Immigration application denied… Canada orders ex-minister, Jennifer Webster, to leave country

Feb 06, 2019 News

---

 

Canadian authorities last year ordered former Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Jennifer Webster, to leave the country.
This was after she was turned down months earlier by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
According to documents seen by Kaieteur News, the order was made on July 9, 2018.
Webster apparently appealed the decision by this body but was turned down in October.
According to documents, initially, on December 22, 2014, Webster was rejected by Canadian immigration.
She named as respondent the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
She was turned down by IAD, because of among other things, she had not resided in Canada for at least 730 days in the five-year period immediately before November 2014.
Listening to the case at IAD was Roxane Vachon.
Webster had hired a lawyer and appeared in person with her daughter also testifying.
IAD, in essence, said that she had not complied with her residency obligation and has not shown on a balance of probabilities, considering the best interests of a child, that sufficient humanitarian and compassionate factors exist in order to warrant the IAD’s granting of discretionary relief.
Webster had admitted that she was not physically present in `Canada for 730 days in the five-year period between December 2009 and December 2014.
Webster, 57, became a permanent resident of Canada in October 2009 with her daughter when she immigrated to Canada as a skilled worker. She has spent 148 days in Canada during the relevant period.
Under Canadian immigration laws, a permanent resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every five-year period.
The former minister landed in Canada in October 2009. She testified she arrived in Canada but she was unable to establish herself here because she was Minister of Finance in Guyana and had taken a constitutional oath to serve her country.
She was elected in 2006 and appointed Minister of Finance shortly after. She held this office until 2015. As a result she did not comply with her residency obligation. This is her appeal, the IAD documents explained.
She had begun her immigration process to Canada in 1996.
She became a permanent resident in 2009 after she had been elected and appointed as a minister for the first time (2006-2011). She testified she took a constitutional oath to serve the people of Guyana and felt she had to complete her mandate as a minister.

Two-times minister
According to Vachon, this does not explain, however, why Webster decided to pursue a second mandate. She was re-elected in 2011 and accepted the appointment as Minister of “Societal Services”.
She explained that in this portfolio she was able to advance the cause of women and girls and take initiatives to end violence towards women on high profile committees with the United Nations.
When the government of Guyana fell in the spring of 2015, she resigned from her position and did not seek re-election.
“In my view, the appellant had a meaningful and interesting career, she served the people of Guyana, but she did not fulfill her residency obligation towards the government of Canada and her reasons to remain abroad are the result of her career choices and her commitment to public service.”
At the time of hearing last year, Webster was living in Canada with her mother and daughter.
Webster claimed that she remained in Guyana because she was moved by the opportunity to have a seat at the UN Commission on the Status of Women.
Vachon was not impressed. “Nonetheless, this is not a compelling reason to remain outside Canada for most of the first six years after obtaining her permanent resident status. I also note the appellant did not return to Canada at the earliest opportunity.
Instead of returning after her first mandate she chose to seek re-election. There is no evidence the appellant even attempted to find work in Canada between 2009 and 2015. She chose to maintain her position as a minister for two mandates.
“I do not find the reasons given for the appellant’s absence mitigate her absence. This is a negative factor.”
According to IAD, Webster after the new government entered office in Guyana, returned to Canada in 2015 and she has not left since then.
She lived with her elderly mother and her adult daughter in a condominium. She testified that she mostly paid for this condo that her mother recently transferred to her in 2015.
She invested most of the funds from the sale of her Guyana properties in the purchase of an expensive home.
“Unfortunately the builder of the home received the funds and did not complete the building. The matter is now being litigated. The appellant also testified she moved her personal belongings to Canada, purchased a motor vehicle and transferred her funds to Canada. She testified she has no further assets in Guyana. Her immediate family is in Canada. Her mother is 82 years old and has been in Canada since the early 1980s.”
Webster stated also that her daughter lives with her and her brother and sister live in Canada, albeit in a different city. She testified she has no close family in Guyana other than cousins.
IAD said that it found little evidence that the former minister was seeking work in Canada.
Sick Mom
Among other things, Webster cited the failing health of her mother, 82. She also said that her daughter, 33, had been bullied when she was young.
According to IAD, Webster’s lawyer had argued that if she is removed she will not be able to easily immigrate to Canada in the future.
“She is a 57-year-old woman and her age would be a hindrance in the context of a skilled worker application. She cannot be sponsored by her mother or siblings and her daughter who is a student is not in a financial position to sponsor her mother, while a super visa will not allow her to put down roots in Canada. The appellant is highly educated and qualified and she is familiar with life in Guyana. She chose to remain in Guyana up to 2015 and she thrived in her country.
“The fact her immigration will be complicated by the fact she waited until nearing retirement to immigrate to Canada is simply the consequence of the appellant’s decisions.”
IAD said that the loss of the benefits of being a permanent resident of Canada is not undue hardship.
IAD said that the breach of the residency obligation is very important.
“The appellant obtained her permanent resident status in 2009 and has been present for some 148 days in the relevant period. She must establish a high degree of humanitarian and compassionate factors. Her decision to depart and remain outside Canada was not beyond her control and although it may have been for a good cause, her reasons are not compelling.”
According to IAD, since 2015, Webster has taken steps to become established and she now has establishment in Canada.
“In my view, her late establishment and the hardship her family would suffer if she is removed do not outweigh the important breach of her residency obligation and the lack of effort to comply with the residency obligation or to return to Canada at the earliest opportunity.”
According to IAD, based on the evidence and on a balance of probabilities, taking into account the best interests of any child directly affected by the decision, there are insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.
The appeal was dismissed and a departure order is made against the appellant.
“Under section 69(3) of the Act and section 224 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the Immigration Appeal Division therefore orders your departure from Canada.”

---

---