THE $40,000 FAVOUR
Toronto couple stuck with huge fee after bailing out, taking in immigration detainee,
When a friend in the U.S. called him one day four years ago to ask for his help in getting a man he barely knew out of immigration detention in Toronto, Jian Feng Yang didn’t hesitate, because they came from the same hometown in China.
On July 22, 2011, Yang, 40, and his wife, Yue Yun Gao, 39, went to the immigration holding centre on Airport Rd. and posted a $40,000 bond to secure the release of Wa Cheng, a man from Changle in Fujian Province. Cheng was later deported from Canada, having been ruled inadmissible due to his criminal past abroad.
Two years later, the Toronto couple have found themselves owing $40,000 to Ottawa — the result of what their lawyer describes as “a lack of procedural fairness in forfeiture” by Canada Border Services Agency.
Yang and Gao’s dilemma offers a cautionary tale to others asked to bail out someone being held on immigration law violations.
“We took this person in and made sure he would not run away, and he never did,” said Yang, who works as a waiter to support his wife and their two boys, 10 and 8. “We do not regret helping him out of jail, but we have lost our faith in the system.”
The border agency receives millions of dollars each year in cash bond deposits from Canadians who bail out immigration detainees, including failed refugee claimants, undocumented migrants and visitors deemed inadmissible to Canada on criminal and security grounds.
CBSA was not able to provide a breakdown by nationality or the total number of detainees released on bail, but said more than $5.6 million in cash bonds were deposited in 2014 alone, up from $5 million in 2013.
Last year, 188 bonds, amounting to $578,000, were forfeited because of breaches of the bail conditions, down somewhat from 2013, when there were 304 forfeitures totalling more than $1.8 million. That money ends up in government revenues.
CBSA said a deposit may be declared forfeit when a person fails to comply with any of the conditions imposed — not only absconding.
“The amount of cash varies based on the circumstances of the case and must be sufficient to reasonably compel compliance with the terms of release. The circumstances of the person concerned and the financial resources available for a bond are part of the consideration,” said spokeswoman Esme Bailey.
According to federal court documents filed in Yang’s and Gao’s appeal against the CBSA bond forfeiture, Cheng sought asylum in Canada in July 2011 but was deemed inadmissible because he had been convicted earlier for obstructing American law enforcement and faced a warrant in the U.S.
He was detained by Canadian officials because he was considered a flight risk for non-compliance with U.S. immigration law — circumstances of which Yang and Gao claimed they had no knowledge. Cheng was ultimately released by CBSA but ordered to live with his guarantors.
On April 15, 2013, a day before a scheduled meeting with CBSA to confirm the itinerary of his upcoming deportation, two enforcement officers arrived at Yang’s Scarborough home during a “bond compliance check” and found Cheng’s room “contained nothing but a bed.” The officers assumed Cheng no long resided with the couple.
Cheng was arrested the next day when he showed up for his appointment. A week later, CBSA notified the couple that the bond they had posted could be forfeited. They were asked to make written submissions.
Yang insisted Cheng was residing at all times with them, though he did spend time with his girlfriend.
“He knew he was going to be deported very soon, and he’d already packed his belongings,” Yang explained to the Star, after the federal court dismissed his appeal.
Matthew Jeffery, the couple’s lawyer, said they have repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked for disclosure from CBSA on its decision for forfeiture.
“The court needs to stop taking everything immigration authorities provide to them in documentary evidence as being God’s own truth,” said Jeffery. “On the record, it has not been established that Cheng didn’t reside with the couple and they claim that he did reside with them.”