 
IAD.34 ( 18 May 2010 )  
Disponible en français  
 
 
 
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :  VB0 -02138  
 
Client ID no. / No ID client :  3523 -4635  
 
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
REMOVAL ORDER  
 
 
 
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXX DOMINGO  Appelant (e)(s) 
 
 
 
Respondent  The Minister of Public Safet y and Emergency Prepar edness  Intimé(e)  
 
 
 
Date(s) of Hearing  27 June 2011  Date(s) de  l’audience  
 
 
 
Place of Hearing  Vancouver, BC  Lieu de l’audience  
 
 
 
Date of Decision  27 June  2011 (rendered orally ) Dat e de la décision  
25 July 2011  (written decision)  
 
 
Panel  XXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
 
 
 
Counsel for the   Conseil(s) de  
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXX  l’appelant(e) / des  
 Barrister and Solicitor  appel ant(e)(s)  
 
 
Designated   Représentant(e)(s)  
Representative(s)  N/A  Désigné(e)(s)  
 
 
 
Counsel for the Mini ster  Zonia Tock  Conseil du ministre  
 
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAI :  VB0 -02138  
 
1 REASO NS FOR DECISION  
 
[1] RXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  (the “appellant”)  appeals a deportation order made against 
him on May 26, 2010, by a member  of the Immigration Division (the “ID” ) of the I mmigration 
and Refugee Board . 
 
[2] The appellant  was found to be a person described in paragraph 36(1)(a) of the 
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (the “Act ”).1  This order was appealed by him pursuant 
to subsection 63(3)2 of the Act .  The deportation order was mad e because the member of t he ID  
concluded that, after the appellant's counsel conceded the particulars of the appellant's conviction 
and submissions from the Minister's counsel, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that 
the appellant has been convicted in Canada of an offe nce punishable by a maximum term of 
imprisonment of at least 10 years and for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months 
has been imposed.  
 
[3] More particularly, on November 17, 2008, the appellant was convicted of trafficking in a 
controlled substa nce, namely, cocaine, contrary to subsection 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and 
Substances Act .  Cocaine is a Sche dule I substance in subsections  5(1) and 3(a) of the Controlled 
Drugs and Substances Act  confirms that the offence is an indictable offence with  the liability of 
imprisonment for life.  The appellant received a seven -month conditional sentence order.  
 
[4] The appellant does not challenge the legal validity of the deportation order .  He brings his 
appeal pursuant to the Immigration Appeal Division's di scretionary jurisdiction to grant special 
relief.  The appellant bases his appeal on paragraph 67(1)(c) of the Act , which provides as 
follows:  
                                                                 
1  Immig ration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 . 
2  63(3) A permanent resident or a protected person may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a 
decision at an examination or admissibility hearing to make a removal order against them.  
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB0 -02138  
2 (67)(1)   To allow an appeal, the Immigration Appeal Division must be satisfied 
that, at the time  that the appeal  is disposed of ...  
(c) other than in the case of an appeal by the Minister, taking into account 
the best interests of a child directly affected  by the decision, sufficient 
humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in 
light of al l the circumstances of the case.  
 
[5] I have considered the documentary material s tendered by the appellant, contents of the 
Record, the Minister's counsel's disclosure and joint recommendation of counsel that the removal 
order be stayed for a three -year perio d.  I agree that the recommended disposition is appropriate.  
 
[6] As a brief background, the appellant is a 25 years old citizen of the Philippines.  He was 
sponsored to Canada by his mother, together with his father and two other siblings, a brother and 
a sis ter, ages 30 and 28 years old respectively at present.  He and his other family members 
acquired permanent residence in Canada on May 23, 1998.  The appellant was 12 years old when 
he became a permanent resident of Canada.  He attended school in Canada and  has complete d his 
Grade 11 of high school.  
 
[7] The appellant has pursued gainful employment for many years after completing his high -
school education,  and he has been employed on a permanent bas is for the last five years at Redco 
Restoration Specialists Ltd. , working full time.  He is living with his parents and siblings.  
 
[8] The IAD  may order a stay of the execution of the removal order or allow an appeal from 
the removal order if the appellant is successful in establishing his case for discretionary relief.  
The factors to be considered by the IAD  when exercising its discretionary jurisdiction are those 
as set out in XXXXX .3  These factors include the seriousness of the offence ; the possibility of 
rehabilitation;  the likelihood of the appellant re -offending, th e length of time he has spent in 
Canada and the degree to which he is established here;  the family and community support  
                                                                 
3  XXXXX, XXXXXX v. M.E.I.  (I.A.B. 84 -9623), D. Davey, XXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX, August 20, 1985 (See CLIC, 
No.86, May 14, 1986).  
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB0 -02138  
3 available to him ; the disloca tion to his family in Canada that  deportation would cause and the 
degree of hardship that would be cause d to the appellant by his return to his country of 
nationality.  These factors are not exhaustive.  However, they do provide a general guideline to 
the IAD  in terms of its exercise of discretion.  
 
[9] The events giving rise to the removal order are serious one s involving, as they do, 
trafficking in a controlled substance, namely cocaine.  The nature of the offence the appellant 
was convicted for is a negative factor in this appeal.  To the appellant's credit, however, he 
successfully completed his sentence.  
 
[10]  In assessing the risk and the degree of rehabilitation, the ID’s  views as favourable to the 
appellant's case the appellant's understanding of and efforts made to address any underlying 
factors that have contributed to the past criminal conduct.  I  have taken  into account the 
comments by the judge on sentencing in his criminal conviction, which took place on November 
17, 2008.  The sentencing judge4 indicated that the appellant, while involved for a reasonably 
brief period in the c riminal activity, from July 3 0 to August  2, became involved out of financial 
motivation, which is an aggravating circumstance.  
 
[11]  The appellant accepted full responsibility for his involvement.  He did admit that he was 
trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization.  Although XXX was one of the individuals  
who trafficked in cocaine , he claimed he was  not a member of the gang.  In making his decision, 
the presiding judge considered some evidence that the app ellant might have some cognitive 
disabilities  and may have been used by ot hers to commit criminal offences.  
 
[12]  While the appellant did not attempt to minimize or deny the extent of his involvement, I 
note that he did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the impact the drug use has on the 
society and on individuals who are u sing drugs.  The absence of the appellant's clear articulation 
of understanding as to the nature of consequences of this criminal XXXXXXXXXX leads me to  
                                                                 
4  Exhibit R -1, page 19 . 
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB0 -02138  
4 conclude, on balance of probabilities, that he needs more time to show that he does not pose a 
threat to the Canadian society by taking necessary steps , such as psychological counselling to get 
a better insight into the reason s for his past criminal activities . 
 
[13]  I also have taken into account the appellant's admission that until three months ago , he 
was st ill using marijuana regularly.  I believe he needs to gain a better understanding of the 
nexus between substance abuse and potential for commi ssion  of further offences.  The appellant 
does not have a criminal history in Canada prior to the offence , for whi ch he was convicted in 
November 2008 and there  was no evidence before me that since his completion of the sentence , 
he committed any further offences.  
 
[14]  The absence of the appellant’s criminal offences prior to the offence leading to the 
admissibility heari ng and no further criminal offences after he completed his sentence may 
indicate a higher possibility of rehabilitation.  I note that the appellant has stabilized his life 
through work and acquisition of skills on the job.  He has indicated that he wants t o complete his 
high school education.  The appellant was promoted at his place of employment,  and he is a 
committed and dedicated employee, as indicated in the letter of his employer.  
 
[15]  Based on all the evidence before me, I find that the appellant has demo nstrated the ability 
to be a productive and focused individual.  I accept the appellant's lifestyle is reflective of the 
degree of rehabilitation.  I find credible the appellant's testimony that his parents and his siblings 
are support ive of  his continued stay in Canada.  There  is no evidence before me that his family is 
financially dependent on him.  However, I find the appellant is contributing to the family 
expenditures.  He is actively involved with  his family an d he has strong emotional ties  with 
them . 
 
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB0 -02138  
5 [16]  While the appellant appears to have some family in the Philippines, I am satisfied that he 
would suffer some hardship by reason of his relocation, given his personal and professional ties 
to Canada.  As pointed out earlier, the appellant demonstrated li mited insight into criminal 
conduct and its impact on society.  I have take n into account the length of the appellant's 
residen cy in Canada and the family support he has in Canada . 
 
[17]  Having considered the evidence before me, I conclude that a stay of the re moval order is 
warranted on the facts of this case.  In particular, the stay will allow the appellant to demonstrate 
that he continues to take steps towards rehabilitation and it will give him an opportunity to show 
what progress he makes in this regard.  While I consider the appellant's criminal offence to be 
particularly serious, the appellant has demonstrated some steps to address the cause of the 
criminalit y and to become rehabilitated.  
 
[18]  It is important for this appellant to understand that the present stay of removal is 
conditional upon his compliance with conditions imposed by the IAD.  These include the need to 
refrain from further criminal involvement.  The breach of any other conditions may be cause for 
a review of the stay and the appellant's poten tial removal from Canada .  A lthough the IAD  finds 
that the removal order made on May 26, 2010, is in accordance with the law, the IAD  at this time 
orders the execution of the removal order to be stayed for a three -year period on the following 
conditions . 
 
[Edited for clarity, spelling, grammar and syntax.]  
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB0 -02138  
6 NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
After reviewing the information in t his appeal, and the joint recommendation of 
both parties, the removal order in this appeal is stayed  for a period of three  year .  
This stay is made  on the following conditions  – the appellant must:  
 
[1] Inform the Canada Border Services Agency (the “Agency”) and the 
Immigration Appeal Division (the “IAD”) in writing in advance of any 
change in your address.  
 
The address of the Agency is:  
Canada Border Se rvices Agency  
Suite 240 Canada Place  
9700 J asper Avenue  
Edmonton, AB   T5J 4C3  
 
The address of the IAD is:  
Immigration Appeal Division  
1600 – 300 West Georgia Street  
Vancouver, BC    V6B 6C9  
 
[2] Provide a copy of your passport or travel document to the Agency or, if 
you do not have a passport or travel document, complete an application 
for a passport or a travel document and to provide the application to the 
Agency.  
 
[3] Apply for an extension of the validity period of any passport or travel 
document before it expi res, and provide a copy of the extended passport 
or document to the Agency.  
 
[4] Not commit any criminal offences.  
 
[5] If charged with a criminal offence, immediately report that fact in 
writing to the Agency.  
 
[6] If convicted of a criminal offence, immediately repo rt that fact in writing 
to the Agency and the IAD.  
 
[7] Provide all information, notices and documents (the “documents”) 
required by the conditions of the stay by hand  to the Canada Border 
Services Agency, Suite 240 Canada Place , 9700 Jasper Avenue , 
Edmonton, AB   T5J 4C3 .  It is the responsibility of the appellant to 
ensure that the documents are received by the Agency within any time 
period required by a condition of the stay.  
 
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB0 -02138  
7 [8] Provide all information, notices and documents (the “documents”) 
required by the c onditions of the stay by regular mail or by fax  to the 
Immigration and Refugee Board,  1600 – 300 West Georgia Street, 
Vancouver, BC    V6B 6C9, phone number 604 -666 -5946, and fax 
number 604 -666 -3043.   Include your IAD file number.  It is the 
responsibility of the appellant to ensure that the documents are received 
by the IAD within any time period required by a condition of the stay.  
 
[9] Report to the Agency in person  on December 19,  2011  and every  
 six months  after that date .  The a ppellant shall report in pe rson with a 
written report.  The report is to contain details of the appellant’s:  
 
 employment or efforts to obtain employment if unemployed;  
 current living arrangements;  
 marital status including common -law relationships;  
 attendance at any educational insti tution and any change in that 
attendance;  
 attendance at meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other drug or 
alcohol rehabilitation program;  
 participation in psychotherapy or counselling and abide by all 
recommendations of psychologist; and  
 other releva nt changes of personal circumstances;  
 
[10]  Make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain full -time employment and 
immediately report any change in employment to the Agency.  
 
[11]  Engage in or continue psychotherapy or counselling with a registered 
psychologist and a bide by all recommendations made by psychologist .  
(Note:   If you withdraw your consent to the foregoing condition, you 
must make i n writing  an application to the IAD forthwith to have this 
condition removed.)  
 
[12]  Not knowingly associate with individuals who have a criminal record or 
who are engaged in criminal activity, except contact that might result 
while attending meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, or any other drug 
or alcohol rehabilitation program.  
 
[13]  Refrain from the illegal use or  sale of drugs.  
 
[14]  Keep th e peace and be of good behaviour.  
 
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI :   VB0 -02138  
8 FINAL RECONSIDERATION  
 
Take notice that the IAD will reconsider the case on or about the 27th day of June  
2014 or at such other date as it determines, at which time it may change or cancel 
any non -prescribed conditions i mposed, or it may cancel the stay and then allow or 
dismiss the appeal.  Until your final reconsideration is decided (or your stay is 
otherwise ended), your stay remains in effect and you must comply with the 
conditions of your stay, including advising the  Agency and the IAD in writing 
before any change in your address.  
 
The IAD may contact you by letter in advance of final reconsideration to ask you to 
provide written confirmation that you have complied with the conditions of stay.  
 
 
IMPORTANT WARNING  
 
This stay of removal is cancelled and your appeal is terminated by operation of law 
and you may be removed from Canada if you are convicted of another offence 
referred to in subsection 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  
(sentence of more than  six months imposed or punishable by term of imprisonment 
of at least ten years) before your case has been finally reconsidered.  
 
 
(signed)  “XXXXXXXXXX”  
 E rwin Nest  
 
25 July 2011  
 date  
 
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration and R efugee Protection Act , you may make an application to the 
Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court.  You may wish to get advice from counsel as 
soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application.  
2011 CanLII 89383 (CA IRB)

