Text of Canadian Immigration rejection to Mike Echols
|This article is a historical document and is protected from changes. It is not available under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Suite 641, 800 Burrard Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2V8
June 15, 1999
Mr. W. H. Echols
Better A Millstone, Inc.
484-B Washington Street, Room 220
Monterey, California 93940
Dear Mr. Echols:
Officials of the Canadian Customs Border Service has passed to me your letter of April 1, 1999, regarding your experience at the Canadian border on February 24, 1999. I understand that the Customs Border Service has responded to your concerns regarding your Customs clearance and the seizure of your goods. I will respond to your concerns regarding your inadmissibility to Canada under Canada's Immigration legislation.
Every person seeking to come into Canada must meet the requirements of Canada's Immigration Act. While Canadian citizens and legal permanent residents come into Canada by right, all others must meet Canada's requirements pertaining to visitors. A Person seeking admission is subject to an immigration examination to determine his identity, and to confirm that he has a legitimate reason for coming to Canada, that he has sufficient resources to support himself in Canada, that he is of good health, and that he is of good character. Under Canada's Immigration Act, convictions under a foreign stature, which to equate offenses for which a person would be convicted in Canada, render the individual inadmissible to Canada.
Your letter mentions convictions in 1986 for breaking and entering, criminal impersonation and criminal mischief. Our records show that your criminal history included other criminality in 1988 and 1993 including felony fraud, impersonation and cruelty towards children. The offenses equate to offenses under the Criminal Code of Canada and cause you to be inadmissible pursuant to Section 19(1)(c.1) and 19(2)(a.1) of the Immigration Act.
If a person is inadmissible because of criminal reasons, there are discretionary authorities under the Immigration Act to review a case to determine if there are compelling reasons for the person to be allowed to come into Canada. I understand that you told the interviewing officer that you needed to come into Canada to participate in the "March against Child Pornography", to be interviewed by the media, and to meet with the office of the Attorney General but that you had no documentation pertaining to any of these commitments, nor could you indicate firm times for these appointments. You were counseled that you could make an application for a minister's permit through the manager of the office if your need to enter Canada was of an urgent nature, and that you would need to provide documentary evidence of your engagements in Canada. However, no further contact was made to the Immigration office concerning your entry, nor were representations made on your behalf to this office by the organizers of your visit.
Your criminal history will continue to cause you to be inadmissible to Canada in the future. While there are discretionary provisions as outlined above, the number and serious nature of some of your convictions would be of concern to a manager reviewing your case and there are no guarantees that your situation would be considered favourably. There is also a process by which you can apply to a Canadian consulate to prove that you are rehabilitated. I would recommend that you discuss this option with the Immigration Section of the Canadian Consulate in Seattle should you anticipate that you may need to visit Canada in the future.
Regional Director General