Our Firm > Recent 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 recent 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.
IMM 1097-08, Federal Court (2008)
Client
The client's application was refused after finding that the applicant and her sponsor's first marriage was dissolved for the primary purpose of obtaining permanent resident status in Canada.
Background
The applicant and her sponsor were first married in their country of origin, Belarus, in 1979. The marriage dissolved in January, 2000, after which the sponsor entered into another marriage after living in a common-law relationship for 4 years. The sponsor and his new wife immigrated to Canada as independent immigrants in June, 2004. This second marriage deteriorated and the sponsor's wife returned home to Belarus.
The applicant arrived in Canada as a visitor in May, 2005, rekindled the relationship between her and her sponsor and were re-married in June, 2006. The sponsor subsequently filed an application to sponsor the applicant for permanent residence.
Result
The Officer mischaracterized the evidence by stating several times that the sponsor was sponsored to Canada by his second wife while in fact the couple immigrated to Canada as independent immigrants.
The Court concluded that the Officer committed a reviewable error, by ignoring important material facts that led to a mischaracterization of the means by which the applicant gained status and this error was such that it rendered his decision unreasonable. The judicial review was allowed, the decision was set aside and the matter was referred to another hearing.
Waweru v. Canada, Immigration Appeal Division 2008
Client
The client was a Canadian citizen who had been granted Convention refugee status in Canada after fleeing his homeland, Kenya, many years before.
Background
When this client made his permanent residence application in Canada, he referred to only one of his two children in his application for permanent residence. He did not refer to his daughter because she was in the custody of her mother whose whereabouts at that time were unknown. Although he did not list his daughter in his application for permanent residence, he did mention her to the immigration officer who interviewed him in Newfoundland.
Years later, when the client attempted to sponsor both his son and daughter, only the son was permitted to come to Canada because his daughter had not been examined prior to his landing and she was excluded from membership in the family class as a result.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the client at the hearing of his appeal of the visa officer’s decision to exclude the daughter. At the hearing, the Tribunal found that the client was truthful in describing the circumstances surrounding his disclosure of his daughter to an immigration officer in Newfoundland. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that although the client’s daughter had not been examined, the decision not to examine was made by the officer who examined the client and as such she was not excluded from the family class and the visa officer’s decision was quashed.
Yayeh v. Canada, Immigration Appeal Division 2008
Client
The client was a permanent resident of Canada and a citizen of Ethiopia who had been ordered deported for having been landed as a result of a material misrepresentation that she made to an immigration officer at a Port of Entry.
Background
The client had been granted permanent resident status in Canada as a dependent child of her mother, who had been sponsored by her elder brother. Despite the fact that she was an adult at the time of her landing, the client was nevertheless deemed to be a dependent by virtue of her age at the time her application for landing was filed and also in view of her marital status, which was “single” at the time of the application.
Worrying that she would lose her boyfriend, the client married him a few weeks before she traveled to Canada in order to be landed. Given her inability to speak English, the client did not explain her change in marital status to the immigration officer who executed her immigrant visa.
Later, after she attempted to sponsor her husband to Canada as a member of the family class, the client’s misrepresentation was detected by immigration and she was ordered deported by a Panel of the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Mamann Sandaluk represented her at an appeal of the exclusion order.
Result
After a lengthy hearing before the Appeal Division, a Panel Member of the Appeal Division held that despite the fact she had been landed due to a material misrepresentation, the client should not be deported from Canada due to the humanitarian and compassionate circumstances that existed in her case and especially in view of the best interests of her two children who were born in Canada.
Behm v. Canada, Immigration Appeal Division 2008
Background
Client is a Canadian citizen who attempted to sponsor his American citizen spouse to Canada but whose application was denied because during the course of the divorce proceedings from his previous spouse, he had pleaded guilty to the offence of assault with a weapon.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the clients during the course of the hearing of their appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division. After extensive preparation and negotiations with the Minister prior to the appeal hearing, and following a brief proceeding before the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Minister consented to the appeal being allowed.
Lennon v. MCI, Immigration Appeal Division, 2008
The client is a Canadian citizen who had been involved in a lengthy long distance relationship with a Jamaican citizen.
Background
Following her boyfriend’s retirement, the client decided to sponsor him to Canada as a member of the family class, specifically a conjugal partner.
The client’s boyfriend was interviewed in Kingston by an officer who did not believe that their relationship met the definition of a conjugal partner relationship within the meaning of the Act.
Client appealed the decision to the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board and was represented by Mamann Sandaluk.
Result
Following an Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference, the client was able to persuade the counsel for the Minister that her relationship with her boyfriend was a genuine relationship and that it did meet the criteria established for a conjugal partner relationship. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed on consent.
Manalo v. MCI, Immigration Appeal Division 2008
The client is a Canadian citizen who sponsored her father to come to Canada in order to be with herself and her son.
Background
The client’s application to sponsor her father to Canada was denied by the visa post in Manila, which found that he was criminally inadmissible as a result of a homicide in the Philippines with which he had been charged but never convicted.
The client appealed this decision to the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board where Mamann Sandaluk represented her. Early in the process, Mamann Sandaluk made detailed submissions explaining that notwithstanding the question of inadmissibility, it was not appropriate in all of the circumstances of the case to dismiss the appeal and that the client’s father should be permitted to enter Canada based on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds.
Result
After reviewing Mamann Sandaluk’s submissions, counsel for the Minister determined that he did not wish to contest the appeal and consented to the appeal being allowed. Accordingly, an order was rendered by the Appeal Division in chambers allowing the client’s appeal and permitting her father to come to Canada.
Taye v. Canada, Immigration Appeal Division, 2008
The client is permanent resident in Canada who was granted permanent resident status and who discovered only after he had been landed in Canada that his former girlfriend had given birth to his child prior top his being granted permanent resident status.
Background
Following this revelation, the client renewed his relationship with his girlfriend and eventually they were married. Following their marriage, the client attempted to sponsor his wife and child to Canada but the sponsorship was denied because the existence of the child had not been disclosed to immigration at the time that the client was landed.
Furthermore, the Minister sought and obtained a removal order against the client for having been landed as a result of a material misrepresentation.
The client appealed both the refusal of his wife’s application for permanent residence as well as the issuance of a removal order against him before the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented him at both of his appeals. After combining the two appeals into a single proceeding, Mamann Sandaluk was able to persuade the Tribunal to allow both the appeals with the consent of the Minister.
Accordingly, the client’s removal order was quashed at the same time as the decision denying his wife and child admission to Canada as members of the family class was also quashed.
Sadykhov v. Canada, Immigration Division 2007
Client
The client was a former permanent resident of Canada who had been ordered deported as a result of having committed numerous serious criminal offences.
Background
Mamann Sandaluk was retained in this matter well after the client had been ordered deported and after he had completed serving his sentence in connection with a number of serious criminal charges including Trafficking in a Controlled Substance, Weapons Trafficking, and Possession of Counterfeit Currency. While in custody at various federal penitentiaries, the client was convicted of a number of institutional offences and had spent a substantial amount of time in solitary confinement. He was also implicated in various criminal organizations which were responsible for the intra prison drug trade.
Despite the fact that he was inadmissible to Canada, the only conceivable country to which he could be removed was Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, the Government of Azerbaijan was of the view that the client was not a citizen of Azerbaijan. As a result, the government of Azerbaijan flatly refused to issue him a travel document.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented this client in a detention review hearing before the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. After a lengthy hearing, the client was released from custody on strict terms and conditions.
Balavizadeh v. Canada, Immigration Appeal Division 2007
Client
The client is a Canadian citizen who attempted to sponsor her parents to come to Canada. But their application was denied because her two adult brothers, both of whom were dependent upon their mother, were medically inadmissible because of severe disabilities from which they suffer.
Background
The client sponsored her mother and father to Canada many years before and their application languished at the visa office in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad. The reason that the application for permanent residence was ultimately denied was because the client’s two adult brothers both suffered from various mental disorders, and neither brother was capable of caring himself had the effect of rendering their mother inadmissible to Canada for having inadmissible family members.
The procedure for sponsoring the client’s parents to Canada became so lengthy that eventually her father died of natural causes in the process. Ultimately, the application was denied and the client appealed the decision. She was represented at her appeal by Mamann Sandaluk.
Result
During the course of intensive negotiations with the Minister, Mamann Sandaluk was able to reach a joint submission with the Minister that permitted the client’s mother to come to Canada notwithstanding the medical inadmissibility of her adult dependent children. The Minister was willing to agree to this submission in view of the longstanding custodial care arrangements that had been made for the client’s brothers in Trinidad and the stability of their lifestyle there even in the absence of their mother.
Pasch-Smith v. Canada, Immigration Appeal Division 2007
Client
Client was a permanent resident of Canada who had been landed with her parents as child and who had left Canada for the United States many years ago, at the age of 11.
Background
The client had been living outside of Canada for most of her childhood and her entire adult life when she began a relationship with a Canadian citizen who worked as a long haul truck driver across Canada and the United States.
Their relationship developed and became serious and eventually they were married.
Given that the client had never been found to have abandoned Canada as her place of permanent residence due to her failure to comply with her residency obligations, she attempted to move back into Canada and resume her life in this country with her (then) boyfriend. It was during this move that she was stopped at the Port of Entry and was issued an exclusion order for having failed to comply with the residency obligation.
The client appealed that exclusion order before the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board where she was represented by Mamann Sandaluk.
Result
After a lengthy appeal hearing, the client’s appeal was allowed by the Tribunal which found that despite her violation of the residency obligation, there existed sufficient humanitarian and compassionate circumstances in her case to justify her retaining her permanent resident status. It was also held that would serve no purpose to expend government resources to reapply for permanent resident status as a member of the family class, sponsored by her Canadian citizen husband.
Canada (MPSEP) v. Dizon VA6-02471
Client
The client is a citizen of the Philippines against whom the Minister sought a deportation order because one of her sisters with whom she was granted permanent residence failed to disclose that she had given birth to a child prior to her family’s becoming permanent residents.
Background
After a hearing before the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Tribunal refused to issue a removal order to the client, finding that she could not have reasonably disclosed this information to the government and as such was not inadmissible for having withheld relevant information from the Minister.
The Minister appealed this decision to the Appeal Division. At a hearing of the Minister’s appeal, the client was represented by Mamann Sandaluk.
Result
At the conclusion of a lengthy video conference proceeding, the member of the Appeal Division determined that although the Immigration Division had erred in law in refusing to issue a removal order, after considering the humanitarian and compassionate circumstances of the case, the Appeal Division declined to issue a removal order and denied the Minister’s Appeal.
Patel v. MCI, Immigration Appeal Division 2007
The clients are two unrelated individuals one of whom married the other’s sister while the other married the cousin of the other at a double wedding in India.
Background
After the wedding, both clients sponsored their wives to come to Canada as permanent residents. Following an interview at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, both wives were refused admission to Canada because it was found that the marriage was entered into immigration purposes and not with the intention of residing with their husbands in Canada in a spousal relationship with their husband after their arrival in Canada.
Mamann Sandaluk represented the two clients in their appeals before the Appeal Division. Bizarrely, one appeal was allowed while the other was dismissed. The client whose appeal was allowed was able to have his wife’s application for permanent resident status processed quickly and she came to Canada shortly after.
The other client, whose appeal had been denied, retained Mamann Sandaluk to file a new application for permanent residence in Canada based on additional evidence of their relationship which had not existed at the time the appeal was refused.
Result
Following a review by the visa office in New Delhi as well as an extensive interview, the client’s wife was issued a permanent resident visa to Canada.
Varghese v. Canada, Immigration Appeal Division 2007
The client and his family were granted permanent residence on the condition that they establish a business shortly after their arrival.
Background
The clients failed to comply with the conditions of their landing. Eventually, the clients were ordered deported for failure to comply with their conditions of landing. Mamann Sandaluk represented them at the appeal of their removal order.
Despite having failed to establish qualifying business, the client and his family were all very hardworking members of the society who had done much to improve themselves and the community since their admission as permanent residents.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk were able to persuade the Minister to consent to the client’s appeal being allowed and to permit them to remain in Canada as permanent residents. Accordingly, the Tribunal issued an order allowing the client’s appeal and their deportation orders quashed.
TA5-14454, Refugee Protection Division (2007)
Client
The client was a refugee claimant from Burundi.
Background
The client made a refugee claim in Canada. She retained Mamann Sandaluk to represent her in her claim before the Refugee Protection Division.
Result
At the hearing, a Member of the Board granted her refugee status, and she was allowed to remain in Canada.
Sounitsky v. MCI, IMM-2185-07, Federal Court (2007)
Client
The clients were a husband and wife from Israel and Russia.
Background
The clients came to Canada, and established businesses here. Their refugee claims, PRRA applications and H&C applications for permanent residence were refused, and a date was set for their removal from Canada. Mamann Sandaluk represented them before the Federal Court, requesting a stay of their removal.
Result
The Court granted a stay of removal, their removal date was cancelled, and the clients were allowed to remain in Canada.
Zarate v. MPSEP, IMM-2178-07, Federal Court (2007)
Client
The client was a national of the Philippines, out of status in Canada and married to a Canadian citizen.
Background
The client came to Canada. Her refugee claim was refused. She then married a Canadian citizen, who sponsored her for permanent residence in Canada. Immigration officials scheduled her removal from Canada, and refused to wait for the application to be processed. The client retained Mamann Sandaluk, who applied to the Federal Court for a stay of her removal.
Result
The Court granted a stay of removal, the removal date was cancelled, and the clients were allowed to remain in Canada.
Natoo v. MPSEP, IMM-1341-07, Federal Court (2007)
Client
The client was a national of Grenada. He established a successful business in Canada, but was out of status and facing deportation from Canada.
Background
The client came to Canada, and established a successful business here. He also cared for his nephew. The client filed an H&C application for permanent residence from within Canada, but Immigration officials scheduled his removal from Canada and refused to wait for the application to be processed. Mamann Sandaluk represented the client in an application to Federal Court for a stay of his removal date.
Result
The Court granted a stay of removal, the removal date was cancelled, and the client was allowed to remain in Canada.
Client ID 2003-8440, Immigration Division (2007)
Client
The client was a permanent resident accused of gang membership.
Background
The client was a permanent residence facing deportation. He was falsely accused of gang membership. Immigration officials detained him. Mamann Sandaluk represented him in a review of his immigration detention before a Member of the Immigration Division of the IRB.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk convinced the Member that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the client was a gang member, and he was ordered released from detention.
Client ID 4155-2463, Immigration Canada (2007)
Client
The clients were nationals of Argentina, and out of status in Canada.
Background
The clients – a family from Argentina – had been illegally in Canada. The father was arrested, and the remaining family members were wanted by Immigration officials on arrest warrants. The family retained Mamann Sandaluk to assist them.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk arranged for the release of the father, and the execution of the warrants and release of the other family members. Mamann Sandaluk then assisted them in filing a PRRA application and an update to their pending H&C application for permanent residence in Canada. The H&C application was approved in principle, and they were allowed to remain in Canada.
Client ID 4120-3681, Immigration Canada (2007)
Client
The clients were nationals of Brazil, and out of status in Canada.
Background
The clients – a family from Brazil – had been illegally in Canada. They retained Mamann Sandaluk to assist them in their H&C application for permanent residence from within Canada. Mamann Sandaluk made submissions in support of this application.
Result
Immigration Canada approved their application in principle, and they were allowed to remain in Canada.
Client ID 4342-1767, Immigration Canada (2007)
Client
The clients were nationals of Albania, and out of status in Canada.
Background
The clients – a family from Albania – had been illegally in Canada. They retained Mamann Sandaluk to assist them in their H&C application for permanent residence from within Canada. Mamann Sandaluk made submissions in support of this application.
Result
Immigration Canada approved the application, granted the family permanent resident status, and they were allowed to remain in Canada.
Barcelos v. MCI, TA6-02251, Immigration Appeal Division (2007)
Client
The client was a permanent resident from Portugal who was ordered deported for criminal convictions. He appealed this deportation order
Background
The client was a permanent resident from Portugal who was ordered deported for criminal convictions. He appealed this deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the IRB. Mamann Sandaluk represented him in this appeal.
Result
Despite further convictions, Mamann Sandaluk was successful in convincing the IAD to grant a stay of removal, and the client was allowed to remain in Canada.
Kim v. MCI, Client ID 3556-0183, Immigration Division (2007)
Client
The clients were permanent residents, and nationals of South Korea.
Background
The clients – a family of Canadian permanent residents – had immigrated from South Korea as entrepreneurs. The family then failed to meet the requirements as entrepreneurs, because they failed to establish an appropriate business. Immigration officials referred their matter to the Immigration Division of the IRB, seeking a deportation order. The clients retained Mamann Sandaluk to assist them.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk negotiated directly with Immigration officials, and after making submissions, convinced Immigration officials to withdraw the request for a deportation order. The clients were allowed to remain in Canada.
Immigration Canada (2007)
Client
The client was a US national, who sought entry to Canada as a visitor despite a serious criminal conviction.
Background
The client, a US national, had a serious drug-related criminal conviction in the US. He wished to enter Canada to attend his son’s hockey tournament, and required this urgently. He retained Mamann Sandaluk to apply for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP).
Result
Mamann Sandaluk made submissions to the visa post in Los Angeles requesting the TRP. Mamann Sandaluk convinced the visa post that the client was rehabilitated, and a TRP was issued within one week. The client was allowed to enter Canada with his son.
Client ID 5115-0338, Immigration Canada (2007)
Client
The client was a national of Ghana, suffering from HIV. He was out of status in Canada.
Background
The client was from Ghana, and was out of status in Canada. He discovered that he suffered from HIV during an immigration medical examination. Mamann Sandaluk assisted him in filing an H&C application for permanent resident status in Canada on the basis that he would receive inadequate treatment for his medical condition in Ghana.
Result
Immigration Canada approved his application for permanent residence in principle, and he was allowed to remain in Canada.
Trinidad v. MCI, Immigration Appeal Division (2007)
Client
The clients were a Canadian citizen husband and wife, who had sponsored the wife’s family for permanent residence from the Philippines.
Background
The clients – a Canadian citizen husband and wife from the Philippines – sponsored the wife’s parents and brothers from the Philippines. The application was refused by Immigration Canada, because one of the brothers was found to suffer from developmental delay. Mamann Sandaluk represented the clients in an appeal of this decision to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Result
The IAD granted the appeal, and Immigration Canada was ordered to process the application despite the medical condition.
IMM-3276-07, Federal Court (2007)
Client
The client was a national of the Philippines, who had remained in Canada out of status.
Background
The client came from the Philippines to escape political problems there. Her refugee claim was declared abandoned, and she remained in Canada out of fear of return. She established a successful business, became engaged to an applicant for permanent residence, and discovered she was pregnant. She filed an H&C application for permanent residence from within Canada, however Immigration officials scheduled a removal date and refused to wait for the application to be processed. Mamann Sandaluk assisted her in filing an application to the Federal Court for a stay of her removal.
Result
The Court granted a stay of removal, and the client was allowed to remain in Canada.
Client ID 4080-6351, Immigration Canada (2007)
Client
The clients, nationals of India, were illegally in Canada. The family had the victims of a tragedy, in which the mother’s daughter had been murdered.
Background
The clients were a family from India. They had been traumatized by the murder of the mother’s daughter. Mamann Sandaluk assisted the family in filing an H&C application for permanent residence from within Canada, on the basis of the trauma that they had experienced.
Result
Immigration Canada approved the application for permanent residence in principle, and the family was allowed to remain in Canada.
Client ID 2352-4668, Immigration Canada (2006)
Client
The clients were a family from South Korea. The parents had remained illegally, and the children were born in Canada.
Background
The clients were a family from South Korea. The parents had remained illegally, and the children were born in Canada. They wished to regularize their status in Canada, and retained Mamann Sandaluk to assist. Mamann Sandaluk assisted them in filing an H&C application for permanent residence from within Canada.
Result
The application was approved in principle, and the clients were allowed to remain in Canada with their children.
Awadh v. MCI, Immigration Appeal Division (2006)
Client
The client sponsored her husband from Morocco.
Background
The client sponsored her husband from Morocco. The application was refused because Immigration Canada concluded that the marriage was for immigration purposes and not genuine. She appealed the decision to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board. She retained Mamann Sandaluk to represent her.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented her, and obtained an early resolution of the appeal. Her appeal was allowed at a pre-hearing conference, and Immigration Canada was ordered to continue processing the application.
Kang v. MCI, IMM-3620-05, Federal Court (2006)
Client
The client posted a bond for the release of her mother from immigration detention. Immigration officials accused her mother of breaching the bond, and tried to seize the bond.
Background
The client, a Canadian citizen, posted a bond for the release of her mother from immigration detention. Immigration officials accused her mother of breaching the bond, and tried to seize the bond. Mamann Sandaluk represented the client in an application for judicial review of this decision to the Federal Court.
Result
The Court ordered Immigration officials to reconsider the decision to seize the bond, and the bond was returned to the client.
Roy v. MCI, TA5-07519, Immigration Appeal Division (2006)
Client
The client sponsored her husband from Bangladesh, and the application was refused.
Background
The client, a Canadian citizen, sponsored her husband for permanent residence from Bangladesh. Immigration officials refused the application, finding that the marriage was for immigration purposes and not genuine. Mamann Sandaluk represented the client in an appeal of this decision to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk was successful in obtaining an early resolution of the appeal at a pre-hearing conference, the appeal was allowed, and Immigration Canada was ordered to continue processing the application.
Miller v. MCI, TA1-15161, Immigration Appeal Division (2007)
Client
The client, a Canadian permanent resident, was ordered deported for criminal offences.
Background
The client, a Canadian permanent resident suffering from mental illness and drug addiction, was ordered deported for numerous criminal offences. Mamann Sandaluk represented her in an appeal of the deportation order, and was successful in obtaining a stay of deportation from the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration Appeal Division. The client then continued to offend, and breached a number of conditions of her stay. Immigration officials applied for the cancellation of her stay.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk was able to arrange treatment for the client, and convinced Immigration officials to agree to an extension of her stay conditions. She was allowed to remain in Canada to seek treatment.
Afrifa v. MCI, TA5-13925, Immigration Appeal Division (2006)
Client
The client, a Canadian citizen from Ghana, sponsored his wife and her children.
Background
The client, a Canadian citizen from Ghana, sponsored his wife and her children. Immigration Canada concluded that the marriage was for immigration purposes and not genuine, and refused the application. The client retained Mamann Sandaluk to represent him in an appeal of this decision to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk was successful in obtaining an early resolution of the appeal at a pre-hearing conference, the appeal was allowed, and Immigration Canada was ordered to continue processing the application.
Choi v. MCI, TA4-18903 / Client ID 3343-7262, Immigration Appeal Division / Immigration Canada (2006)
Client
The clients, a husband and wife from South Korea, were facing removal from Canada.
Background
The clients, a husband and wife from South Korea, were facing removal from Canada. The husband was a permanent resident who had been ordered deported for a criminal offence. He had filed an appeal with a previous counsel, who had missed a deadline without the client’s knowledge, and had misfiled documents related to the client’s removal. The client’s wife was in Canada as a visitor. Both were facing removal imminently.
The clients retained Mamann Sandaluk to assist.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk were successful in obtaining a quick re-opening of the husband’s appeal, and then convinced Immigration officials to agree to a stay of his deportation order. He was allowed to remain in Canada.
Mamann Sandaluk then requested several extensions of the wife’s visitor status, which were granted. She was allowed to remain in Canada with her husband.
Beshay v. MCI, IMM-7130-05, Federal Court (2006)
Client
The client was a refugee claimant from Egypt.
Background
The client claimed refugee status from Egypt. He was unrepresented at his hearing, and a Member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board refused his refugee claim. He retained Mamann Sandaluk to assist.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk represented the client in an application for judicial review of the decision to the Federal Court. Mamann Sandaluk succeeded in convincing the Department of Justice to agree to a re-hearing of the client’s refugee claim.
Begum v. MCI, TA4-11672, Immigration Appeal Division (2006)
Client
The client sponsored her husband from Bangladesh.
Background
The client sponsored her husband from Bangladesh. Immigration Canada concluded that the marriage was for immigration purposes and not genuine, and refused the application. The client retained Mamann Sandaluk to represent her in an appeal of this decision to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Result
Mamann Sandaluk was successful in obtaining an early resolution of the appeal at a pre-hearing conference, the appeal was allowed, and Immigration Canada was ordered to continue processing the application.
