Article content continued

His lawyers, however, found something to fight.

They argued before the Immigration and Refugee Board that despite the court ruling, Oberlander’s citizenship was never definitively expunged and the IRB does not have the jurisdiction to issue a removal order.

It would be an abuse of process to continue

New documents filed in response to the government’s rebuttal of their motion, display the parsing of legal meaning and language that lawyers revel in.

His lawyers say a judicial finding that he committed fraud to get immigration status does not make his status void, but rather makes it “voidable.” Extra steps would need to precede him being legally deportable.

They allege the federal government’s lawyers appear to completely misunderstand the place of the decision of Justice Andrew MacKay, the Federal Court of Canada judge who made the 2000 decision in the Oberlander case. MacKay said in his decision that Oberlander had not been lawfully admitted into Canada and so could not have legally acquired residency status.

However, Oberlander’s lawers argue that, like other judges hearing other citizenship revocation cases that were cited by the government, MacKay had jurisdiction only to decide whether there was a factual basis to conclude his arrival in Canada was by fraud and not on the outcome of it.

“Any comment on the impact of that misrepresentation on the person’s status was beyond their jurisdiction,” his lawyers say in the filing.

“The lone issue for consideration was whether or not he obtained citizenship by false representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances. Whether or not he had Canadian domicile was not before the Court, nor was the issue argued,” the filing says.