January 1998

– Federal Court closing our case on a

ridiculous ground of Immigration's "no

minimal confidence" ruling.

November 1998

marriages a Canadian citizen

November 22 1999

my mother's marriage interview.

Nov. 23, Madame Helene ROY

replaces the initiative negative

decision, based on "medical

concerns" (dr. Brzezinska's rapport),

by a positive one.

January 2000 - Certificat de

selectione du Quebec was issued for

my mother.

January 2000, a ruling from IMS

ordering my mother additional tests:

strum creatinine (blood test) and

echocardiogram.

June 30, 2000 - IMS ridiculous

demand of a resume from "the last

visit to cardiologist".

July 27 2000

– rapport of Dr. Gordon Creenstein

(anatomy, not pathology) was

submitted to Immigration.

September 2000

another letter from IMS ordering

another urine test and then a visit to

an urologist.

September 19 2000

offensive letter from Immigration

officer. December 2000

IMS final negative decision confirming

the illegal prejudicial decision from

Nov. 99.

– DOCUMENT NUMBER TWO

To Immigration's Canada Complaint Board

(faxes: (780) 632-8101 (514) 283-8237)

From Lev GUNIN (514-499-1294)

A COPY OF DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO IMMIGRATION

ON MAY 15 2000

By this letter we ask Immigration's agent assigned to my file to make a special ruling to order medical examinations for all members

of our family, not only for Alla GUNIN, my wife. As we know from our legal advisers, this procedure is required for all family members

for the landed immigrant's status. If you insist that only my wife has to do the medical examination, please, send us a written warrant.

We have a well-grounded suspicion that somebody might use the delay in ordering the medical examination for all members of our

family for artificial sabotage of issuing us the landed immigrant's status. We will appreciate your cooperation.

YOURS TRULY

Lev GUNIN

in name of family GUNIN

The 15 of May 2000

COPY - DOCUMENT NUMBER THREE

To Immigration's Complaints Board

(faxes: (780) 632-8101 (514) 283-8237) December 1 2000

From Lev GUNIN (514-499-1294)

I disagree with the Immigration Medical Services decision "ev 7001-850497Z" (with date mentioned: November 23, 2000) from

Ottawa, received by me on November 29, 2000 (anonymous - no name or signature). The goal of this ruling is not to establish the

medical truth but to put a hardship on my family (and me).

My arguments.

(See the decision's text - as it was red to me by dr. Giannakis - in Document N4: on the bottom)

1. The decision ruled that Mr. Giannakis's respond should be submitted before November 30, 2000. Why then the letter arrived only

on November 29? Does it mean that the date in the letter - "November 23" - was incorrect? Or the letter has not been sent in 2-3 days? Or - if it is known that a letter from Ottawa to Montreal goes 5-6 days - why then I was not given more time? I ask you to submit me an explanation what November 30 means and why not December 10 or January 15? I want to know how the agent justified that particular date. Was that small misconduct planned in advance?

2. The suggestion that somebody else went and did the x-ray instead of me was another serious assault. That suggestion was made in ignorance of the fact that on Clark Lab's official (original!) paper IMS (Immigration Medical Service) officer could see my name, date of birth, telephone number, name of the ordering physician, and the number of my medical card (which - everybody knows - has my photo on it). Besides, it mentioned the "MILD PECTUS EXCAVATUM", a cosmetic defect, which I have since birth. Besides, it is known that the film itself has a negative image of the whole ID data! Then this ungrounded abuse was based on nothing and went far beyond any medical or even legal matter.

3. The demand to send an original film from the November 14 x-ray in the light of two above disputed demands might be ungrounded. This x-ray film was already seen by 3 medical doctors: the radiologist at the Clark Lab, dr. Jast (who referred me and evaluated the film), and dr. Giannakis. All three came to a conclusion that there is NOTHING abnormal, not a slightest possibility.

Both dr. Jast and Giannakis also examined me. The official conclusion is NIL ACTIVE. Besides, it was informally evaluated by a chest specialist: with the same conclusion. What else the IMS agent needs? I have a well-grounded concern that 1) he/she will find a black spot even on the whitest paper - because he/she is determined to; and 2) after he/she will find "a black spot" the film will vanish, but not the IMS's "evaluation". Immigration pretended already many times (dates, documents might be provided) that lost our applications, medical data, etc.