“[H]ad it not been for the explosive, hostile, and “racist” - allegation - ridden pressure of the South African government, and the public diplomatic threats made, and allegations of “racism”, that the Minister would not seek judicial review of such a decision, which rests on anemic factual complaints on evidence and factual issue(s) of effective state protection, tied to the extreme, conceded facts of Mr Huntley's ordeal, in what he suffered by way of physical attack(s).”-- Amina Sherazee, Barrister and Solicitor, practicing exclusively in Immigration and Refugee Law.
Court File No: IMM-4423-09FEDERAL COURT
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONApplicant- and -
Brandon Carl HUNTLEYRespondent
I, Amina Sherazee, in the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. I am a Barrister and Solicitor, called to the bar of Ontario in 2000, and practicing exclusively in Immigration and Refugee Law, and, as such, have knowledge of the matters deposed in this my affidavit.
2. Much of my practice is in the Federal Court.
3. 1 have read the affidavit of Stefanie Gude with respect to media reaction to this case, of which I was independently aware of' regarding this case.
4. 1 have further reviewed the Minister's Application Record and the grounds of review. I have also reviewed the decision of the Board and the documents before the Board, as put before this Court by the Applicant Minister.
5. I can state, without hesitation, from personal experience, professional experience, and expert opinion, as well as the discussion of my immigration barrister colleagues at the bar, based on conversations and the monitoring of such list-serves as the RLA (Refugee Lawyers' Association) list, the CCR (Canadian Council of Refugees) list, and the like, and based on the grounds of review, and the ‘issue(s)" set out by the Minister, that had it not been for the explosive, hostile, and "racist"-allegation-ridden pressure of the South African government, and the public diplomatic threats made, and allegations of "racism" , that the Minister would not seek judicial review of such a decision, which rests on anemic factual complaints on evidence and factual issue(s) of effective state protection, tied to the extreme, conceded facts of Mr Huntley's ordeal, in what he suffered by way of physical attack(s).
6. It is clear to everyone, that this is a "political" decision to bring judicial review, and not one based on any visible legal principle, which in my respectful view brings the administration of justice into disrepute, in that it compromises the underlying constitutional principles of the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, and the Independence of the Judiciary.
7. This is compounded and aggravated given the leave ratio granted by this Honourable Court. It is generally gauged that in ‘bad years', the Court grants leave to 2 to 3%, and in ‘good years' 5 to 6%, of all applications for judicial review brought by immigration/refugee applicants to the Court. It is virtually unheard of that the Minister's applications are ever refused. The difference, for the immigration bar, is slanted and inexplicable.
8. With the greatest of respect, this further raises more than a palatable apprehension of bias, and an abuse of process by the Minister with respect to this Court's adjudication of the within "application for leave and judicial review".
2nd November 2009
Source: Politics Web, via Henri La Riche
Original PDF: IMM-4423-09: Respondent (Huntley): Memorandum of Fact & Law & Supporting Affidavits (Gude & Sherazee) (PDF:1963K)