大家看看这个先例，是不是对张虹非常不利？

广告管理员

法律办事是讲究要遵循先例的。大家看看这个先例，是不是对张虹非常不利？


http://www.51.ca/news/show,news,19728.htm


加国无忧每日新闻精要 - 2005年8月30日
一大陆移民和他包的二奶同被遣返不得入籍

据明报报道，在1998年与丈夫黄英骏一同取得移民资格的大陆女子王晓琼，最近夫妻双双连同在加拿大出生的孩子一起被加拿大移民局判决遣返回中国。被遣返的的原因是，他们在申请入籍时，丈夫黄英骏坦诚他在国内还有另外一位妻子。对此，移民部认为这一例移民案例犯有重婚罪，必须遣返回原居住地。

该女子王晓琼为此提出上诉，认为她是受害者，因为这些年来她一直不知道老公原来还有一位妻子，但移民部仍然维持原判：因为她老公是主申请人，主申请人违法，一家的移民申请都将无效。至于他们在加拿大出生的孩子自动拥有加拿大国籍，是可以呆在加拿大的，但考虑到孩子还未成年，必须与父母同住，所以一同被遣返。

退出

51不要再搞了。累不累？

至强

老赵这个案例很好。非常适用玉江山的老婆和孩子的情况。

呵呵，不错。

太阳的光辉

火苗子直往上窜 ;)

芸芸众生

老赵多些资料给大家，大家说说不好吗？

也别叫他只和我讨论。

xpxpxpx p

SEE THE DETAILS BELOW:

KEYWORDS - APPEAL DIVISION - EXCLUSION - INADMISSIBLE CLASSES - MISREPRESENTATION - HUMANITARIAN AND COMPASSIONATE CONSIDERATIONS - DISMISSED - CHINA


Exclusion orders were issued against the appellants on the basis that they were inadmissible for misrepresentation. They were landed under the entrepreneur category. The male appellant was the principle applicant and the female appellant was his dependent spouse. The male applicant was still married at the time to another woman, whom he divorced two years later. He had a son from that marriage, whose existence he did not disclose. He and the female appellant subsequently married. While the female appellant claimed that she was unaware of the existence of the male appellant's first wife and his child, she was inadmissible on the basis of indirect misrepresentations. She indirectly misrepresented that she was the spouse of the male appellant, a material fact that did induce or could have induced an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The orders were valid in law. The misrepresentations were very serious as they would have had a direct bearing on the acceptance of the applications for landing. The male appellant was not genuinely remorseful. The appellants would not suffer undue hardship if removed from Canada. Best interest of their Canadian-born daughter was considered. There were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant granting special relief. Huang, Ying Jun et al. v. M.C.I. (IAD VA3-01037/38), Mattu, June 1, 2004.


FULL TEXT

http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/rtf/re ... iad/aVA301037_e.rtf