Table Of Content

semua (27ST FEDERAL COURT Fea ae 8 BETWEEN: Randall Rudy QUALD & Evgenia Heleus Quaid AKA Evtand Randy Qual lover ch Aplesan cps na mans ating esi fetter ele fn. Pe sees se nm air yi Ke fo CGH ee ig Applteantgy 448 and Mluster of Citizenship aad hnmigration init se mon ofthe Minion resgomatBs fi the edna. Rue Protons Ac: esas oe multe fr wc the amiga ad ribet sch Respondent) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE and for TMICLAL REVIEW LOUHE 2PSPONDEN TIS) AN APHLICATION FOR LLAVE: TO. COMMENCE AN APPIIC JLDICAL REVIFW UNDER SUBSECTION 701) OF THE DMIGRATION AND REPUGRE PROTECTION 4CT has heen enmmeaced hy the epplizant, UNLESS A 1LAUE OTHERWISE DIRE, MHS Ave be tlisposed af aichrut personal appearance Dy toe peri, in 721) (a) of te Fuigrarion and Refger Protection Act. YOU WISH ‘10 UPPOST TRIS APPLICATION FOR LEAVE, yon or & yolistor sushorized to practiee in Canada and atx er yw must cnediately peeps a Native 8! ‘Apneamace in Form 22-2 prescribes by ke Federal Carty umigrcusin coed Regge Prateetion Hues, serve % on the siounal and the apolicsas soli a, Phe wppticanl sfoes not ivve a soliior, serve ium the apslicsnt, aad fle i wit pron’ afies sence, al "he Registy, within 10 days ater “he secise ofthis app ican Kir ‘eave, TF YOU FALL TO D0 36, she Court lease and. Uf Dee iewe is granted, of ew fee notioe Yeu 1 nevertheless dispace of this apalication far subsecvent upglisaion fer jediciel review Note: Copies of the relevant Rafes of Cow, iltrzanion om He Inca etlice ofthe Cine and aaler necestary information anay be obtained! From as Local ulfice of the ral Cour or the Regist in Ohlans, telephone: (62 8, ‘The applicant seeks leave of the Court to commence an application for judicial review of; (set out the date and details of the matter ~ the decision, determination or order made, measure taken or question raised ~ in respect of which a judicial review is sought) of Canada refusing the Ap] tate the refugee claims, Client ID the decision of Baljinder Chahal of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Buard of Canada ng to understand the Claims of Evi and Randy Quaid were Not Withdrawn and Provection is still Requested until a hearing can be scheduled and heard and the facts honestly weighed. Now ay 201% The decision was communicated to the Applicant on: November 30, 2012 (lusert the date on which the applicant was notified or otherwise became aware of the matter.) ‘The name of the tribunal / decisiun maker is: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Refugee Protection Division The address and telephone number of the tribunal / decision maker is: The name of each person who was on the tribunal is: Baljinder Chahal The tribunal / decision maker's file number(s) is (are): In the event that the leave is granted, the applicant seeks the following relief by way of a judicial review: (set out the precise relief sought should leave be granted, including any statutory provision or rule relied on) In the event that the leave is granted, the application for judicial review is to be based on the following grounds: (set out the grounds to be argued, including a reference to ny statutory provision or rule to be relied on) 1. _ Information was wrongfully denied the Applicants. the rationale for Article 1F(b) The decision maker erred in finding that the evidence supports that the Applicants made an informed decision to withdraw their refugee claims. The government bureaucracy in BC and Miller Thomson firm in BC. respectively Silvia Yu and Catherine Sas, had lost most of the data relating to the Claim. The Claim was not withdrawn. The Miller Thomson firm and the government lost the data submitted. (See letter attached dated Dec 3, 2010) As a result Silvia Yu requested / demanded withdrawal, claiming refugees Randy and Evi Quaid, who are afraid for their ” fives and had PR Status and citizenship, should withdraw their claim (See Dec. 3, 2010 letter attached) The refugee claim should stay in place as it protects life and limb. No decision so important about 2 peaples' fives should be made based on lost data and misinformation between 3” partys Silvia Yu and Catherine Sas. Instead, a decision should be made to protect the claimants Evi and Randy Quaid until the claim is heard 2. Evi and Randy Quaid have been subjected to an injustice. Their claim has not been heard. They fear for their lives from real criminals of organized crime and have asked to be protected by Canada until the claim is heard, just like any other refugees. Incompetent tranfer of data is not a justifiable reason to terminate someones claim. Justice is served when a hearing takes place and the facts behind the refugees! claims are weighed by the board. Organized crime and its victims arc serious issues and can not be tossed off until the claim is heard. The refugee claims should remain intact as should Evi and Randy Quaid’s heads remain attached to their necks and it is their firm belief that their lives are at stake and being rackateered on, They rely on Canada’s protection fo remain alive. The Quaids claim is not Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, Evi and Randy Quaids lives are in danger here!. ‘The applicant: has [_] / has not [7 received written reasons from the tribunal, Tn the event that the leave is granted, the applicant proposes that the application for judicial review be heard at Vancouver (insert City), in the English (English and/or French) language. nae Caw / t ‘The Applicants’ name and address for service in Canada is: TO: Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Regional Office TO: Silvia Yu (registrar) Denise Reid (Minister CBSA Vancouver) Catherine Sas (Miller Thomson Name(s) and address (es} of respondent(s)