By AVA TURNQUEST
Tribune Chief Reporter
aturnquest@tribunemedia.net
DESPITE his recent Court of Appeal win, Canadian homeowner Bruno Rufa's immigration troubles have not let up, according to legal counsel.
Mr Rufa and Sandra Georgio are petitioning the government for a determination on their annual home owner's resident card (HORC) applications by April 13, or they will seek a judicial review.
The pair purchased a Coral Beach condo Freeport, Grand Bahama in May 2005.
They filed for a HORC last year but had their applications returned in late August reportedly because it did not include a utility bill, according to a letter sent to Minister of Immigration Brent Symonette and Immigration Director Clarence Russell last week.
Documents
"Your department provided us with a list of required documents which list included a utility bill," read the letter, signed by attorney Carey Leonard.
"But the laws and regulations governing HORC applications do not require a utility bill and our clients do not receive bills from any utility companies as they are in a condominium."
The letter continued: "Our clients are entitled to have their HORC applications considered according to law, that includes without a requirement for a utility bill which is not required by law, and in a reasonable time. HORCs are to be renewed annually and our clients have now waited six months for their applications to be determined.
"Clearly this is not acceptable," it added.
Mr Rufa has owned a unit at the Coral Beach Condominium for some time and served as president of the Coral Beach Management Company.
Visa
In 2015, he was given seven days by the Department of Immigration to wrap up his affairs and leave the country, despite being granted a visa giving him permission to remain in the Bahamas for 150 days.
Former Court of Appeal President Dame Anita Allen, along with appellate Justices Stella Crane-Scott and Roy Jones, ruled last month the director of immigration's actions on December 23, 2015 against Mr Rufa were beyond his powers under the Immigration Act and thus not supported by law.
The appellate judges found that a Supreme Court judge's order for the matter to be reconsidered by the Immigration Board was "erroneous" and thus worthy to be quashed.
The Supreme Court is to determine if Mr Rufa is entitled to vindicatory damages for constitutional relief.
The Department of Immigration is ordered to pay all Mr Rufa's costs in the Supreme Court trial and in the Court of Appeal.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.