mployment 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 Dubй 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 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. Dubй, committed  several legal  mistakes,
missing up our case with an unreal one (we never received an IRB's
     decision with "aucune crйdibilitй" 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 Dubй'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