was forced to return to his country.
Background
The claimant had lived "in the closet" in Lebanon for many years and feared that he and members of his own family would be in danger if the government learned about his sexual orientation.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the claimant at his hearing and he was granted Convention refugee status because he was found to be a person in need of protection.
Blake v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court - Trial Division (2002)
Client
A Canadian woman attempted to sponsor her husband for landed immigrant status in Canada from inside Canada.
Background
Mr. Blake's application for landing, based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, was rejected by an immigration officer. The officer took into account the fact that a previous humanitarian application had been refused when a different spouse was sponsoring the client.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the couple at a judicial review of the decision. The Federal Court determined that the visa officer's decision was unreasonable because it was not based on the merits of the case before him. As a result, the Minister's decision to refuse the application was quashed. Following the Court's decision, Mr. Blake was approved in principle for landing in Canada.
TA1-11028, TA1-1102, TA1-05526, TA1-11027, and TA1-11028, Refugee Protection Division (2002)
Client
The refugee claimants included a husband and wife with two young children.
Background
The family claimed refugee status after being deported from the United States.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the family and they were granted Convention refugee status by a panel of the Refugee Division.
Delgado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Delgado is a permanent resident of Canada who had been convicted of importing approximately four kilos of cocaine into the United States and sentenced to 33 months in prison. Following his release from custody, he rehabilitated himself and was gainfully employed as a truck driver.
Background
Mr. Delgado was ordered deported from Canada because of his criminal record.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Delgado before the Appeal Division of the Immigration Refugee Board and he was granted a stay of deportation.
Charon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Charon is a 39-year-old Cuban who suffers from schizophrenia.
Background
Mr. Charon was ordered deported from Canada because of a number of criminal offences.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully argued the appeal on the basis that Mr. Charon's offences were a result of his mental illness and substance addictions. His deportation was stayed by order of the Appeal Division of the Immigration Refugee Board.
Laylor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Laylor is the father of a young Canadian boy who had been convicted of a number of assaults.
Background
Mr. Laylor was ordered deported because of his criminal record.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Laylor at his deportation appeal hearing and persuaded the Minister to agree to a stay of deportation.
Nguyen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Nguyen is a young man from Vietnam with a criminal record, which included convictions for break and enter, theft, and drug trafficking.
Background
Mr. Nguyen was ordered deported because of his criminal record. A month before his hearing, he relapsed from his drug treatment program and was taken back into custody.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully obtained Mr. Nguyen's release from immigration custody on the day before his hearing. The following day, Mamann Sandaluk argued his case before the Immigration Appeal Division and the execution of his deportation order was stayed.
Charon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2002)
Client
Mr. Charon is a 39-year-old Cuban who suffers from schizophrenia.
Background
Mr. Charon was ordered deported from Canada because of a number of criminal offences.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully argued the appeal on the basis that Mr. Charon's offences were a result of his mental illness and substance addictions. His deportation was stayed by order of the Appeal Division of the Immigration Refugee Board.
Morris v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Morris is a Jamaican national who had been ordered deported from Canada.
Background
Mr. Morris had been in Canada for many years. Although he had been convicted of a serious offence, his family provided strong support and was willing to assist in their son's rehabilitation.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Morris at his appeal hearing, where he was granted a stay of deportation and the opportunity to prove that he was successfully rehabilitated.
Yeung v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Yeung is a Chinese national and a recovering drug addict who was facing deportation from Canada
Background
Although Mr. Yeung had been convicted of a number of serious offences, he expressed a desire to undergo extensive drug counseling when released from custody. A hard worker, Mr. Yeung had already secured an offer of employment prior to his release from custody and he would be living with his family.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Yeung at his appeal hearing, where he was granted a stay of deportation.
TA1-02333, Refugee Protection Division (2003)
Client
The client is an Indian Tamil from Sri Lanka who claimed Convention refugee status in Canada on the basis that he would be persecuted if he returned to Sri Lanka.
Background
The client had been subjected to extortion by the police as well as by LTTE militants.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the client at a hearing where he was found to be in need of protection.
Traille v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Traille is a 22-year-old young man from Jamaica who was facing a deportation order.
Background
Mr. Traille had been convicted of serious offences while in Canada. Following his release from jail, he retuned home to his family and received support and assistance with his rehabilitation.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Traille before the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, and persuaded the tribunal to stay the execution of his deportation order to allow Mr. Traille demonstrate that he had rehabilitated himself.
TA2-04089, Refugee Protection Division (2003)
Client
After living in Canada for six years, a female national of the Philippines applied for permanent residence status.
Background
The claimant had retained a previous lawyer to represent her but the application was denied. She then claimed Convention refugee status because she feared persecution in her country due to her sexual orientation.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the claimant at a hearing where she was found to be in need of protection by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Pan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Immigration Division (2003)
Client
Ms. Pan, who was detained in jail by immigration officials, claimed Convention refugee status, alleging that she had come to Canada via a smuggling operation.
Background
Immigration officials wanted to keep the Ms. Pan detained because they believed that she would fail to report for removal from Canada if ordered to do so. Ms. Pan had hired other lawyers to represent her at several detention reviews without success but the Immigration Review Board refused to release her.
Result
When Mamann Sandaluk represented Ms. Pan at a hard-fought hearing by teleconference in Vancouver, she was ordered released from custody. A Canadian citizen posted a cash bond on her behalf and agreed to monitor her and make sure she complied with immigration officials.
Fabian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Federal Court - Trial Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Fabian is an alleged to be a Tamil gang leader and assassin.
Background
Mr. Fabian was found to be a danger to the Canadian public by an immigration official.
Result
During the course of an application for judicial review of the decision, Mamann Sandaluk sought an interim order from the Federal Court staying the execution of the deportation order pending the final disposition of the application for judicial review. The Federal Court granted the interim order for Mr. Fabian.
Seaton v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Ms. Seaton had a criminal history spanning 14 years that included numerous convictions for fraud and theft.
Background
Ms. Seaton was ordered deported after being convicted of an offence and given a 12-month prison sentence.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Ms. Seaton at her hearing and the execution of her deportation order was stayed because she had made serious attempts to rehabilitate herself and also had close family ties in Canada.
Ngo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Ng is a young man from Vietnam who had been ordered deported from Canada.
Background
Although Mr. Ngo had past criminal convictions, he had rehabilitated himself.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk helped to successfully reopen Mr. Ngo's appeal (which had been dismissed some years ago) and to obtain a stay of removal, which permitted him to remain in Canada.
Lu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Lu made an application to sponsor his wife and child who were still living in China.
Background
Immigration officials denied the application because Mr. Lu's mother, who he had previously sponsored, had received welfare.
Result
Mr. Lu entered into an agreement with the government for the repayment of all welfare monies received by his mother. Subsequently, Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Lu at the hearing of his sponsorship appeal, where his wife and child were permitted to come to Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
Din v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Din is a Vietnamese national who was facing a deportation order because he had been convicted of a number of serious criminal offences.
Background
Mr. Din had taken steps towards rehabilitation and he had the support of his family in Canada.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Mr. Din at his appeal and convinced the Appeal Division Immigration and Refugee Board that a stay of deportation was warranted in his case.
Williams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Federal Court - Trial Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Williams is a citizen of Nigeria who was found ineligible to claim refugee status in Canada because he misrepresented himself at the port of entry, claiming that he already had refugee status in another country.
Background
Mr. Williams was afraid of returning to Nigeria because he would face serious persecution, and possibly death by stoning due to his sexual orientation.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk successfully brought a motion to stay the execution of the Mr. Williams' deportation order in Federal Court
TA2-04785, Refugee Protection Division (2003)
Client
The claimant is a Turkish citizen who had claimed refugee status in Canada.
Background
The claimant had been imprisoned and tortured in Turkey because of his political opposition to the Turkish government.
Result
After a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division, the claimant was granted Convention refugee status in Canada.
Ata-Ayi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Ms. Ata-Ayi, is a Canadian resident who sponsored her daughter, an engineering student from Ghana.
Background
Immigration officials denied Ms. Ata-Ayi's application because her daughter was older than the regulations permitted at the time.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented Ms. Ata-Ayi at her appeal and her daughter was allowed to immigrate to Canada because there had been a recent change in the legislation regarding the age of dependents.
Sullivan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Appeal Division (2003)
Client
Mr. Sullivan is a permanent resident of Canada with a serious drug problem as well as a criminal record.
Background
The claimant, a crack addict for over ten years, was ordered deported after a number of serious criminal convictions.
Result
After enrolling in an intensive drug treatment program and showing significant improvement, Mr. Sullivan was granted a stay of deportation after a hearing before the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
TA2-12865, Refugee Protection Division (2003)
Client
A young man from Hungary claimed Convention refugee status. As a member of the Roma ethnic minority group, he feared persecution in his country.
Background
His claim had been declared abandoned by a panel of the Refugee Protection Division of Immigration and Refugee Board because he failed to comply with a filing deadline of his Personal Information Form.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk helped the young Hungarian youth bring forward a motion to reopen his claim, which was allowed by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
TA1-03308, Refugee Protection Division, 2003
Client
A female refugee claimant feared for her life if she was forced to return to her country.
Background
The claimant had been forced into sexual slavery by her family and was smuggled to Canada. She managed to escape from the massage parlor where she had been forced to work.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the claimant at the hearing, which resulted in an order granting her Convention refugee status in Canada
