By DENISE MAYCOCK

Tribune Freeport Reporter

dmaycock@tribunemedia.net

ASSISTANT Director of Immigration Hubert Ferguson said that the 150-day landing period granted by an immigration officer to Canadian citizen Bruno Rufa on his entry to The Bahamas in November was due to “internal miscommunication and unfamiliarity” with the process.

In an affidavit, the Freeport immigration official stated that Mr Rufa and his attorney were well aware that there was an understanding with the Department of Immigration that he would be allowed in the country for periods up to seven days or more at a time as necessary to attend his court hearings.

Mr Rufa, a long-time condominium owner at Coral Beach Apartments, has brought judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court against the director of immigration over the decision taken to cancel permission granted to him on November 23 to land and remain in the country for 150 days, until April 24, 2016. He is seeking to have the decision quashed, in addition to other relief.

On December 24, Mr Rufa, accompanied by his attorney at the Department of Immigration, was told by the assistant director of immigration that the director of immigration was cancelling his 150-day stay, and that he had seven days to wind up his affairs and leave the country on December 30, 2015.

According to Mr Ferguson’s affidavit, Mr Rufa – who was arrested and charged with working in the Bahamas without a work permit in February 2015 – has been periodically given leave to enter and remain in the Bahamas, mainly to attend various legal proceedings, subject to application being made in advance and certain conditions imposed by the department.

Mr Ferguson said that on Mr Rufa’s most recent entry into the Bahamas, a grade II immigration officer at the Freeport International Airport landed him for a period of five months.

“The officer who landed Mr Rufa had only been transferred to Grand Bahama from Bimini in early April 2015. Based on my review of the events and conversation with the relevant immigration officers in respect of his recent entry, my view is that Mr Rufa was landed for that period because of internal miscommunication and unfamiliarity the agreed position concerning the conditions under which Mr Rufa was being admitted by the immigration officer who landed him,” he explained.

Mr Ferguson also stated that it has been the usual practice of the Department of Immigration for years that visitors entering from the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom would be landed for an initial period of 30 days, subject to any further extension.

He noted that the policy was made known in December of 2010 and was publicly announced.

The senior immigration official stated that although several extensions were granted to Mr Rufa to attend court proceedings, he stated that several requests from Mr Rufa’s attorney for extended stays were denied by him.

Mr Ferguson indicated that Mr Rufa’s leave appears to have expired on November 22, and it seemed that his entry on November 23 was not only without obtaining leave in advance, as was usually done, but seemed calculated to circumvent the established procedure and understanding with respect to his entry and stay.

He said on December 23, he told a senior immigration officer that he wished to see Mr Rufa, who presented himself at the Immigration office on December 24 with his documents.

“In fact, Mr Rufa’s presence in Freeport, Grand Bahama, only came to my attention because the (Department of Immigration) received several complaints from various persons that Mr Rufa was apparently ‘throwing his weight around’ and touting the fact that he had received permission to stay in the Bahamas for 150 days, which was news to me,” Mr Ferguson said.

Mr Ferguson said he told Mr Rufa that his leave was being varied – although it was stamped “cancelled” in his passport – as it was inadvertently given and contrary to the understanding that he and his counsel had with the department.

He said he also told Mr Rufa that his leave was being reduced to seven days taking him to December 30, which would be subject to any extension granted by the Department of Immigration.

Mr Ferguson noted that Mr Rufa had been allowed to enter for short periods to attend legal matters and he did not know how he formed the impression that he was being “expelled.”

“In fact, if he was told to ‘wind up his affairs,’ it could only have been in the context of bringing closure to any current matters he was dealing with, since the (Department of Immigration) was aware that his legal matters had not yet concluded,” he said.

Mr Ferguson said in all the circumstances, there appears to have been good cause for varying the 150-day leave. He said no decision was made or communicated to Mr Rufa that he was being “expelled.”

Due to a consent order, which was agreed between the parties involved, he said that Mr Rufa’s leave was in fact extended to January 31, 2016.