1 Lev Gunin - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - File Number 2948-6524/95/76/23/18 IMM - 1462-97 (In Addition to Form IMM 5283 (02-98) E) REASONS ADJUSTMENT TO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION HUMANITARIAN & COMPASSIONATE CASES Grounds for Exemption - Adjustment to Paragraphs A and B [ A) Canadian Immigration law requires applicants for permanent residence to obtain an immigrant visa outside Canada, before coming to Canada. Explain why you believe that your application for permanent residence should be processed from within Canada as an exception] [ B) What hardship would you have if appeal from outside Canada?] MAIN PART ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF MAIN PART Main part describes each paragraph from the listed above in details. In Main Part, these paragraphs called Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, etc. Each description contains the general descriptions, which are a part of this document, and a number of referrals, data, and links, which correspond to other documents with further detailing, proof, description, and explanation. (There are 2 big chapters of reasons why Applicants can not apply from outside Canada: First 7 Groups [A] and Second 7 Groups [B]). Documents, which this document refers to, are: a) PIF of the immigration file (PIF) b) Audio-cassettes from the refugee hearings (CASSETTES) c) Documents from Applicants' file, which was founded and maintained by their lawyer (LAWYER'S FILE) d) Package of documents, composed by Applicants for the post-determination officer and for the Federal Court (APPLICANTS) e) All documents, which were composed by the Ministry of Immigration in Applicants' case (MINISTRY) f) All material proof and supplementary documents, such as medical documents, newspapers, affidavits, legal, official and other documents, which were added after the 1-st of April, 1998 (SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2) g) Documents, which illustrate and explain why Applicants could bring an exceptional contribution into Canadian cultural heritage (EXCEPTIONAL CONTRIBUTION, WHICH GUNINS COULD - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 2 - BRING TO CANADIAN HERITAGE). REMARK: Decisions taken by the Post-Determination officer and by Federal Court in Applicants' case does not matter for evaluation of the documents described in paragraphs d), e), and f) because these documents might not being taken into consideration when the decisions were made (see all decisions in our case). It is also obvious that the same document might have different values and meaning for different immigration programs, and must be evaluated from the Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds point of view only. ATTENTION! We absolutely demand that before reading this document you read first the copies of our three letters to the High Commissioner of Refugees. Without reading them you could not understand the most delicate and sensitive issues of our situation. If you'll study this document first, it might make a wrong impression. So, we claim that it is absolutely necessary to read above mentioned three document before. These 3 letters are enclosed and attached right after this document. FIRST 7 GROUPS OF REASONS (PARTS) [ A) Canadian Immigration law requires applicants for permanent residence to obtain an immigrant visa outside Canada, before coming to Canada. Explain why you believe that your application for permanent residence should be processed from within Canada as an exception] 1. Applicants consider themselves as people without citizenship (see below) 2. Passport of the principal Applicant has been expired; its extension is not possible through Israeli consulates in Canada (see below) 3. It is also impossible to extend the expired passport in Israel, because there passports are confiscated from some refugee claimants (see below) 4. In spite of the refugee board's negative decision in Applicants' case the danger to their security, health or even lives still exist in Israel. The Refugee Board (IRB) did not reject Applicants' claim completely, but accused the family in provoking persecutions by refusal to change their believes and religious orientation. Doing that, the IRB denied Applicants one of the basic human rights: not to be persecuted for their believes and opinions (see below). During debates in the Federal Court Immigration representative, Mrs. Murphy, went even further, replacing the question about credibility of our refugee claim and IRB's decision by attacks on my personality (see ADJUSTMENTS FOR APPEAL TO UN REFUGEE TRIBUNAL). The Federal Court Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 3 - judge, Monsieur Le Juge J. E. Dubj, committed several legal mistakes, missing up our case with an unreal one (we never received an IRB's decision with "aucune crjdibilitj" remark; if we would appeal the "no minimal credibility" formula, we had no chances to win, but a positive decision to allow us the judicial control was already issued by the Federal Court's judge, Monsieur Le Juge Tremblay-Lamer). 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 generalised statement about how good the state of Israel treats the Russian-speaking people. Even if our case was 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! (see the copy of an appeal to UN High Commissioner for Refugees because of our drastic situation after the Federal Court's negative decision; also compare the texts of IRB's Conclusive Decision - see in the folder MINISTRY, Federal Court's positive decision to allow us the hearing for the Judicial Control, and Mister Judge Dubj's decision in our case - see in the folder SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2) 5. The principle Applicant submitted a request to Israeli government to abandon his Israeli citizenship (see explanations below) 6. If after 4 years in Canada Applicants' children would be sent away - this would be an inhuman action. 7. Members of Applicants' family can bring an exceptional contribution into Canadian cultural heritage (see below) DESCRIPTIONS PART 1 - (a) Thesis: Applicants consider themselves as people without citizenship. Applicants claim that they were actually deported from their native country (Belarus) to Israel against their will (see folder APPLICANTS, document # 2) They also claim that in Warsaw Israeli officials prevented them from going to Germany and took them to Israel by force (see: APPLICANTS, document #2, pages 7,8,9) - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 4 - Therefore, in spite of their protests and disagreements Applicants were taken to the state of Israel (see: APPLICANTS, document # 2, pages 7,8,9) Applicants believe that Israeli citizenship was thrust on them, and they would like not to use it for the independent immigration procedure from outside Canada Any attempts to force Applicants to use the citizenship, which - they believe - was given to them against their will, would severely violate the basic principles of human rights and freedoms This is one of the reasons why they must be given a possibility to apply from within the country Applicants also submitted several messages to Israeli government in Lev GUNIN's name asking the Israeli government to terminate his Israeli citizenship. The copy of these letters and the responses from Israeli side are enclosed (see them among SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, Requests for Citizenship Termination). In 1993, Applicants applied to the consulate of Belarus in Tel-Aviv, asking for restoration of their Belorusian citizenship, but were denied. This part mainly refers to next documents: 1) APPLICANTS, Document #2 2) APPLICANTS, Supplements 3) Copies of the letters to Israeli government and consulate, and the responses (SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, Requests for Citizenship Termination, doc. 9, 10, 11, etc.) PART 2 - (a) Thesis: Passport of the principal Applicant has been expired; its extension is not possible through Israeli consulate in Canada The Israeli passport of one of the Applicants (Lev GUNIN's passport) has been expired already by March 1998 (see the photocopy of the passport: SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, documents 4, 4-a). - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 5 - If even an obstacle to use Israeli passports, described in the Part 1, would not exist, an extension of Lev Gunin's expired passport is not possible anyway because of the next reasons: 1) Israeli consulates practice refusals to extend passports of Russian speaking refugee claimants (see SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, document number 5). 2) Israeli consulates not just reject the requests to extend an Israeli passport, but also practicing humiliation over Russian speaking visitors (see SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, document number 6). 3) A stamp "claimed a refugee status in Canada" is placed in passports of those, who claimed the refugee status in Canada, instead of the extension (see SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, document number 7). PART 3 - (a) Thesis: It is also impossible to extend the expired passport in Israel, because passports are confiscated from refugee claimants (See: SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, document number 8) Because Lev Gunin's Israeli passport has been expired, Applicants can not go outside Canada for obtaining a Canadian immigration visa. The only country they could go to is the state of Israel. However, it is widely known that when people who claimed a refugee status in Canada return to Israel, their passports might be confiscated: if Israeli authorities know that they claimed a refugee status. Madam Judith Malka, the immigration officer, member of the IRB assigned to Applicants' refugee file, informed Israeli consulate about Applicants' refugee claim (see: APPLICANTS, document 1, INTRODUCTION, and also: pages 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18). Therefore, Applicants belong to the category of people, whose passports must be eventually confiscated in Israel. All necessary documents are enclosed. Part 4 - (a) Thesis: 1) In spite of the refugee board's negative decision in Applicants' case the danger to their security, health or even lives still exist in Israel. The Refugee Board (IRB) did not reject Applicants' claim completely, but accused the family in provoking persecutions by refusal to change their believes and religious orientation. Doing that, the IRB denied Applicants one of the basic human rights: Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 6 - not to be persecuted for their believes and opinions. 2)Immigration representative, Mrs. Murphy, only enforced that attitude in her speech in the Federal Court. 3)We believe, that giving His negative decision, the Judge of the Federal Court did severe mistakes violating the legal procedure itself. 1) See the analyses of the negative decision in folder "APPLICANTS", Document #5, Conclusive Decision; and in Group of Documents # 4 2) See ADJUSTMENTS FOR APPEAL TO UN REFUGEE TRIBUNAL (folder SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2) 3) See this document, FIRST 7 GROUPS OF REASONS (PARTS), paragraph 4 Part 5 - (a) Thesis: One of the Applicants (Mr. Lev Gunin) has submitted a request to Israeli government to abandon his Israeli citizenship He was submitting the same request several times, first time in 1994, when he was in Israel. Since 1994, in Canada, he used to submit such a - request once a year, since 1996. The latest request was submitted on September 10, 1998, by his consultant, Anna-Maria Augestad. The copies of the requests and other relating documents are enclosed (see Copies of the letter to Israeli government (consulate) and the responses in folder Supplementary Documents-2, Requests for Citizenship Termination). Part 6 - (a) Thesis: If after 4 years in Canada Applicants' children would be sent away - this would be an inhuman action. The children accommodated in Canada very well, when in Israel they suffered from neuroses and hiperkinesys (see this document, SECOND 6 GROUPS OF REASONS, Part one). If they will be sent away from here, where they feel secure, convenient and equal, back to the nightmare they lived under when they were in Israel, - this would be an inhuman action. See also a letter from Elisabeth Epstein, related to this issue (SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, doc. 1). Part 7 - (a) - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 7 - Thesis: Members of Applicants' family could bring an exceptional contribution into Canadian cultural heritage. Everything, which relates to this part, is described in additional documents (REASONS For Humanitarian and Compassionate cases, sub-folder CONTRIBUTION): a) Introduction for: "Exceptional contribution, which Gunins could bring to Canadian cultural heritage". b) Evaluation of Lev Gunin as a talented musician / musical composer. c) Evaluation of Lev Gunin as a poet and writer. d) Evaluation of Lev Gunin as a human right activist, historian, and a thinker. e) Evaluation of Ina and Marta Gunin. f) Evaluation of Gunins as a family. SECOND 7 GROUPS OF REASONS (PARTS) [ B) What hardship would you have if appeal from outside Canada?] 1. An irreversible damage could be cause to Applicants' health if they will be forced to apply from outside Canada (see below) 2. Applicants' lives could be under a threat (see below) 3. Mistakes, committed by the members of the refugee board (IRB), Mrs. Murphy, put Applicants' health and lives under an additional threat (see below) 4. Applicants might face ill treatment and extreme sanctions if they will be forced to appeal from outside Canada (see below) 5. Both Israeli authorities and IRB consider one of the Applicants as an enemy of Israel with a tendency to justify any punishment (see below) 6. Direct threats to Applicants used to come from Israel even here, to Montreal (see below) 7. Because of all above-mentioned reasons exceptional hardship for Applicants to apply from outside Canada (from Israel) seems obvious (see below). A special permission (pass) is required to leave Israel. Lev GUNIN was always refused that "departure authorization" during 3,5 years, when he lived in Israel. He links Israeli authorities' decision to give him at least that authorization with his appeal to Amnesty International in 1994. Authorities in Israel will never give it to Gunins again (Israeli authorities refusal to give Gunins permission to leave the state of Israel during 3 years was discussed during their refugee hearing; refers to CASSETTES). So, he never could do the independent immigration procedure from outside Canada because Israeli authorities will never let him leave Israel again! The certified translation of that pass - permission - (2-pages document) was presented to the IRB in Montreal and can be found in folder SUPPLEMENTS-2. Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 8 - Part 1 - (b) Thesis: An irreversible damage could be caused to Applicants health if they will be forced to apply from outside Canada There are 5 main reasons for that: 1) Because one of Applicants' passports has been expired, and can not be extended (see: SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, documents 5,6,7,8,9,10,11, etc.) Applicants could go outside Canada only to Israel. In the same time Applicants have so much fear of what they believe could threat their freedom, lives, right not to be persecuted, if they would be forced back to Israel, that it alone could damage their health by a psychological shock (see: APPLICANTS, Document 1). Three and a half years in Israel already damaged Applicants' health so much that now another push towards the same country may lead to irreversible damage to their health. This issue was described or reflected in next documents: APPLICANTS, Document #1, pages 5,6,7,8,17,18; NOTE OF MOTION OF EXTENSION OF TIME; SUPPLEMENTS; see the list of medical documents. To evaluate this point it is necessary to read over all documents in this submission. To examine this point, please, read over the above mentioned documents. [Please, also look over all medical documents in SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS-2, sub-folder MEDICAL]. 2) What Applicants consider as IBR members' humiliating behavior and partiality provoked Applicants to feel themselves completely unprotected, insecure, bad-treated and insulted (see: APPLICANTS, Document #1, pages # 3-8, 14-18; Document #4, parts 1,2, and 3; Document #5; also see: LAWYER'S FILE, Document # ). This caused an additional damage to their health. Part 2 - (b) Thesis: Applicants' lives could be under a threat Applicants' lives might be under a threat if they will be forced to appeal from outside Canada. Predictable inhuman treatment and extreme sanctions against them in Israel (because this is the only country they can go: please, read over the First seven reasons, this document, page #2) can put even their lives under a threat. They already faced inhuman treatment and extreme sanctions in Israel (see: APPLICANTS, Document #1, pages # 10-14, 16-19), and there are same significant indications (see the same documents) that the both inhuman treatment and extreme - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - page 9 - sanctions will be used against them again as soon as they will enter the state of Israel. Such a sensitive towards some specific items state as Israel might retaliate against Lev Gunin even for his request to terminate his Israeli citizenship. Both adults - both husband and wife - already suffering from: she - chronically fatigue and depression, he - from hyper tension and other blood vessel disorders, as well as neurological disorders in result of what - they believe - happened to them in Israel. Their heath disorders were jeopardized because of extremely painful and dramatically tenth immigration collisions. Now the state of their health is not a direct threat to their lives. But if removed to Israel, Applicants could face any father damage to their health, and then it could become irreversible. Besides, Applicants' lives might be under a threat in Israel: sooner or later. The latest documents enclosed by Applicants in this submission present some further explanations. Part 3 - (b) Thesis: Actions, committed by the members of the refugee board (IRB), put Applicants' health and lives under an additional threat. In her speech in the Federal Court Immigration representative, Mrs. Murphy, repeated IRB's mistakes, and even enforced them Non-compatible with the status of IRB actions, which were committed by the IRB members, assigned to Applicants' file, directly increased an eventual danger for Applicants if they would be forced to go back to Israel: 1. IRB members contacted Israeli embassy and denounced (disclosed) Applicants' refugee claim (see next documents: APPLICANTS, Group of Documents #4, document #3 (p.p.1,2,3); APPLICANTS, document #1 (page 1, paragraph 3, points 2,3,5,8, 11); APPLICANTS, document #1, INTRODUCTION, and pages 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; SUPPLEMENTS, documents #6, 7). IRB members had no reasonable grounds to do that (APPLICANTS, document #1, page 13, paragraph "D"). The disclosure of Applicants' refugee claim to Israeli officials from one side shows the total ambivalence of the IRB members towards refugee claimants' security, and from another side caused an additional severe threat to their freedoms and lives if they will be moved to Israel. 2. IRB members presented Applicants as exaggerators, who committed themselves to spread slander against "their" state (see next documents: - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - p.10 - APPLICANTS, Group of Documents # 4, Document #3 (p.3, paragraph 4; p.4, 3 last paragraphs; p.5); APPLICANTS, Document #5, p.2, paragraph P.4). 3. IRB members pretended that the Applicants appealed to dozens of institutions and organizations in Israel (with complains) not for protection but to spread slander against "their" country (see: APPLICANTS, document #5, p.2, paragraph P.4). IRB members recognised that Applicants started to complain to dozens of organizations and institutions when they lived 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 (folder APPLICANTS, document 5, page 3). The IRB also invented a speculative suggestion that Gunins turned to all these organisations not for protection but for propaganda against Israel (APPLICANTS, document 5, page 3). 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" (see APPLICANTS, document 5, page 2, paragraph P.3). 4. IRB members expressed almost direct insinuations that Applicants came to Canada to defame against "their" country, just camouflaging it by the refugee claim (see APPLICANTS, document 5, page 2, paragraph P.3). 5. Therefore the general ideologically-motivated line in IRB statements and in their questions during interrogations put the equal sign between peaceful protests against human rights violations, Applicants' attempts to defend themselves, their human dignity in Israel, - and revolutionary activity, defamation and/or mutiny. 6. Everything, starting from IRB members' replicas during the hearing, to their negative decision's text, is a direct encouragement for Israelis to continue persecutions of Applicants. Or a direct order... Part 4 - (b) Thesis: Applicants might face ill treatment and extreme sanctions if they will be forced to appeal from outside Canada It is clear from the above placed information that Applicants can go outside Canada only to Israel. But in Israel Applicants would face ill treatment and extreme sanctions. - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - p.11 - This part correspond to all above mentioned reasons. To learn more, please, read over next documents: folder APPLICANTS, document#1, page 16, INHUMAN TREATMENT; folder APPLICANTS, document#1, page 10; APPLICANTS, GROUP OF DOCUMENTS #4, document#1. Part 5 - (b) Thesis: Both Israeli authorities and IRB considered one of the Applicants (L. Gunin) as an enemy of Israel with a tendency to justify any punishment. This consideration goes in contradiction with the clear evidence that the only thing he wants is to be away from the state of Israel, and the only method he's using to achieve it is the peaceful, legal approach. The Refugee Board's treatment of Mr. Gunin is evidently not independent. During their evaluation of GUNINS' claim they were in close contacts with Israeli embassy. They clearly demonstrated a tendency to represent the attitude from the Israeli point of view before the objective evaluation of the dangers for the refugee claimants in case of their removal. Instead of defining whether or not the removal of the refugee claimants from Canada is dangerous for them, they made attempts to define their "guilt". Instead, the Refugee Board turned itself into a kind of a criminal (or, rather, a political) court, accusing Applicants in exaggerations, propaganda against Israel, and other "crimes". The very tone of the negative conclusive decision is not a neutral, but accusational. The same tone was used by all Israeli official documents, which concern Applicants. Part 6 - (b) Thesis: Direct threats to Applicants used to come from Israel even here, to Montreal Israeli state radio and newspapers used to make direct provocation against Lev Gunin trying to cause violence against him, playing on sensitive issues. Applicants also used to get mails from Israel, which reflected some actual threats to them. There also were malicious telephone threats, e-mails, and other forms of threats. Applicants believe that an official status in Canada given to them could put an immediate end to such threats. In the same time these threats proved that if removed to Israel Applicants would face malicious anger of Israeli authorities as well as of ordinary Israelis [see APPLICANTS, SUPPLEMENTS, documents #30 ("A" and "B")]. - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases - p.12 - Part 7 - (b) Thesis: Because of all above mentioned reasons the extreme hardship for Applicants to apply from outside Canada (from Israel) seems obvious. Applicants can never apply from Israel (the only country they can go) for Canadian permanent residency because of: 1) predictable persecutions; 2) impossibility of accommodation in Israel; 3) eventual confiscation of Applicants' passports; 4) a special permission, which is required in Israel to leave the country; Israeli authorities will never give it to Lev Gunin again (the permission issue was already discussed during the refugee hearings). Resume: Family Gunin suffered a lot. They went through dramatic, drastic, and tragic events. It is absolutely clear that they can not apply for permanent residency in Canada from outside Canada. A refusal to give them a possibility to apply from within Canada will bring their lives to a tragic end. If humanity and compassion is not for them - for whom then? IMPORTANT NOTICE: PLEASE, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS, MENTIONED HERE AND IN OTHER DECLARATIONS, WITH REFERRAL TRACES, MIGHT BE SUBMITTED 1-2 WEEKS AFTER PART 2 Lev Gunin - Humanitarian & Compassionate Cases IMM Second Additional Document [refers to the form 5283 (02-98) E] Exceptional contribution, which Gunins could bring to Canadian cultural heritage REFERS TO REASONS ADJUSTMENT TO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION HUMANITARIAN & COMPASSIONATE CASES Grounds for Exemption - Adjustment to Paragraphs A and B Three members of Applicants' family can bring an exceptional contribution into Canadian cultural heritage. 1. Mr. L. Gunin is a productive musical composer, journalist, historian, poet, writer, and amateur photographer. He is also an advance computer designer and HTML programmer. Mr. Lev GUNIN is an editor of two non-commercial Montreal-based newspapers: in Polish and in Russian languages. He is an owner and editor of 11 web sited on Internet; 7 of them are E-Zines. His newspapers and E-Zines became wide known among International Internet community. People submitted him tenth of mails and thousands of E-mails. They expressed their interest and approval. His creative works in Russian (poetry and prose) became known on faculties of Russian Literature in a number of universities, for example, in Gomel University (Belarus) or Moscow State University (Russia). A number of famous personalities like a famous Russian writer Vladimir Batchev or poet Andrei Voznesensky spoke with warmth about L.Gunin's poetry. Mr. Josef Brodsky, Noble Prize-winner, has marked his poetry as unusual and sophisticated. Mr. Gunin's essays were published in huge number in Belarus, Russia, Israel, Germany, France, Poland, and Canada. Interviews with him were published by the leading Russian newspaper "Vesti" in Israel (1994) and by the Radio "Russian Aliance" in Montreal, Canada (1998). World-famous writer and scenario creator, author of the famous American movie "Hostages", Mr. Grigory Svirski, citizen of Canada, gave the highest approval to L. Gunin's creative and social activity. Gunin's prose and poetry were added to the most complete and famous electronic Russian libraries (Alex Farber & Maxim Moshkov's library, for example). Mr. Gunin is an author of numerous contemporary compositions for piano, orchestra, choral, instrumental duets, trios, etc., and also electronic music and songs in jazz, pop and rock styles. In Montreal he took part in a number of music festivals, concerts, and other types of musical activity. During his Montreal's life period he released several musical albums with other musicians and poets - both immigrants and Canadian citizens. He created several songs with relatively well-known Montreal poet Miguel Lamiel. His music was placed on Internet. He participated in so many musical events that they hardly could be listed. Mr. Gunin is a member of Montreal-based Saint-Lawrence choral (the leading in Quebec) and Union Des Artist. Mr. Gunin is a known human rights activist, recognised by many informal human rights groups all over the world. He maintains contacts with the leading human rights organisations. Mr. Gunin's works about the history of Belarus were approved by all leading professional historians in Belarus, including A. Gritzkievich, A. Tarasov, O.Dadiomova, V. Posse, etc. His work "BOBRUYSK" is a unique monograph of that kind among the books about Belorusian cities. He is also an author of works in music history, musicology, theory of music, counterpoint, art, and culture. He is an author of a number of philosophical essays and works in political science. As an amateur photographer he has a fresh, colourful and original style. Mr Gunin is an advanced amateur computer technician, designer and HTML programmer. He is also an amateur architect. All about mentioned information is supported by documents, referrals, photos, diplomas, certificates, etc. This supplementary information evaluates each sphere of Mr. Gunin's activity separately, and could be divided on next parts: 1) Music plus works in musicology 2) Poetry 3) Prose 4) Journalism 5) Works in history 6) Computer skills + HTML programming This 6 groups of documents will be submitted 1-2 days later or could be presented on your request. One can ask: Why - if he is so talented - we never heard about him? This is because in the former USSR Lev was seriously persecuted (read over folder Applicants, document 2), his creative works were not compatible with the communist ideology - and therefore could not be officially presented for publications or awards. All doors were closed before him, and his carrier was broken in advance. Could he make his carrier in Israel - country, where he never wished to go and where he was taken by force; country, which he criticised long before he was taken there? (See: Applicants, Documents 1, 2, etc.). Of course, not! In Israel he was also widely persecuted. He was not permitted to work in his profession; even an employment authorisation was refused him: formally an Israeli citizen! Newspapers in Israel called him "an enemy"; Israeli State radio called him "an enemy"! (See other documents). He could not advance in his attempts to be treated like other people (see attached documents)... Now, in Canada... In spite of the pressure of his tragic immigration situation, uncertain status, time and money-consuming fight for not to be removed from Canada, time-consuming self-training to polish his French and English, French course, low social status related to his immigration situation, hardness of accommodation period, and myriad of other obstacles, Canada became the first country in his life, where he is little by little - but advancing. For almost 4 years in Montreal (taking in consideration his unstable immigration situation) his achievements are just great! You can learn more about them in supplementary information (see the bottom of the previous page). There is another part of Mr. Gunin's activity, which is hidden and not so evidently impressive among his achievements, but - in the same time - is very important and means a breakthrough for him. This activity could play a role of his achievements or substitute them in some cases, or explain why more impressive results can be predicted because of next reasons: a) He was and is still restoring some of his manuscripts, confiscated by the former Soviet or by the Israeli authorities. b) Before showing his musical or literacy works to potential publishers, managers or sponsors he had to make them readable, retype, print and fold them, make musical records in professional recording studios, what he did during 3 years. This process is almost finished by now. c) It took time also to meet important people and find other musicians with whom he could record his music. d) To do that all and to avoid ignorance in creative people' environment, to keep himself technically updated, he had to buy (or get as an offer) expensive equipment, which he could not get just instantly. By now the most important part of such equipment has been purchased or obtained. e) Typing, retyping, scanning, printing hundreds of pages, making professional recordings, translating if necessary, and creating musical arrangements was a long, money- and time-consuming process, but it was absolutely necessary for preparation of a potential future success. f) Editing and preparing his works for presentations, Lev Gunin did a huge, monumental job in relatively unfavourable situation. In spite of his hard attempts and his present achievements he can not complete and persuade his goals without any stable status in Canada. By these 6 above-placed paragraphs ("a" - "f") we wanted to show that he is not just a talented person but also a hard worker; and he did maximum of the possible in his situation to gain success, and deserves to be given a chance to make society benefiting from his talents. It would be absolutely unfair if such a person will be removed from Canada as if he was an ordinary person without any creativity and without monumental creative goals... The former Soviet Union was a classical totalitarian power. This power took away Lev Gunin's future, prevented the society from benefiting from his talents, and made his life tragic and unbearable. An evil force sent him to another country: where he did not want to go and where the verdict against him, taken once by the Soviet authorities, was confirmed. It is not in the best interests of Canada to maintain the consequences of what one of the most brutal regimes in History did to this man. It would be a tragic mistake if Canada will manifest support to a former brutal regime's decision and will regenerate in time the destructive effect to Lev Gunin's life, which was originally generated by the former totalitarian regime. Will Lev Gunin become a famous musical composer or a poet, will he concentrate on literature or on history, will his creativity been targeting just his closely friendship environment; will he get a professional job in music or will work as a volunteer on the amateur scale (as a member of a choral or an instrumental group), the society will benefit from his creativity anyway. We were not committed here to discuss social mechanisms, which put up one talented person to the top of success, and another one, may be, more talented, don't. We are not here to analyse why J. S. Bach, V. A. Mozart, F. Schubert, Van Gogh, and other genius, died in poverty and obscurity. But we know that the society benefited from their talents even without recognising their creative superiority. In the same way it might benefit from Lev Gunin's creativity if he would be left alone, out of the threat of deportation. We strongly believe that the rejection of his refugee claim came as the result of extreme generalisation, partiality and was generated by the influence of the state of Israel. It is in the interests of justice to let him stay in Canada. 2. Alla Gunin is a creative and hard-working person, reliable and honest. During all years of persecution, instability, sometimes financial difficulties, and threat of deportation - during the last 4 years, she always was with her family, with her husband and children. In spite of her deep depression, caused of the immigrations situation, she gave all her love, her creativity, and her support to her husband and children. I don't know any other example, when in similar situation, which could be compared for that poor family with the war-time, another woman did so much for her love ones! Gunins children's excellent performance in that tragic, drastic situation could be explained not only by their father's participation in their education, but by their mother's creativity and love. 3. Ina Gunin is a perspective talented musician, music and storywriter. From her very young age Ina Gunin was a gifted and promising musician, good in both instrumental and theoretical spheres. She is an advanced for her age piano player (certificates and other documents are enclosed), a flute player, a member of F.A.C.E. Junior Tremble choir, conducted by well-known Erica Phar, and another choir, conducted by Mr. Yvon Edwards. Ina is also a young musical composer, and a good theoretician. When she was just 4 years old, Ina started to create tales and stories. Now she is an advanced storywriter. She has written tenth of them in French and in English. All necessary documents are enclosed. (Some of them might be submitted in an additional envelops). 4. Marta Gunin is a talented ballerina, recognised by all ballet teachers as an exceptionally talented young ballerina, may be just one of 2-3 in Canada. She was chosen by the National Ballet of Canada among many other children as the one of the most talented. Marta is a gifted ballerina. She is dancing from 4 years old. She has good skills and abilities, good physical form, esthetical and rhythmical feeling - and she is very nice in movements and in everything she is doing. The director of the National Ballet educational department M-me Bishop recognised Marta as an extremely talented person. All Marta's ballet teachers predict her a great future. She already participated in several big performances in several theatres, including Jean-Mance theatre, Clark Theatre, and she must participate in the big "Nutcracker" (ballet) Christmas performance.