Примеры использования Removal from canada на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Immigration: The Assessment of the Risk of Return before Removal from Canada.
This order effectively stayed the family's removal from Canada until the final disposition of the judicial review.
The process also allows for any possible changes to be evaluated prior to removal from Canada.
The author has claimed that his removal from Canada constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, since the separation of his family amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
The complainant failed to appear for his removal from Canada on 31 October 2006.
Provided that the complainant isgranted permanent resident status, he will not be subjected to removal from Canada.
The Committee notes the author's claim that his removal from Canada to Somalia would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm in violation of articles 6, paragraph 1 and 7, of the Covenant.
These arguments were not made until 1998,when the author's removal from Canada was imminent.
On the one hand,he claims that his removal from Canada to the United States violates articles 6 and 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant, on the other, that his detention violates articles 7 and 10.
It denied the author's allegations that his rights were violated by the Canadian authorities during his removal from Canada.
If a post-claim determination officer comes to the conclusion that removal from Canada would subject a person to the risk identified above, he is allowed to apply for permanent residency.
He acted in good faith, believing that a decision should be rendered on a properly prepared application prior to his removal from Canada.
Provided that he is granted permanent resident status, the author will not be subject to removal from Canada unless he violates any of the conditions of his status such as the commission of serious crimes.
At this time, the immigration enforcement division proceeded to execute the warrant for his arrest,as the order for his removal from Canada was in force.
In case No. 1959/2010(Warsame v. Canada), the Committee noted the author's claim that his removal from Canada to Somalia would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm in violation of articles 6, paragraph 1 and 7, of the Covenant.
He has had an almost continuous record of convictions(except for a period from 1987 to 1988),from age 17 to his removal from Canada at age 31.
As regards the author's claim under article 17 of the Covenant, the Committee observes that the author's removal from Canada did interfere with his family life and that this interference was in accordance with Canadian law.
Moreover, it argues that the author did not pursue an available domestic remedy when he submitted new evidence on the day of his scheduled removal from Canada.
On 9 November 2005, the complainant was informed that his removal from Canada had been scheduled for 6 December 2005 and that an arrest warrant would be issued against him, if he failed to present himself to the immigration authorities at Montreal International Airport.
This includes intervention in refugee hearings, vacation of refugee status, inadmissibility and detention hearings, security certificates,revocation of citizenship and removal from Canada.
There appear to be no circumstances particular to the author orto his family which would lead the Committee to conclude that his removal from Canada was an arbitrary interference with his family, nor with his privacy or home.
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations(IRPR), through an application for a study permit,rejected claimants continue to have access to education until their removal from Canada.
As to his removal from Canada, counsel states that the complainant was tied up for the whole 20 hours of his return to India, and that despite repeated requests the Canadian guards refused to loosen the ties around him which were causing pain.
Nor did the complainant provide reasons for his failure to complete his application for leave to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Border Services Agency on his request to defer his removal from Canada.
The author claims that both the certification of his being a danger to the public and the decision on his removal from Canada constitute a violation of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The certification renders him ineligible to make an application to the panel of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration Review Board for refugee status under the United Nations Convention on Refugees of 1951 andas a result exposes him to the risk of removal from Canada.
Although the two younger children are Canadian citizens, andthus not subject to removal from Canada, the only alternative to their accompanying the other family members to Sri Lanka, if the other family members are removed, would be for the two younger children to remain in Canada with no one to care for them.
And in the absence of any other pertinent information before it, the Committee considers that the facts as presented by the author do not permit it to conclude thatshe has sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, the claim that her removal from Canada to Mexico would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of serious forms of gender-based violence.
In case No. 1827/2008(S.V. v. Canada), the author, a Romanian and Moldovan national,claimed that his removal from Canada to Romania would expose him and his family to re-deportation to Republic of Moldova, where he was previously persecuted and tortured because of his anti-communist and human rights activities.
Secondly, the author reiterates that he petitioned the Canadian courts to declare that his removal by deportation would violate his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,so as to suspend his removal from Canada and"force" the United States to request his extradition, at which point he could have requested the Minister of Justice to seek assurances that the death penalty not be carried out.