来自张虹移民顾问的电子邮件

xpxpxpx p

XP

I just have been informed that a Lawyer (Wen WU) is telling people on this message board that Hong Zhang should not have retained me to represent her. His reason is that I am not a Lawyer and therefore can not file a Stay of Removal with the Federal court. Applications with the Federal court can only be filed once Canada Border Service Agency books a flight for Hong Zhang. Any Lawyer should know that.

The fact that I was retained to submit a Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) application and since I was a Program Specialist with CIC for H&C would lead most to think Hong Zhang made a good decision. Hong Zhang and I have already approached an Immigration Specialist friend of mine to deal with any of these issues. Hong Zhang informed them of this fact yet his comments confuse me.

That no representative other then I has a Pre Removal Risk Assessment from Immigration where Immigration states that an un-wed mother would have to pay foreign student fees if the child goes back to China . That the Canadian child of any Un-Wed mother would face social prejudice in China .

The person who first contacted me about this message board claimed it was hers (Judy) and she told me today that she is a friend of this Lawyer. Getting me to have Hong Zhang to contact this Lady could have been nothing more then an attempt to obtain a client for her friend (Wen WU) I have several un-wed mothers and have one an un-wed mother’s H&C application so was (Wen WU) trying to discredit me as an authorized representative? Maybe he will call me and tell me that is NOT so.

You have my permission to contact me and I will try to arrange a three way call between Hong Zhang and you.

Did you see the article in today’s Toronto SUN?

I do not consider this a private e-mail if you wish to post my comments please translate them correctly.

Respectfully,

Roy Kellogg

CANVISA Immigration

CSIC# M041632

Tel: 1-888-292-7295
Tel:   416-292-7295
Fax:  416-292-5528

[email protected]
55 Town Centre Court
Suite 502
Scarborough, On
M1P 4X4

www.cvimmigration.com

xpxpxpx p

就在几天前，出于对张虹一案的关心，我通过电子邮件联系到Roy Kellogg先生，并且提出了一些问题。上面的电子邮件是Roy Kellogg先生于今天发给我的回应。

我会于近日联系他，并且争取将通话的内容录音上传，好让大家更加了解一些本案的细节。

张虹的案子对于我自己来讲是个难题，几天来一直在挣扎，很难理清头绪，情与法不知如何取舍。也许通过这次访谈，我们可以澄清一些事实，大家也可以放下包袱，尽力来帮助这母女俩个。

建议51网管一如既往的给与支持，暂时不要贸然的呼吁或者下结论，也希望文武律师行直接与当事人联系，不要在51上进行无谓的争论，分散了网友的注意力。

欢迎大家谈谈自己想问的问题，我会记下来的。

哇咧

I don't have full confidence on this gentle man, who claimed himself as a specialist, to help Hong Zhang out.

清新小溪

最初由[xpxpxpx p]发布
一些说明

就在几天前，出于对张虹一案的关心，我通过电子邮件联系到Roy Kellogg先生，并且提出了一些问题。上面的电子邮件是Roy Kellogg先生于今天发给我的回应。

我会于近日联系他，并且争取将通话的内容录音上传，好让大家更加了解一些本案的细节。

张虹的案子对于我自己来讲是个难题，几天来一直在挣扎，很难理清头绪，情与法不知如何取舍。也许通过这次访谈，我们可以澄清一些事实，大家也可以放下包袱，尽力来帮助这母女俩个。

建议51网管一如既往的给与支持，暂时不要贸然的呼吁或者下结论，也希望文武律师行直接与当事人联系，不要在51上进行无谓的争论，分散了网友的注意力。

欢迎大家谈谈自己想问的问题，我会记下来的。

律师层面上的事情希望xp继续努力。五一网上的争论，是想通过讨论形成一个社区意见，我也建议不要做无谓的争论。不赞成不要紧，只要不是强烈反对的，可以保留意见稍后再讨论。

原先持反对意见的几位基本愿意网开一面，在这样情况下，能否建议赵老板起草一份五一网的社区意见，表达希望张氏母女留下来的愿望。

为华社的团结，暂时放弃分歧，大家看怎么样？

夏候草

最初由[哇咧]发布
than 和 then 不分，我对此人无信心

I don't have full confidence on this gentle man, who claimed himself as a specialist, to help Hong Zhang out.

好像 HER 和 HIS 也不分，不知道是在哪里学的英语。

小溪和XP的出发点是好的，但此案胜率很低，不要叫老赵又圆不了他的梦呢。

感觉老赵的处境特别像三国的刘备，还好他没哭出来。

枫子

本人的感觉就是比较同情这个妇女，也知道她撒谎是为了能留在加拿大（基本也可以肯定是所谓的移民顾问教她这么撒谎的）。

就凭移民顾问你现在这样的公开撒谎，我们如果指控你，有关机构应该取消你的资格，如果你真懂得加拿大的法律的话，你就应该明白这一点。你对中国的描述应该认为自己了解中国实际事实，那就是故意撒谎；如果你认为你不了解中国的实际事实，那你又如何叫移民局相信你？（我也看了昨天的Toronto Sun，xp所译的基本是原文意思。小女孩被遗弃之类的在中国也是犯罪行为，是个例，就像美国大学杀人事件是个例不能做为普遍现象来考虑一样）。

现在说另外一个问题，中国同胞该不该帮你一起公开撒谎？我觉得做为一个加拿大公民或者居民，起码得以遵守加拿大的法律为首要条件。有人常常以这点来狡辩：谁谁更坏也留下了，或者以某些个例－－谁谁靠撒谎来到加拿大，这都是扯淡！

人道移民有社区的支持很有用，实际上中国人人情味还是比较浓的，希望你不要再来烦大家了，我觉得我们能做到的最大“人道援助”就是保持沉默了。

看到有白人甚至部落的人要收养什么的，可能也很有帮助吧（他们不太了解中国，我们会认为他们不是犯罪，是纯洁的人类良知）。那样大家的心情可能要好点。

小心为上

我支持孩子被收养
不支持母亲留在加拿大

久石让的粉丝

最初由[小心为上]发布
我支持孩子被收养
不支持母亲留在加拿大

不同意。
孩子离开母亲不好

peilong

最初由[枫子]发布
就凭移民顾问你现在这样的公开撒谎，我们如果指控你，有关机构应该取消你的资格，如果你真懂得加拿大的法律的话，你就应该明白这一点。你对中国的描述应该认为自己了解中国实际事实，那就是故意撒谎；如果你认为你不了解中国的实际事实，那你又如何叫移民局相信你？（我也看了昨天的Toronto Sun，xp所译的基本是原文意思。小女孩被遗弃之类的在中国也是犯罪行为，是个例，就像美国大学杀人事件是个例不能做为普遍现象来考虑一样）。
说得好！美国接二连三发生了多少起校园枪杀悲剧，我们是否能由此断定美国的校园枪杀是普遍相象？ 在中国，小女孩被遗弃的现象是有，但只是发生在个别落后的农村地区，而且中国政府一直都是坚决反对并惩罚这些犯罪行为的。加拿大卑诗省发生有人杀害几十个妓女并把人肉拌在猪肉中出售，我们是否可以说加拿大的人都吃人肉啦？

小心为上

最初由[tinahu]发布


不同意。
孩子离开母亲不好

那就跟母亲回去, 你觉得哪样对孩子更好些?

peilong

最初由[小心为上]发布


那就跟母亲回去, 你觉得哪样对孩子更好些?
跟母亲回去对孩子更好些。

久石让的粉丝

最初由[peilong]发布

跟母亲回去对孩子更好些。

同意！tinahu

Sedona

最初由[哇咧]发布
than 和 then 不分，我对此人无信心

I don't have full confidence on this gentle man, who claimed himself as a specialist, to help Hong Zhang out.


I believe then, instead of than, is a careless typo.

I feel quite annoyed by Mr. Kellogg for the following reasons:

1. Mr. Kellogg should not have quoted her client's name unless he has consent from or is instructed by Ms. Zhang to do so, though such a name has become public information.  It is fundamental professionalism for all professionals not to quote the client's name.

2. Wen Wu didn't ask Ms. Zhang to contact him, which is in violation of conduct of ethics to solicit a client of another professional.  Wen Wu only talked about judicial review which can be filed by a licensed lawyer.  Judicial review requires a sophisticated lawyer with specialized knowledge, skills and experience.  It is my humble opinion Mr. Kellog is not qualified.  I would doubt it even Wen Wu has the expertise in this area. Lai is smart since he hires the best in the field.

3. This is not true the client cannot submit the request for a judicial review only after CBSA has booked the flight.  Ms Zhang has the rights to pursue for a review after her case was rejected by IRB.  Though in practice, most lawyers will wait till CBSA has a deportation plan.

4. Immigration consultants cannot do judicial review, which is why they always ask their clients to go for a compassionate application and encourage them to go to the media for public support - a strategy to manipulate the emotion of the Chinese community.

5. I won't question Mr. Kellogf's knowledge in immigration.  In my previous posts (before Wen Wu and Kellog), I have said there are 2 methods only: compassionate application and judicial review.  Kellogg as a consultant will pursue compassionate application only.  Wen, equally disappointing, proposes judicial review. Both can or cannot help Ms. Zhang, depending on details of her scenario.  Professionals are professionals because they advise their clients in accordance with their best interest.  They don't encourage their clients to go for a plan with less chance, for a selfish motive of business.

6. The most annoying part is Kellogg quoted his previous success with some un-wed moms, which may be true. He should have told us his unsuccessful experience as well, with un-wed moms.

Mr. Kellogg is well known at the airport, in the Heritage Inn and with IRB, however, his management of Zhang's case is disappointing.

This response is becoming too long.  Stop for now.

清新小溪

最初由[小心为上]发布
我支持孩子被收养
不支持母亲留在加拿大

小心啊，怎么也是中国公安思想呢？马卫花为了逃避死刑，先怀孕后贩毒。公安就偏不让你的愿望实现，把你的胎儿打掉，看你还有什么理由。

现在张女的唯一希望是看在孩子的面上，能人道的将其留在加拿大。你的思想是把孩子收养下来，让你的愿望落空，看你还有什么理由留在加拿大。如果是怀孕的话，你也许能够建议强制堕胎。

张女抱怨的几条，都是回国后有可能会遇到的，有的很现实。对比起来，当然留在加拿大符合孩子的最大利益。至于其代理提到的罚款，数字可能高些，但到底是多少，没人说得清楚。你能让国内机构出面澄清吗？国内的法律历来是这样的，例如强奸罪，可以是三到七年，至20年有期徒刑，情节严重的无期徒刑，直至死刑。也许对偷渡者最高罚款就是14万加币，张女适用那条，谁知道呢。

北韩有三十万难民滞留在中国，但有三千万人民生活在北韩。中国政府没有用你的思想来思维，三千万人民都过得下去，你这三十万不该被遣送回去吗？这三十万北韩人，还是人道的被留在中国，其中有些利用各种途径被送到了南韩。

人有选择的权利，希望张女能够留在加拿大，母女平安。

小心为上

最初由[Sedona]发布
Then and Than


4. Immigration consultants cannot do judicial review, which is why they always ask their clients to go for a compassionate application and encourage them to go to the media for public business.



大家多听听这位的, 绝对有好处!