DAYS after it was learnt that its presidential candidate Irfaan Ali cannot travel to Canada, another PPP member, former Minister of Human Services and Social Security, Jennifer Webster, lost her Canadian residency status after failing to comply with that country’s residency obligation.

In handing down its ruling, the Immigration Refugee Board of Canada Immigration Appeal Division explained that the former Guyana government minister failed to comply with the residency obligation of section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. According to the records, Webster had not resided in Canada for at least 730 days in the five-year period immediately before November 2014.

“The appellant did not challenge the legal validity of the determination. She conceded that she was not physically present in Canada for 730 days in the five-year period between December 2009 and December 2014,” the Immigration Appeal Division explained, while noting that Webster asked that discretion be exercised. She pleaded for the division to allow the appeal on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

According to the records of the Immigration Refugee Board of Canada, the former government minister became a permanent resident of Canada in October 2009 with her daughter when she migrated to Canada as a skilled worker. However, she spent only 148 days in Canada.

In justifying her reason for failing to spend the required amount of days in Canada, Webster said she was unable to establish herself here because she was minister of finance in Guyana and had taken a constitutional oath to serve her country.
“She was elected in 2006 and appointed minister of finance shortly after; she held this office until 2015. As a result, she did not comply with her residency obligation. This is her appeal,” the division record states.

Webster told the Canadian authorities that she accepted the appointment as Minister of Societal Services in 2011 because the portfolio would have enabled her to advance the cause of women and girls and take initiatives to end violence towards women on high-profile committees with the United Nations.
After the defeat of the PPP/C government in May 2015, she re-migrated to Canada with her mother and daughter.

“She explained [that] she remained in Guyana because she was moved by the opportunity Guyana had to have a seat at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The appellant advanced the cause of women and girls at an international level and this is impressive work.,” the record stated. However, the division felt that Webster had no compelling reason to remain outside Canada for most of the first six years after obtaining her permanent resident status.

“I also note the appellant did not return to Canada at the earliest opportunity. Instead of returning after her first mandate she chose to seek re-election. There is no evidence the appellant even attempted to find work in Canada between 2009 and 2015. She chose to maintain her position as a minister for two mandates. I do not find the reasons given for the appellant’s absence mitigate her absence. This is a negative factor,” Roxane Vachon said. Vachon formed the tribunal panel and handed down the decision.
Informing the Immigration Appeal Division that she had paid for a condo, Webster confessed to selling all of her properties.

“She invested most of the funds from the sale of her Guyana properties in the purchase of an expensive home. Unfortunately, the builder of the home received the funds and did not complete the building. The matter is now being litigated,” Vachon said.
According to the former minister, she has her personal belongings in Canada, and has no assets in Guyana. But despite her pleas, the division informed Webster that the breach of the residency obligation is very important.

“The appellant obtained her permanent resident status in 2009 and has been present for some 148 days in the relevant period. She must establish a high degree of humanitarian and compassionate factors. Her decision to depart and remain outside Canada was not beyond her control; and although it may have been for a good cause, her reasons are not compelling,” Vachon explained.

But despite her pleas, the Immigration Appeal Division said there was insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed. The decision was made on July 9, 2018.