OA_show('Wallpaper');
OA_show('Leaderboard - Xx90');
Choose your edition:

Search form

UPDATE: Nanziri granted stay of deportation

UPDATE: Nanziri granted stay of deportation

IMAGE 1 OF 1
'I can't go back to my country; I'll be killed' says lesbian refugee claimant
Aug 2, 1pm: After considering her case, Justice Robert Barnes has granted Leatitia Nanziri a stay of deportation. It means Nanziri and her two children will be able to remain in Canada and bring forth an appeal of the original decision.
 
"The circumstances facing these children in Uganda are dire," Barnes wrote. "The balance of convenience clearly favours the applicant. She has been in Canada seven years. She is gainfully employed. There are no significant problems with her immigration history or with her personal conduct in Canada."
 
"I'm so excited," Nanziri says. "This was the most difficult part here. I'm hoping during the [hearing and review process] we'll do well.
 
"The children, they're so happy," she says. "My son is so excited, he's jumping, he's screaming . . . I'm just so happy." 

— Katie Toth


Aug 2, 10am: Following an Aug 1 hearing, Leatitia Nanziri is now waiting to hear if a judge will stay a deportation order, allowing her to remain in Canada to appeal her case. 

Justice Robert Barnes said he wants to set aside the question of Nanziri's sexuality and instead focus on the safety and comparative well-being of her children, who Barnes said may be at risk of violence if they are sent back to Uganda. 

The counsel for the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration said that the claim Nanziri's previous lawyer submitted was insufficient. She also suggested that it is unfair for Nanziri to receive preferential treatment over refugees who do not have children.

But Nanziri's new lawyer, Asiya Hirji, says Canadian jurisprudence is clear that an assessment of the children's best interests "must be done."

"In these circumstances, two children are going back to Uganda," Hirji says. "A proper consideration has to be made."

Ministry counsel also suggested that Nanziri neglected to attend a pre-removal risk assessment hearing and instead started living underground. But Nanziri says she did not receive notification that she was being asked to leave the country. She had been carrying on with her life as usual. "I was working, I was driving, everything." 
 
Nanziri says that notification for the hearing was sent to her former address and she discovered there was a warrant for her arrest only when she tried to renew her health card.
 
If the deportation is stayed, Nanziri will have the opportunity to appeal her case. Then, if her appeal is successful, she will have an opportunity for a new hearing. Or, if the appeal is not successful, she will most likely be deported. 
 
Nanziri was hopeful following the hearing. "For some reason, I'm feeling like maybe we're going to get a positive answer."

— Katie Toth


July 31 -- A Toronto-area lesbian could be back in her home country as soon as the second week of August unless a federal courts stops her deportation. 
 
Leatitia Nanziri has been fighting to stay in Canada since she arrived here from Uganda in 2004. She escaped to Toronto after years of abuse, torture, threats and rape. Nanziri has had claim after claim denied, ending with her most recent rejection letter last month. The letter informed her that the Refugee Board officer working on her case does not believe she is telling the truth about her sexual orientation. It set her deportation date for Aug 4.
 
“I can’t go back to my country; I’ll be killed,” Nanziri told Xtra.
 
Nanziri – and her two young children – face almost certain discrimination or worse in Uganda, which was dubbed in one documentary as “the worst place in the world to be gay.”
 
Nanziri’s children, one 19 months and the other eight years old, were born in Canada and are citizens. While they would be entitled to stay if their mother is deported, that is not a likely option. Nanziri has no family here and nowhere to leave her young children. She had put herself through school in Toronto, and now works two jobs to feed them.
 
Her last chance to remain is Aug 1, when she has a hearing to temporarily suspend her deportation.

Asiya Hirji, Nanziri's lawyer, says that her application to stay in Canada is entirely legitimate. The officer of the Refugee Board, it seems, disagrees. Nanziri stood before the board in 2005 and it rejected her refugee application.
 
“The board found that she was not gay,” Hirji says, despite Nanziri providing statements of support from friends from Uganda affirming she is a lesbian. She also provided pictures of a former partner from here in Canada. The officer, however, found more compelling evidence to suggest that she is lying. As for what that evidence was, “he didn’t say,” Hirji says.
 
One of the main factors the court did not take into account, Hirji is prepared to argue, is the well being of Nanziri’s children.
 
Recently, a federal court decided that the immigration system must take a more comprehensive approach to dealing with matters of sexuality. In that case, Judge James Russell ruled that the immigration system ruled inappropriately in its attempts to determine the sexuality of a Nigerian man, as it ignored much of the evidence in front of it and instead relied on stereotypes in its decision. He now faces a new hearing. 
 
“That’s what I’m praying for,” Nanziri says of her upcoming hearing. “Let us stay in the country.”

If her deportation is stayed this week, she will be allowed to remain in Canada until her appeal to the federal court is completed. From there, the judge can either determine that the Immigration and Refugee Board erred in their judgement -- and a new hearing can be arrange -- or they can maintain the IRB's ruling, making her deportation all but certain.

 
If Nanziri is sent back to Uganda this weekend, she has the option of filing for a reassessment from abroad. Hirji hesitantly says that they will “consider” it.
 
“If she goes back, she’s going to need more than just an agency assessment,” Hirji says.
 
As for Nanziri’s chances on Aug 1? Nirgi says it all depends on the judge.
 
“The battle is certainly not over.”

An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed responsibility for claims of Humanitarian and Compassionate status and the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment to the Immigration and Refugee Board. In fact, they are the responsibility of the Citizenship and Immigration Ministry. 
 
  
OA_show('Text Ad - #1');
OA_show('Text Ad - #2');

Comments

Missing pieces
"Loveless" was probably the wrong word. "Corrective" is more apt.

I've just received the rull ruling from the department. I'll answer all these questions in the follow-up
Missing Pieces
I didn't question the first child because other news outlets have told the horrible story. This is the first I have read of the loveless marriage claim which I still don't understand. Were they married when they came to Canada? Did she get married here and pop out a child by choice while claiming a contradictory orientation?

I understand that the horrible things that this woman claims to have experienced are impossible to understand, and that trauma causes victims to act in ways which seem odd to those on the outside. However, in my opinion, the way this story has been packaged makes it seem as though officials simply scoffed at her claim for no reason when at least one is evident (Even if the Lawyer claims this isn't the case). With the limited material presented, something seems off.

Maybe it's time to stop asking if she should stay because shes has interest in the same sex and start asking whether she should be able to stay for other reasons.
Missing Pieces
Hi Jcarr,

Actually, I did ask those questions. According to Naziri's lawyer, her children/ex-husband had nothing to do with the judgement. As of yet, I have no other basis for that (hence why I didn't write it.)

But, according to Naziri's story, one of her children was the product of a rape she endured. Another was the product of a loveless marriage she entered into to escape abuse.

I'm looking into it further.
Missing Pieces
"The officer, however, found more compelling evidence to suggest that she is lying. As for what that evidence was – “he didn’t say,” says Hirji."

Maybe, the officer thought that a Lesbian, fighting for years to stay in a country on the grounds of sexual orientation wouldn't be having sex with a man in order to have the now 19 month old child. At least not during a legal fight to stay in the country.

Now, I understand that sexual activity does not alone determine sexual orientation, but come on now, that's pretty shoddy judgement.

And what is with XTRA not asking these kinds of questions?
Sign in or Register to post comments