Страница 135 из 340
c) Any claims, which could include politics or politically motivated persecutions.
Introduction.2. They said (may be, indirectly) that the influence of Israeli lobby is very strong everywhere. They said
that by mentioning about the violations of Russian speaking people' human rights in Israel, discrimination of them in
Israeli army, or politics behind persecutions, from which we suffered in Israel, we could make the commissioners just
furious. They could accuse us in exaggerations (a word, which became very popular when an excuse must be
found for an inhuman action) and refuse to accept us as refugees.
Introduction.3. These advisors (including my wife) partly convinced me, partly sounded ultimate. Now I see even
better then before, that they were right, and I must completely recognize their marvelous competition. Now I could
understand that my lawyer's, maitre's Le Brune, recommendations were very wise. In the same time my lawyer's
translator inserted 2 statements into my refugee claim, which I never authorized her to insert and which were in
complete contradiction to my lawyer's recommendations. The 1-st is a statement that I was a well-known dissident in
ex-USSR. The 2-nd is a declarative passage about slavery. In the Document #3 you could read more about this.
Introduction.4. Suspending some information from entering my refugee claim I did it because I was afraid that the IRB members - instead of defining my chances to be a conventional refugee - would define my "guilt".
Introduction.5. But during our refugee hearings (because of my lawyer's translator's distortions and because of
commissioners' aggressive behavior) I was forced to mention such things, which I decided not to mention before.
When it became clear that the commissioners were extremely partial towards us, and that we had no what to loose,
all three above-mentioned "self-restrictions" became not important any more.
Introduction.6. In the same time events, which I was afraid to mention in my refugee claim and my lawyer did not
recommend to mention, were accessible for the Immigration Board as others (besides my main refugee claim)
documents in my file. I handed them over to my lawyer, and he adjusted them to my file before or between the
hearings. It means that the information, which I enter now in Document # 2, is not new, and was in my immigration
file before. In the same time, it was up to my lawyer to share this information or not. Recently I took all documents,
which were in my file, away from my lawyer, including letters to Jerusalem Post (see Document # 5 in
Supplements), and others. My lawyer's notes were written on top of them, what you can see on one of the copies. It
means that I have rights to mention them now because by time of our refugee hearings they were accessible for the
commissioners because were part of my immigration file.
1
1.1. In this document, I am going to explain, prove and show, why and how all my family members, and I, would face
risk to life, extreme sanctions and inhuman treatment not just because of the danger for us in general, but also
because of the refugee board members' actions.
Please, do not make a final decision in my case without studying all supporting documents, because they content the
main argumentation about this risk.
1.2. This risk of return to Israel has been increased during our residency in Canada because of the next actions of
IRB members.
A). IRB, assigned to our file, contacted Israel and informed Israelis about our refugee claim in Canada (see Group of
documents # 4, Document # 3, p.p. 1,2,3; Document # 1, page 1, paragraph # 3, point 5), also p.2, point
11), also p.3, point 8); and also Supplements, Documents # 6, 7). That would increase the possibility of
vengeance to us from Israeli authorities.
B). Even if a definite information - that the embassy of Israel in Canada could already know about the content of our
immigration file - is wrong, sooner or later they would know it. Trying to find defense and justice, I have submitted a
short description of our immigration hearings and of the final IRB' negative decision to hundreds of human rights
organizations and to thousands of other destinations. I made them available on Internet for the same purposes. So,
Israelis know them, too, anyway.
C). In the same time the IRB commissioners and the immigration officer instead of defining whether or not we could
face persecutions in Israel (as we claimed), concentrated on accusing us as if it was a criminal court. They
characterized me as an exaggerator and defamator, dangerous (they do not use this word but it is the only
characteristic of what they meant) to the state of Israel* (see commentaries in the end of this part). Their insinuations that I turned to i
various organizations in Supplements, Documents # 9,10,11,12) not because I looked for protection but to
"spread slender about Israel"** (see comments 2 at the end of that part), seem absurd and outraged only in Canada, but not in Israel! Even here (in Canada) they were used as an excuse to deny our refugee claim, and the negative decision
was logically presented as a "punishment" for "slander" and "exaggerations" (see Document #5, p. 1; 2 last
paragraphs on the bottom of the page, p.2, paragraphs 1, 2). Israeli authorities would consider Montreal's
"immigration court's" (IRB) decision to define us as enemies of Israel and dangerous exaggerators, as a leading
order (not just an excuse) to persecute us. As a Jew and, probably, an Israeli, the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka,
expressed her almost open hatred and partiality towards my personality in such tones and colors, which could
perfectly correspond to the ma
words, and that would make my destiny even more miserable if I would be removed to Israel (please, read the
whole Group of Documents #4, and Document # 5). She also expressed open threats, including a threat to
open a criminal procedure against me... (see Group of Documents # 4).
D). By their attitude, the commissioners during the hearings and in the negative decision somehow separated me
from other members of my family. They almost openly let know that my family suffering and refused the status only
because of my political views. That could provoke Israelis to separate me from my family or even take away our
children (I know several precedents). Rejection of my refugee claim because of my attitude towards the state of Israel
(in other words, my political views) is the main topic of the negative decision. That would encourage Israelis to do just
anything to me (if Canadian court did what it did, why should they wait?): to imprison me, place to a mental hospital, or kill. I am absolutely sure that within days or weeks I could be imprisoned in Israel and, probably, killed in custody not just because of objective factors, but also because of what the commissioners' did.
E). The political situation in Israel has been changed, too, since we left, to the worse. I present documents (see
Supplements, Document # 19), which shows that the present extremist government is not ready to maintain just
any tolerance. This is why the commissioners' actions would lead to more severe consequences if we would be
removed back to Israel. By the time of the hearings these changes already took place, and the commissioners had to