Canadian Immigration Board: Time to Replace all of them?

VANCOUVER - A violent 26-year-old Sri Lankan immigrant given an unbelievable second reprieve from deportation was charged with attacking a man with a hatchet while that decision was being mulled.

Three weeks before an Immigration and Refugee Board member compassionately ruled Jeyachandran Balasubramaniam should be allowed to stay in Canada, he was arrested by Vancouver police after a bloody eastside brawl Sept. 14.

But Appeal Division member Mojdeh Shahriari didn't consider that information before giving him his latest break. She blocked his deportation, saying Balasubramaniam was a low risk to reoffend, even though he had been twice convicted of violence.

I tried to interview her but was told she would not comment and that her Oct. 5 decision was based "solely" on the evidence presented at the Sept. 12 hearing. The Canada Border Service Agency said it is aware of the pending charges and is monitoring the situation. But a spokesman said the government can not make any move to have Balasubramaniam's status reconsidered until the court proceedings are complete.

I said Friday, before I knew about the new allegations, that Shahriari's judgment was wrong-headed given Balasubramaniam's history. After the column hit the street and I learned of the hatchet charges, I thought her decision ridiculous.

The ruling is an indictment of a legal system in which one hand doesn't appear to know what the other is doing. Why would such pertinent information not be immediately relayed to Shahriari?

Balasubramaniam was charged with two counts of assault after the fight at the Cobalt Hotel only two days after he and his lawyer appeared before Shahriari pleading for understanding. (A 49-year-old man was hit on the head with a hatchet in the struggle but survived with surprisingly minor injuries.)

Shahriari's decision portrayed Balasubramaniam as if he were a boy scout who deserved a break. He is anything but. That Balasubramaniam is again before the courts should not surprise anyone.

He was ordered deported in 2002 after he was convicted of knifing a woman during a purse-snatching and served 18 months in jail. But that order was stayed in spite of the explicit flags this guy was a time bomb.

Balasubramaniam ignored the conditions imposed on him by that first reprieve. Then, he assaulted his former common-law wife in a drunken Christmas Eve altercation in 2004, which prompted the Canada Border Services Agency to ask the deportation order be reinstated.

But Shahriari said in spite of Balasubramaniam's "serious" misconduct, she would again stay the deportation order because he fathered a son in March 2004. Aside from his convictions for violence, Shahriari said she also chose to "not make a negative inference" from the apparent existence of unresolved criminal charges against Balasubramaniam in Montreal dating back half a decade.

"It is my finding, that [Balasubramaniam] has taken steps towards rehabilitation, as demonstrated in his crime-free life [since 2003] except for this incident [the assault on his common-law wife], and as such while the risk of reoffending is unfortunately not terminated for this person, it has diminished," Shahriari said.

I can't imagine her writing that had someone told her he was again charged with serious violence. I think she still should have bounced him back to his homeland. In the face of his latest escapade, I think the government should be moving expeditiously to kick him out of Canada.

Balasubramaniam is a Grade 10 drop-out who has been committing petty crimes and thumbing his nose at our values for a decade. His father, a Tamil, arrived as a convention refugee to live in Montreal with his wife and three sons in 1992. Balasubramaniam was 11.

As a teenager, he began abusing liquor and drugs and turning into a public nuisance. He has been a drain on our law-enforcement, legal and social service resources since. Towards the end of 2000, he moved to Vancouver at 19 to live with an uncle in an attempt to make a fresh start. He is about as likely to turn his life around as I am to win the lottery.

As far as I can see, it meant only that B.C. instead of Quebec taxpayers started picking up the tab. His conviction for the March 2001 purse-snatching rendered Balasubramaniam inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and, when he finished his sentence, he was ordered deported July 29, 2002.

Balasubramaniam appealed that removal order and in February 2003, Anita Boscariol of the appeal division issued a four-year stay of removal subject to numerous conditions.

In essence, she told him if he straightened up, he could stay in Canada. Balasubramaniam was to abstain from drugs and alcohol, be of good behaviour and that sort of thing.

"With respect to the issue of the risk of the appellant's re-offending in this case, in reviewing all of the evidence, I believe with proper guidance, the avoidance of negative influences and intoxicants of all kinds, and the continued resolve on the part of the appellant, and given that this was his only conviction, the appellant will present a low risk to reoffend," Boscariol wrote.

She was wrong. He couldn't fly right.

In Jan. 2005, Balasubramaniam was convicted of assaulting his former common-law partner. And the border agency again applied to have him tossed. Shahriari conducted a hearing Sept. 12 and retired to consider her decision.

Two days later Balasubramaniam was again charged with serious violence. On Oct. 5, Shahriari decided Balasubramaniam deserved compassion for a variety of reasons. For one, Balasubramaniam has lived in Canada since he was a kid and now has a job with a plumbing company.

Appointed to her two-year term in May by the federal Tories, Shahriari concluded deportation would "cause emotional dislocation and hardship to him as well as to his family members in Canada. I have given this factor significant weight."

As well, she said Balasubramaniam was trying to be a good father to his son.

"I find that the appropriate appeal is to stay the execution of the removal order for a further two-year period, subject to the terms and conditions set out below," she ruled.

Wrong-o. This guy should be turfed as quickly as possible.

imulgrew@png.canwest.com