ocument herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to what Mr. Boisrond said - he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases at all. When in 1994-95 about 52% of refugees from Israel were recognized as Convention refugees, with this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a decision is a juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric and pro-Israeli propaganda, which has nothing what to do with our claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for explanations (instructions?) in our case. 6. The committee decision ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at all. In the same time to support its statements the committee used documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards our case but in a general sense. But most of the documents used to support the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the members of the board have committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in Canadian Immigration history. I am may be just one of few people in the world who suffered so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis. We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as nobody else. We had testimonies, certificates, and articles, which I wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International confirmation in my case... My children, wives, mother's suffering was just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were solders of an enemy army, not innocent people. My family and my lives are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on distortions, which Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents. 9. The decision's text style is ironically humiliating, what reflects the committee' partiality towards us. I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision - paragraph after paragraph. Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even data by false facts, events and data. That document describes the information from our PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages are indicated as 5 and 6 when in reality they were much younger by then. Only under a slight view that information is not very important. In reality the children ages were changed for changing an impression. Because of what is less destructive and traumatic for older children may be totally different for younger children. In the same paragraph we can read that the children were denied the participation in the Sukkot celebration, when in reality in our claim and during the hearings it was a description of a dark room, in which our children were placed. It makes a difference! A dispute about that dark room erupted between us - and Mrs. Broder, who refused to translate the text of my testimony which I typed and gave her but desired to intervene actively. Later - when we demanded to change the places distorted by her in her translation - she threatened to testify against us before the committee and mentioned this dispute like as we did or said something wrong. It is clear for me that Mrs. Broder probably was Mrs. Malka's informer. Anyway, that detail shows once again that Mrs. Malka alone composed this document. When the committee describes two acts of aggression against my mother it confuses the dates and the events. We declared in our claim and during the hearings that my mother was attacked two times: in August 1992, and in January 1994. We're giving clear description for each event, so there is no way to confuse one event with another one unconsciously. But the committee did it! Read the paragraph # 5, on page # 2. It says: "In August 1992 when she was on her way to pick up the children from school she was surrounded by a group of teenagers". In reality that happened when my mother took the children to a park. In paragraph #7 on the same page you can read: "In January 1994 she was accompanied by her little children and went to find a school..." The real event, which happened to my mother in January 1994 , took place when she was alone and was on her way to the school to pick up the children. But the author of that text not only confuses the two different events but creates an atmosphere of a non-sense ("to find a school", "her little children" instead of "her grandchildren"). These distortions can hardly been considered as "innocent mistakes" because it is absolutely clear that they were made by intention. Their goals were to form a bad impression of my story and show that everything is permitted for the commissioners. I am sure that by doing these distortions Mrs. Malka desired to give me a signal that she's the appropriator of the laws and can go unpunished whatever she's doing. And - if so - any complains will not help me... How can this document be considered as a legal order when even in a pure description it refuses to tell the truth? We can find next false statement on page 2, in paragraph # 4 ("the demander also claim that he was persecuted because he denounced about the fascism"). In reality I never said like that it happened because of this, and it happened because of that... The person who composed that document tries to hide here that the fascism was mentioned in connection with my article entitled "Why Israel Is Against the Victory Day?" which was published in Israel in 1994. In his comment to my article the editor calls to take the law into people's own hands and to make short work of me. As you can see that's also makes a difference! Then, the paragraphs #4 and #5 on page 3 deny rights to enter any country as a refugee to any person if he escaped from Israel. It means that these paragraphs deny not just my personal right to escape from Israel (in other words, I must live in Israel forever!), but disputes that right in principle. Formally speaking about me that paragraph's meaning is actually depersonalized. It claims that all immigrants from the former USSR in Israel were bought by Israeli government as any other property, and now belong to Israel forever. So, can a property escape? There is no other reasonable explanation of these paragraphs' sense. ("Demanders declared that they flied from Israel to claim a refugee status in Canada after a series of incidents, which victims they were. But the tribunal denies them the credibility [...] because [...] this family immigrated to Israel [...] according to the Law of Return" and because Israel paid for their "free transportation, free medical insurance, and also gave them a certain amount of money, citizenship and other benefits"). Anyway, these two paragraphs have nothing what to do with our claim! Mrs. Malka also mentions the Law of Return here. That Law of Return is a declaration, which was made when Israel was founded in 1948. Israelis can call it "the main rule of the country" or whatever they want but it is what it actually is: Just a proclamation. Since Israel has no constitution the Law of Return and some other laws like it are still there to calm down people who demand the creation of Constitution. But as in former USSR - there were thousands of executive laws between constitution and real life, which could just abolish what the constitution said. There are customs, official religious code and thousands of other laws between the Law of Return and the real life in Israel. And Mrs. Malka knows it! The paragraph #5 on page 3 just shows how far away is the Law of Return, which was created almost 50 years ago and named here as an "evidence", from the real life. Mrs. Malka gives an extract from that law, which says that the medical insurance in Israel is free, but that isn't correct! I can show the receipts for the money that we paid for the medical insurance since our first day in Israel, because it isn't free any more! The language course is not completely free any more! And not the whole way to Israel is free! (I can show you the tickets). These are not just mistakes. The whole attitude is wrong (or false, or the first and the second in the same time). So, how can be reliable a document that contains so many mistakes and falsifications? Let us point also that these two paragraphs are absolutely illegal from the juridical point of view. Our material situation wasn't mentioned nor in our claim, nor during our hearings. We described persecutions against us, not our financial situation. May be Mrs. Malka had to compose a report for American Jewish organizations to show where their money are going. Then this decision is not about our status, and has no juridical power! The next paragraph looks nice, but somehow avoid quitting. Why? I think, I know, why. I know the document and place in that document the last paragraph on page 3 refers to... Let me show you what it about. It declares that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. Isn't it sound strange? It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical document! Let's admit also that this particular fragment is the beloved fragment of Mr. La Salle, a commissioner who was recently accused of partiality towards refugee claimants from Israel. He used this paragraph in probably all negative decisions he composed. (He made practically no positive decisions in refugees from Israel cases). For example, Mr. La Salle used that "evidence" in his responds to Zilber and Buyanovsky's claims. (P.6 in a response to G. Buyanovsky and p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Let's to abstract from its complete nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mrs. Malka's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects her national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like Canada, so how it comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized" (or, probably, ordered) to "sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's response to family Z. claim). May be something is wrong in a country where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be "mobilized" to welcome new immigrants? And then - how those figures, 80% of Israeli population, can be understood? Were they been called (to a draft board, to Mossad?) to get an order to "welcome new immigrants" - and were counted one by one? And what about the other 20%? We don't know anything about that "mobilization". But we know that the Israeli population (and the Hebrew media employees in particular) was mobilized to abuse, assault, disgrace and to discriminate new immigrants from the former USSR. If the Canadian Ministry of Immigration was not on one side it could employ 2-3 translators and send them in a library to translate Hebrew newspapers for last 6 years. Thousands of racists, xenophobic articles, which encourage aggressive actions against Russian-speaking people and teach to treat them with malicious anger, could be found. That is the real "mobilization". By the way, if we began to speak about Mr. La Salle, his personality may be the best illustration of who stands behind the total injustice towards us. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a shadow structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality were expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister of Immigration - gave Mr. La Salle a new commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is 0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. How can it happen in a country, which is not a province of Israel, but an independent state? In the first large paragraph on page#4 of the decision the tribunal express recognition that the persecutions we faced in Israel might happen to us. But it claims indirectly that we provoked them ourselves by refusing to give up our believes and views. And it claims directly that the persecutions were caused by some individuals, not by country's rules, traditions or policy. And it claims also that there no persecutions against Russian-speaking people at all. As we can see that paragraph is deeply contradictory in itself. In first 5 lines it recognizes the existence of persecutions (calling them "difficulties" but that is not important because it clear explaining what it means). In next 5 (!?) lines it claims the contrary. We already know (see the reasons expressed above) that there is a bad hidden lie in the referrals concerning fascism in this document. So, this lie is exploited in that paragraph, too. The next paragraph is based on a sentence in my refugee claim (in my PIF), which did the translator, Mrs. Broder herself, insert. Instead of just translating my story about what happened to me during my work on a stadium in Petach-Tikva (August, 1991), she transformed this event into a symbolic conclusion-declaration. In the same time this conclusion is correct in general. What happened to me then may be called a slavery. But I never did any pure declaration. This event was discussed during the two hearings. I was tested if I tell the truth, and it is clear from the test that I told the truth. Besides, I presented an affidavit from Mr. Ginsburg who describes the same event. I also presented an article written by Rivka Rabinovich and entitled "Haim #1 and Haim #2", which professionally describes some forms of slavery in Israel. I also explained during my hearings that I do not want to make any declaration and that Mrs. Broder just distorted my words. Instead of taking into consideration all these facts the tribunal is persisting in its absolutely inadmissible and illegal suggestions. Instead of investigating whether or not we were persecuted it accuses us in spreading slander about Israel. It claims like if we would not came to Canada to seek a political asylum but to spread the slander about Israel. If we claimed that my wife and me - were beaten during our work: that's because we want show Israel as a state of slavery, claims the tribunal. If we describe what happened to our children: that's because we want to draw a picture of Israel as a horrible state... And so on. Reading that document you completely forget that it is a decision in refugees' claim. It looks like the tribunal misinterpreted its functions and sees itself not as immigration but as a political tribunal. But the main point of this paragraph is that we claim we got no help from the state of Israel and will not be defended by it if will be deported back there because we want to show Israel as a mayhem. This is the only tribunal's excuse for ignoring all our evidences, all documentary and other material proofs of police and other state offices' refusal to defend us. This is the only excuse for ignorance of all the reliable and very serious evidences like Amnesty International's confirmation in our case! This is the only excuse for ignorance of intensity and incredible scale of our attempts to find protection in Israel! The next paragraph continues the allegation that we claim we were denied police and multiple organizations' protection, and Knesset members' help (and even our layer couldn't do anything) and were forced to turn to Amnesty International only because ("en effet"!) we want to show that Israel is a state of injustice. The declaration, which the tribunal made in the next paragraph (that Israel is a democratic state, a state like other countries, and so on) has nothing what to do with our claim. Let us express our father concern about credibility of the documentation the tribunal used as a documentary proof "against us". We know that the same document, which mentions the 80% "mobilized" Israelis mentions also a "Department of Integration", which doesn't exist in Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption ("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American, European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the organization, which "takes care" of new immigrants. And this document changes it to the "Department of Integration"...In reality the Zionist ideology is against integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's, Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will be convinced that the name "Ministry of Absorption" expresses their desires completely well. It means that the document, which was used as an "indisputable source of information" replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a false name. Then - how can such a document be considered as a credible one? We also express our deep concern of utilization of Mr. Natan Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know this affidavit was given through a telephone interview what is juridical unacceptable. Especially when the commissioners don't accept copies of articles (even from the most famous newspapers), which refugee claimants present, they demand originals! Then - it was well known before Mr. Sharansky became a Minister in Israeli government that his "Zionist Forum" is not an independent organization (as well as its chairmen) but an organization infiltrated by the government. By the time of our second hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. Malka knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time as well as in all other occasions. She clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government! That paragraph also exploits the topic , which was closed by my answer during our first immigration hearing. Mrs. Malka asked me how can I explain the statistic from Israel that no Russian-speaking people were regestered complaining against the police. I shown then all the receipts of my appeals I have submitted to police, to the Ministry of police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and to police headquarters in Tel-Aviv. And I said that this is the explanation because my mails were unanswered and my complains were never registered. I also presented an article, which gives absolutely precise, reliable and competent information that nothing can be really done against police in Israel. And the story about a policeman who get a fine because of his refusal to help an Arab as an "evidence" looks like a clowned. It was clear for the tribunal that it's impossible to avoid comments about the total ignorance of the whole documentation, which we presented. It was clear that something must be said. This is why the next paragraph was composed to say just anything about that and was designed to say nothing in particular. The tribunal claims that all our documents were rejected because its members took into consideration only "absolutely reliable" documents. And it looks like there were no such documents among these we presented... In reality documents like the letter from the Minister of Culture Mr. Amnon Rubinschtein, which shows that persecutions against me weren't just a chain of coincidences, Amnesty International's confirmation, Lev Ginsburg's affidavit, receipts of my letters to police and other organizations, other official papers can not be considered as "reliable" or "not reliable". Another thing is that their existence may be recognized or not recognized. The tribunal chosen the second way: to ignore them. It's your choice now to decide if that happened as the result of the tribunal's partiality. But we ask you to read over the paragraph #4 on page 3 of the decision where the tribunal rejects in advance even the possibility of existence of such a category of refugees as "refugees from Israel". How could you expect then another attitude to any documents from a tribunal, which refuse to recognize refugees from Israel in principle? On the other hand that tribunal's ability to distinguish between "reliable" and "non-reliable" documents is reflected in documents they chosen themselves to support their point of view: one of them is incompetent when it speaks about Israel , another one has "0" credibility because it was presented during the hearing as an independent source, and in reality is the voice of Israeli government (Mr. Charansky's affidavit), and the 3-rd can proof nothing because it is a part of the declaration of the state of Israel (the Law of Return), and nothing more. The suggestion that my wife refused to collaborate with the tribunal is a pure lie what can be heard on the tapes from the hearings. And the ignorance of the medical documents is the thing from the same category. Please, believe us that our lives were in a real danger in Israel and that this danger just increased since we came to Canada. We were threatened from Israel even here, and we presented the proof. Please, save our souls! Lev Gunin TO UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE TRIBUNAL From Family GUNIN Central European (Windows 1250) Encoding 1. To UN High Commissioner 2. Adjustments TO UNITED NATION'S HIGH COMMISSIONER OF REFUGEES IN MONTREAL, MRS. KIM MANCINI From family GUNIN (Lev, Alla, Ina, Marta, and Lisa Gunin), refugee claimants, who were denied the status of refugees (1997), ADDITIONAL MATERIALS and whose casewas approved for the judicial control in the Federal Court (1998) Postal address: 3455 Aylmer St., App. 201, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2B5 Tel. (514) 499-1294 e-mail: leog@total.net September, 1998, Montreal NEW CHANGES IN OUR SITUATION. NEW FACTS, DOCUMENTS, AND EVENTS SINCE THE FIRST SUBMISSION OF OUR FILE TO UNITED NATION'S HIGH COMMITTEE OF REFUGEES IN MONTREAL ABOUT 1.5 YEARS AGO (By then our file was handed over to Mrs. Luis O'Ben, former head of United Nations High Committee of Refugees) CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT I. New Brief Description of Our Immigration Case II. About Latest Changes in Our Situation III. What We Expect From You I To remind you about details of our case we give its brief description, made by one of our immigration counselors, Mrs. Anna-Maria Augenstad: Shortly before 1991 the authorities ordered Lev Gunin, human rights activist, to leave his native Belarus, and issued an Israeli visa. In April, 1991, in Warsaw, family Gunin attempted to escape to Germany, but were captured by Israelis and taken to Israel by force. They came to Tel-Aviv, including Ina, 4, and Marta, 3-years-old by then. In Israel the children faced systematic humiliations, mockery, and became witnesses of severe persecutions against their parents and grandmother. Without the government permission Gunins could not leave the country. In 1992 they appealed to the consulate of Belarus in Tel-Aviv, but were denied the citizenship and access to their native country. They could live Israel only in 1994 with indirect Amnesty International involvement. They arrived to Canada, claiming a refugee status. The Refugee Board (IRB) did not rejected Gunins' claim completely, but accused the family in provoking persecutions by refusal to change their believes and religious orientation. Doing that, the IRB denied Gunins one of the basic human rights: not to be persecuted for their believes and opinions. IBR members also contacted Israeli embassy, revealing Gunins' refugee claim. IRB members recognized that Gunins started to complain to dozens of organisations and institutions when they were in Israel, and were denied protection. But the IRB concluded that the police and other Israeli institutions' refusal to give family Gunin protection was justified because of the views, expressed by family members. The IRB also invented a speculative suggestion that Gunins turned to all these organizations not for protection but for propaganda against Israel. They also called Gunins aggressive "exaggerators", dangerous to their country (they did not use the word "dangerous", but this is what they mean). The Immigration Board (IRB) also indirectly called Gunins "property of Israel" just because the state of Israel paid for Gunins' transportation from Warsaw to Tel-Aviv. IRB denied the right for all Russian speaking refugees from Israel to claim a status of refugees in principle: just because they came to Tel-Aviv for Israel's cost and because they were allowed to come to Israel according to "the law of return". So, IRB in Montreal rejected the refugee claim of family Gunin in the manner of demonstrative denial of all basic human rights. By rejecting openly the main principles of the Charter of Rights IRB members probably tested special humiliation over family Gunin. Because IRB targeted what is the prerogative of United Nations and rejected one of the most important United Nations' documents, it was natural to turn to United Nation asking to protect not only Gunins' personal rights, but also UN own principles from IRB's attack. This is why and how Lev Gunin made the previous submission to UN High Commission of Refugees in Montreal. II 1. Since then our accommodation in Canada has been improved; we are not on welfare any more. We started to work more then one year ago. 2. Our children continued their brilliant accommodation in Canada, participating in further cultural events since then, including concerts, performances, and TV shows. 3. The Federal Court approved our case for the judicial control (the Federal Court's decision is enclosed). 4. The hearing in the Federal Court is scheduled for the 30-th of September. 5. Israeli consulate in Montreal answered the request to terminate Lev Gunin?s citiwenship first positively; but lqter expressed inqppropriqte preconditions (see the folder REASONS For Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - further: REASONS). 6. By now (September, 1998) it is clear that the members of IRB, assigned to our refugee file, finally refused to return us originals of two among several crucial for our case documents, which they confiscated: a) card for visitors of a Mossad officer, who contacted and interrogated Lev Gunin in Israel; b) and the certified translation of Alla Gunin's birth certificate, made in 1994, in Tel-Aviv. 7. Uncertain situation and fear of removal from Canada became equal for us to a moral torture and seriously damaged health of all members of our family. For further details, please, look over the folder REASONS. You can also contact our family doctor Wanda Brzezinska (tel. ). 8. We won sympathy and compassion of a number of lawyers and immigration counselors, including Maitre Le Brune, Maitre Bouchemin, Maitre Dore, Maitre Tobolewsky, Maitre Drozdowski, and others, who did or doing just great work for us or give us advises. If such a marvelous and numerous team of lawyers could do nothing against unfair immigration decisions, it will mean the end of the legal defense for the refugee claimants. 9. We have collected a big number of signatures under a petition to the Minister of Immigration. 10. Our case caused some international repercussions, including several forums on Internet, specially dedicated to us by web sites owners and designers in several countries. They attracted hundreds of entries. 11. We won sympathy and support of some institutions including school F.A.C.E., which our children attend. 12. Some famous personalities gave referrals to Lev Gunin or composed separate petitions to the Ministry of Immigration. 13. Our legal staff prepared an application for Humanitarian and Compassionate cases program. 14. But in spite of all these achievements we still can be removed to Israel in case of a negative decision in the Federal Court or later, in result of eventual further refugee hearings. Such a removal would end our lives tragically. 15. We would like to abandon our refugee program and start an independent immigration, but this is impossible because of the next obstacles: 1) We consider ourselves as stateless persons (see REASONS) 2) Besides, our Israeli passports have been expired or expiring. It is impossible to extend them (see in REASONS, why) 4) One of us has steady exchange of correspondence with the Israeli consulate in terms of termination of his Israeli citizenship 3) Our appeal for Humanitarian & Compassionate cases could be also rejected: because immigration officials often support previously made by their colleagues decisions in solidarity with them, no matter how unfair they were. 16. All lawyers, which served us or consulted us did not "recommend" us to reveal the fact that we were taken to Israel by force. Being afraid that we can loose their sympathy and emotional support we had to agree not to include this statement in our refugee claim. We need help in finding a lawyer who will admit our claim as a whole, without cutting the fact that we were taken to Israel by force if even he thinks that it will diminish our chances. The only thing we want now is truth. 17. This document is followed by the letter of Elisabeth Epstein, and then - by the copy of an adjustment to an application for Humanitarian and Compassionate cases, which was prepared by one of our counselors in case of a negative decision in the Federal Court (it entitled REASONS). All new events, facts, documents, changes, and arguments were presented in this document, as well is everything we would like to tell you about our situation. REASONS is the new basic document, which we submit to you in our case. More materials can be found on Internet: [http://www.total.net/~leog/appealX.htm] III What We Expect From You? A) We hope that you might prevent or even exclude our removal in case of a negative decision in the Federal Court. And B) Help us with an extortion of termination of our Israeli citizenship from Israeli consulate. This citizenship was given to us against our will and must be terminated. And /Or C) Help us with obtaining any valid travel documents and the Mexican visa for an interview in Canadian consulate for an independent immigration. Or D) Make your own decision recognizing us as refugees Or E) Find a way to obtain for us a granted permanent residency in any country, where we could avoid persecutions, and subsist, eventually working and supporting ourselves without public aide, from the next: Great Britain, France, Germany, Poland, Belgium, Canada. Best regards, Family GUNIN ADJUSTMENTS FOR APPEAL TO UN REFUGEE TRIBUNAL From Lev Gunin, former citizen of USSR (now - Belarus), formal citizen of Israel (asked for termination of his citizenship). Montreal, Oct. 1998 Tel. (514) 499-1294 E-mail: [leog@total.net] 3455 Aylmer St., App. 210, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2B5 Around October, 18, a negative decision, signed by the Federal Court's judge Mr. Dubj, came to my lawyer's office. The date on the decision was October, 8, 1998. They might submit it so late on purpose, to prevent me from starting another immigration program before an eventual deportation order. In His conclusions Mister Judge claimed again that the IRB used "no minimal credibility" formula (paragraph [7] ) towards our refugee claim, what is not completely true. He called the documentary prove, that we and our three lawyers presented, an accumulation of innumerous documentary prove from the " sources fiables " (week sources), including medical documents, requests and protests of my Israeli lawyer about the State Labor Exchange refusal to register me (what is something like an employment authorization in Israel), about the refusal of the Ministry of Culture and Education to allow me a professional course (what was a routine procedure in Israel), about the refusal of the National Insurance to issue me welfare when I was unemployed (this was a precondition of the Labor Exchange for registering me), about Tax Agency's refusal to give me the tax exemption as all fresh newcomers, and so on. I also presented receipts of the registered mails to Israeli Ministry of Police and Ministry of Eternal Affairs with the copies of the letters, responses from the Ministry of Culture and Education, and course "Talpiot", medical documents, testimonies, and so on. I presented innumerous orders from Israeli draft board to appear for tests and interrogations as the proof that the necessity of traveling to the draft board so often distorted my normal life, affected my employment possibilities, and deteriorated our financial situation because the draft board situated not in our city, and the buses tickets were extremely expensive for us, fresh immigrants. I presented Israeli Tax Agency's official requests, submitted to me in violation of Israeli laws about fresh immigrants, which ordered us to present a report about busyness we never had, and deteriorated our financial situation because we had to hire a lawyer to compose such a report. Plus, the Tax Agency documents were submitted to us from Jerusalem in violation of Israeli district rules. And also my wife presented medical, judicial, governmental, and other official documents, which corresponded to events, which happened to her and the children. And Mister Judge called that all "sources fiables"! Incredible! Then, my lawyers quoted sometimes the same documents, which the Ministry of Immigration used against our claim, but different paragraphs. If these are the "sources fiables", then it had to correspond to IRB, too, because they used the same sources! In paragraph [8] of His conclusion Mister Judge wrote: documentary prove shows that claimants could turn for help to Israeli authorities - and obtain the help. If police refused to cooperate, there are multiple other organizations. He completely ignored the fact that we turned for help to Israeli authorities, to all possible governmental institutions, to all possible organizations (see above), but were refused. Only the list of organizations we turned to consist of two pages. Plus, in support of our claim we presented official documents as the proof that we really turned to all these institutions. Now it is clear that He simply refused to compare our arguments with the Ministry's of Immigration, to take our arguments into consideration and present them objectively, but simply copied the Ministry's point of view and presented it as His own. IN OTHER WORDS, HE REFUSED TO JUDGE! So, He violated the whole legal procedure itself, turning the Federal Court procedure into clownery, and producing a decision, which had to be prepared in advance, without any connection with the Federal Court hearing, documents, presented by us, or judgement of the arguments presented by two sides. He also claimed that the analysis of IRB's evaluation of our personal claim is not in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court: this is why he replaced it by a generalized statement about how good the state of Israel treats the Russian-speaking people. Even if our case would missed with another one, I see here a violation of the legal procedure itself - because we appealed not the results of the theoretical dispute around human rights in Israel, which - as any other dispute - can not be solved synonymously, but the practical IRB's decision about our personal refugee claim, which affected our personal lives and brought us to a suicidal situation! He also claimed that the analysis of IRB's evaluation of our personal claim is not in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court: this is why he replaced it by a generalized statement about how good the state of Israel treats the Russian-speaking people. Even if our case would missed with another one, I see here a violation of the legal procedure itself - because we appealed not the results of the theoretical dispute around human rights in Israel, which - as any other dispute - can not be solved synonymously, but the practical IRB's decision about our personal refugee claim, which affected our personal lives and brought us to a suicidal situation! In the same time Mister Dubj was sincere or rather cynical enough to tell me the truth: he pointed that people like me, who claim something that the powerful circles do not want to recognize, "see miracles in the middle of reality". I understood very good what he wanted to say by that. To fight what the powerful politicians made an opinion and hope that an ordinary man like me could win was to expect a miracle! If the state of Israel and powerful Jewish communities decided to stop admission of the Russian speaking refugee claimants in Canada, they did it, and stopped all "Russian" refugees, including me. More persistent I was, more evidences I presented that I was persecuted, more unbeatable material proof I found, more strong they wanted to reject me. NEXT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT NUMBER 10 HUMANITARIAN AND COMPASSIONATE CASES CONTENTS: 1. Part 1: Humanitarian Cases, Main Part 2. Part 2: Exceptional contribution, which Gunins could bring to Canadian cultural heritage 3. List of Photos: Adjustment to PART 2 4. List of Documents: Documents, Chacklist-2 5. Explaination PART