The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david//canada/immigration-adjudication-tribunal

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: David Irving's Canadian Immigration Adjudication
Summary: Contrary to the propaganda being circulated in this
         newsgroup and elsewhere, Mr. Irving's deportation
         from Canada was, quite clearly, fully justified, as
         this report from the Immigration Adjudicator 

Last-Modified: 1996/02/21
[typos mine. knm]

                        David Irving

The issue is whether or not you are a Canadian citizen or a
permanent resident and if not, whether you are a person
described in paragraph 27(2)(i) of the Immigration Act.

Paragraph 27(2)(i) reads as follows:

"......that a person In Canada, other than a Canadian
citizen or permanent resident, is a person who has not left
Canada on or before the date specified in a departure notice
that was issued to that person or. having so left Canada.
has been allowed to come into Canada pursuant to paragraph

The evidence discloses that you entered Canada as a visitor
at Niagara Falls on October 26, 1992 and that you
subsequently became the subject of an immigration inquiry at
Vancouver, British Columbia on October 30, 1992. As a
result, you were issued a departure notice to leave Canada
on or before midnight, November 01, 1992.

The most significant evidence to come out of this inquiry
which is the centre of dispute between yourself and
immigration officials, is your assertion that you left
Canada on October 30, 1992 at Blaine, Washington and
reentered Canada later that same day.

This purported departure is pivotal, since if it is
factually accurate, it would mean that the action taken
against you by immigration officials in Niagara Falls on
November 01, 1992 was based on erroneous facts; namely, that
you were a person attempting to leave Canada pursuant to a
yet unexecuted departure notice. If, as you claim, you did
in fact depart and then reenter Canada at the
Washington/B.C. border crossing then it might be said that
you had already satisfied the terms of your departure notice
and therefore could not be a person referred to in paragraph
14(1)(C) of the Act. However, the question as to whether you
did or did not leave is an issue of fact for this tribunal
to determine.

The evidence discloses that at the conclusion of your
inquiry in Vancouver on October 30, 1992 you were approached
by Mr. Brian Fisher, a Canadian citizen, who resides in the
United States. You claim Mr. Fisher sought you out in order
to have you counter sign fifty lithographs which had been
executed by the notorious Konard Kujau who is known for the
infamous forgery of the Adolph Hitler diaries. You testified
Mr. Fisher is a collector of memorabilia and had acquired
these sets at a considerable expense. Mr. Kujau had
pencilled his signature on the prints and Mr. Fisher wanted
your signature on them as well. You agreed to do Mr. Fisher
this favour in return for his help in gathering your
personal effects from Vancouver Island. He agreed to drive
you to the Island and back, in return you agreed to go to
his home in Ferndale, Washington State to sign the

You testified that you left the mainland at 2:00pm and upon
your arrival in Victoria you gathered your belongings and
consulted with your lawyer. You left Vancouver Island on the
8:00pm ferry arriving on the mainland at 9:4Opm. You drove
directly down route 99 to the United States border at
Blaine, Washington crossing between 10:15 and 10:30pm. Mr.
Fisher presented both of your passports to an United States
Immigration Officer who, upon looking at your document, made
a comment concerning your name which you felt was off
colour. No stamp was placed in your passport and you were
granted entry.

You proceeded to Mr. Fishers home in Ferndale, a community
located a short distance from Blaine. You arrived at Mr.
Fishers home shortly before 11:00pm. where you were met by
Helga Ashton whom you describe as Mr. Fishers ladyfriend.
She offered you a beer and you watched the Canadian news on
television where you saw film coverage of yourself outside
the courthouse in Vancouver earlier in the day driving away
with Mr. Fisher in his car. You placed three telephone calls
while at this residence. The first telephone call was to the
residence of Mr. Heinz Koppe, your Vancouver area organizer.
You testified that there was no answer.

This caused you concern and you were worried that the Koppe
family may have already gone to bed and you would therefore
not be able to collect the boxes of books you had stored
there. You then called the Koppe home minutes later and
Sandra Koppe answered the telephone. You testified that this
was at 11:15pm. You also placed a telephone call to Mr. Paul
Norris, an associate in Toronto in order to cancel some
speaking engagements in the Ottawa area and to advise him of
your desire to concentrate your efforts in Toronto. You then
signed the fifty lithographs and departed Mr. Fishers
residence at 11:20 pm.

Mr. Fisher drove you back to Canada and you appeared at the
Canadian border at 11:25 or 11: 30! )m. You claim Mr. Fisher
presented both of your passports to a Canadian officer who
looked at the documents and handed them back without
question or comment. You then proceeded into Canada where
you met with Sandra Koppe at an exit off the highway. She
guided you and Mr. Fisher to their family home where you
stayed until 1:00am. You then went to the Delta hotel near
the airport and departed to Toronto on a 8:00am flight.

On November 01, 1992 you travelled by auto to the United
States border at Niagara Falls. At 23:20 hours you were
refused admission and returned to Canada. You were
interviewed by a Canadian immigration officer, who upon
learning of the earlier departure notice, allowed you to
come into Canada pursuant to paragraph 14(1)(C) of the
Immigration Act then arrested you. Immigration authorities
now contend that you did not, at any time in fact,
physically leave Canada until this attempted entry to the
United States at Niagara.


As for the issue of what you understood your obligation to
be with respect to the procedure for confirming your
departure from Canada, you were, I would suggest, in
somewhat of a different position than a tourist for example.
You were a person who had been found at a quasi-judicial
proceeding to be in violation of the Immigration Act for the
manner in which you had originally gained entry.

Even prior to this you had been informed in writing by
Canadian Immigration authorities that you were probably
inadmissible. Given this situation, you could have become
the subject of a deportation order following your original
inquiry but were granted a departure notice, presumably upon
your commitment to the adjudicator to leave Canada by a
certain date.

Thus the state had an interest in knowing that you had
departed Canada and to that end you were provided with
instructions as to the procedures to be followed. In that
regard it should be noted that a departure notice holder who
fails to confirm departure is, administratively at least,
presumed to have remained in Canada and may become the
subject of a warrant of arrest. Thus you were not free to
simply slip across the border into the United States and
return as an ordinary tourist while ignoring the departure

You have made much to do out of the stamp which appears on
the manila envelope which has been marked as exhibit P-6 and
reads as follows:


"Please hand this document into Canadian Authorities at the
time of your departure from Canada. Your departure will be
verified by return of this document to the issuing office"

Contained inside this envelope was exhibit C-4, Confirmation
of Departure Form, IMM56. This form has been established by
the .Minister of Employment and Immigration to confirm a
persons departure from Canada. It is the same form issued to
persons under a removal order.

You testified that you did not hand this document into
immigration authorities when you departed at Blaine on
October 30, 1992 because you had agreed with immigration
officials in Vancouver to hand the document to officials at
the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls where you had announced
you would be leaving Canada.

You claim that because the stamp on the manila envelope says
"please hand this document into Canadian immigration
authorities" instead of "you must hand this into immigration
authorities" you did not feel obliged to confirm your
departure from Canada at Blaine, Washington on October 30,

I have a great deal of difficulty accepting this explanation
of your conduct. Your case has generated alot of interest
and given its high profile at the time is it not reasonable
that immigration officials would go to great lengths to
ensure that you were fully aware of your obligations of
complying with the departure notice and the importance of
confirming your departure.

Mr. Murray Wilkinson, the Case Presenting Officer at your
Vancouver inquiry made a statutory declaration (exhibit C-5)
wherein he declares that at the conclusion of your inquiry
he spoke to you about the procedures necessary to confirm
your departure from Canada at the Place where you left
Canada. There is no mention of a deal to have you confirm
your departure in Niagara Falls.

Why would immigration officials care where you left Canada
as long as you complied with the departure notice and
confirmed your departure? It was your decision and yours
alone to depart through the Niagara area just minutes before
your departure notice was due to expire. You had to have
realized that the adjudicator did not include or intend an
interim departure/reentry provision as a term of your
departure notice and that you had to confirm your departure
immediately upon leaving Canada.

The evidence with respect to an October 30, 1992 trip to the
state of Washington consists of the testimony of yourself
and Brian Fisher as well as the telephone record from Mr.
Fisher's residence (exhibit P-9). Consequently we are
talking here of an event that would have taken place less
than two weeks ago.

If, as you have testified, the trip to Washington state
occurred exactly as you described in your detailed
testimony, one would expect that at least the most
significant and important aspects would coincide in the
respective testimony of you and Mr. Fisher, the owner-driver
of the vehicle in question.

In such a case the Immigration authorities who obviously
could not produce a witness to conclusively establish the
event never occurred would be left with an array of
essentially secondary evidence suggesting you in fact
remained in Canada throughout the period in question.

In such a scenario, the best evidence rule wherein actual
witnesses testified under oath and were cross-examined by
the Immigration representative, would almost certainly have
prevailed to establish that the trip did take place.

However, a comprehensive review of the testimony provided
establishes that there are several significant discrepancies
and inconsistencies with respect to important points of
detail, the impact of which in my view undermines the trust
of your evidence as a whole and the personal credibility of
both yourself and Mr. Fisher.

In my view there are four areas where significant
contradiction appear between Mr. Fisher's testimony and the
other evidence before this inquiry. Mr. Fisher testified
that you entered the United States in his vehicle at Blaine,
Washington at approximately 10:15 p.m. and that you went to
his residence and re-entered Canada at Douglas at 11:30
p.m.. He testified that when examined by a Canada Custom's
official he did not show the officer either his passport nor
yours. A review of your testimony clearly shows that on two
occasions during this inquiry you were adamant that the
Customs official at the Canadian border was shown both of
your passports by Mr. Fisher.

Secondly, Mr. Fisher testified that the two of you proceeded
into Canada and met a car on the side of the highway where
Mr. Fisher dropped you off and then returned immediately to
the United States. You testified that you met Sandra Koppe
as described by Mr. Fisher and that Mr. Fisher and yourself
followed her to the Koppe residence a short distance away.

Third, Mr. Fisher testified that he returned to the United
States at the Blaine crossing at approximately 12:00
midnight on October 30, 1992. He testified he drove straight
to his residence and thereafter did not leave. He stated
that no one else had access to his car. The United States
Immigration Service printout, TECS II, (Exhibit C-13) shows
Mr. Fisher's car entering the United States at Blaine at
0311 hours on October 31, 1992, some three hours later than
he testified to. This is significant because we are now
talking of not merely a negative query but rather a positive
record of an entry at a time at which Mr. Fisher cannot
account for.

The fourth contradiction is contained in Mr. Fisher's
affidavit. He testified that he dropped you off on the
highway near Vancouver and returned to the United States
around midnight. In his affidavit (P-7) he swore that he
drove to the residence of Heinz Koppe and departed at 12:45

As you can see Mr. Irving, your witness has not only
contradicted your testimony but he has contradicted under
oath his own sworn affidavit of November 5, 1992.

In addition, exhibit P-9, shows that four long distance
telephone calls were made from Mr. Fisher's telephone number
on October 30, 1992. He testified the first call made at
0:913 was made by Helga Ashton to her answering service in
Vancouver. He was unaware who made the second call. The
third call at 10:18 p.m. was made to the residence of Mr.
Paul Norris in Toronto. The fourth call was made to the
Koppe residence in Newton, British Columbia. Mr. Fisher
testified that you made both of these calls.

I am at a loss as to how you could have telephoned Mr.
Norris at 10:18 p.m. when you testified that you did not
arrive at the Fisher residence until sometime around 10:45
p.m.. Mr. Fisher in his affidavit also states that you
arrived at his home at the same time. Both of you have sworn
that you were at the Blaine border crossing between 10:15
and 10:30 p.m. on October 30, 1992. How could you have made
this phone call when you testified you were elsewhere.
The telephone record (P-9) also shows a telephone call was
placed to the Koppe residence at 10:43 p.m. This contradicts
your oral testimony that you did not get an answer at the
Koppe residence until 11:15 p.m.

In my view, these unexplained discrepancies in your evidence
represent irreconcilable versions of events as to times and
location, as well as, improbable lapses in procedure on the
part of two employees of U.S. and Canadian border agencies,
the very evening that your name and case was the subject of
local media coverage. .

I have also examined the three notarized statements which
you have tendered as evidence to support your testimony.
(exhibits P-2/3/4). When examined closely, a number of
discrepancies again become apparent. In exhibit P-2, a sworn
statement by Sandra Koppe, she states that she received a
telephone call from you at 10:45pm on October 30, 1992 and
that you indicated that you were calling from the United
States. This statement contradicts your testimony that you
telephoned the Koppe residence twice and did not get an
answer until 11:15pm.

Secondly, Mr. Heinz Koppe's declaration, exhibit P-4, states
that you arrived at his home by car at approximately 11:30
to 11:45 pm on October 30, 1992 and further states you were
accompanied by another man who dropped you off then left.
When this evidence is compared to Mr. Fisher's testimony and
affidavit,(exhibit P-7), another discrepancy appears. At
point 9 of his affidavit, Mr. Fisher declares "that upon
entering Canada Mr. Irving was asked no questions and made
no statements and that we were waved through the border and
drove to the residence of Heinz Koppe where I left Mr.
Irving at 12:45 pm. This is also at odds with Mr. Fisher's

Furthermore, you testified that you spoke with Sandra Koppe
at 11:15 pm yet Mr. Fisher in his affidavit at point 7 says
that you left his residence at 11:10 pm. Your testimony was
that you left the Fisher residence at 11: 2O pm.

Mr. Koppe's affidavit states you told him you were in the
United States for a couple of hours yet your testimony and
the statement of Mr. Fisher indicate it was closer to one

In examining the affidavits of Heinz Koppe, Sandra Koppe and
Joyce Chen, I have noted that you were the source of the
information concerning your purported trip to the United
States on October 30, 1992. None of these parties have any
independent evidence which would show that you did in fact
leave Canada as you have claimed. In light of this fast and
in view of the discrepancies I have pointed out, I have
given little weight to this evidence when examined in
relation to the other evidence before me.

The Immigration officials have presented a persuasive case
against you Mr. Irving. The most damaging evidence is the
computer printout from the United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service in Blaine, Washington entitled TECS
II (exhibit C-13, attachment A). It shows that Mr. Fisher's
1990 blue Lincoln entered the United States several times
between September 11, 1992 and November 4, 1992 at Blaine,
Washington. It does not show any entry for October 30, 1992
when you claimed to have entered the United States in Mr.
Fisher's vehicle. When this piece of evidence is examined in
relation to the other evidence before this inquiry, one has
to be convinced that your short trip to the United States
never happened.

I find it difficult to believe that a United States
Immigration Officer upon seeing your passport would not
examine you closely before granting you entry. Your case had
been front page news, particularly in the Vancouver area
that very day. U.S. immigration officials had an interest in
you which I believe is confirmed by the fact they refused
your admission at Niagara Falls a few days later. I simply
cannot believe that the officer would not have examined you
closely before granting you entry, at a minimum placing an
entry stamp in your passport.

I also have difficulty accepting your evidence that you were
able to travel back into Canada without question or comment
from the Canada Custom's Primary officer. At the port of
Douglas there was only one lane open coming into Canada
between 11:25 and 11:40pm, on October 30, 1992 as declared
by Customs Inspector, Sanddip Basra . This officer was on
duty at the primary inspection line at the time you claim to
have reentered Canada. He has sworn that he did not see you
at anytime during his shift that night. This evidence is
significant, especially in light of other evidence that a
lookout was placed concerning you at the port of Douglas on
October 30, 1992.

The lookout was located in the primary inspection line booth
and contained a photograph of you. The lookout notice
stipulated that you were to be referred to immigration
secondary if seen on the primary line by a Custom's
inspector. I suggest to you that given this evidence, if you
had in fast shown your British passport, the mere sight of
it would have generated more than a cursory look from the
Custom's inspector at Douglas, B.C. on the evening of
October 30, 1992.

Other persuasive evidence comes from Mr. Harold Musetesiu
and Mr. Kevin Tufford, both of whom are immigration
investigators from Toronto. They have made sworn statutory
declarations that they spoke with you on November 01, 1992
at the Primrose Hotel in Toronto (exhibits C-9/10).

You were asked if you had left Canada at any time since your
inquiry in Vancouver on Friday October 30, 1992, entered the
United States then reentered Canada. You told the officers
that you had remained in Canada continuously since your
arrest in Victoria, British Columbia.

You acknowledge that you made this statement to the officers
but did so because you did not believe Mr. Musetesiu was an
immigration official. You had doubts about him because he
was not wearing a uniform as immigration personnel
apparently do in Britain and because he was wearing fatigue
pants, a black t-shirt and a leather jacket, had long hair
and an earring.

Mr. Musetesiu was called as a witness. He testified that
upon arrival at the Primrose hotel he spoke with Wolfgang
Droge, who was involved in the organization of your lecture.
Mr. Droge was asked to summon you to an adjacent empty
banquet room. Mr. Droge and Mr. Musetesiu are well known to
each other from previous dealings with each other. Mr. Droge
introduced Musetesiu to you as an immigration officer and
Musetesiu testified that he showed you his badge and
identification card to you at the outset of your interview
with him which you have denied.
Upon return to the lecture room, you had lingering doubts
about Mr. Musetesiu so you sent your assistant, Paul Norris
to confirm his credentials, which he did. Later that same
evening you encountered Mr. Musetesiu in the elevator of the
hotel and you again asked to see his ID which he showed you

Even if you were not entirely satisfied that Mr. Musetesiu
was a immigration officer, you had to believe that it was at
least a possibility, in light of your introduction by Mr.
Droge and the line of questioning that followed in your
interview by the officers. I am at a loss as to why you
simply would not have told the officers that you had left
Canada and reentered, if this was in fact what had happened.
You have offered no reasonable explanation as to why you
felt compelled not to tell the truth. If you were so leery
of Mr. Musetesiu why would you not just simply refuse any of
their questions and walk away.

In assessing your evidence as a whole, you have been unable
to persuade me that you did leave Canada on October 30,
1992. I have a great deal of difficulty accepting your
evidence. It did it not have the ring of truth to it, but
observing you and listening to your testimony, I could not
help but get the impression that you were at times re-citing
a rehearsed script. I found you to a difficult witness who
was often confrontational with the Case presenting officer
when he asked you straight forward questions.

When viewed as a whole this evidence can lead to only one
conclusion; the event was a total fabrication and never took
place. I can only speculate that you and your supporters
concocted your story to garner further publicity and prolong
your stay in Canada, both of which you have done with some
success. That being the case I find that the action taken by
Canadian Immigration authorities at Niagara Falls on
November 1, 1992 was based on facts that at the time
appeared indisputable and have now been found to have been
valid, namely that you were at the time of your attempted
entry to the United States on November 1, 1992 a person to
whom a departure notice had been issued but who had not been
granted lawful permission to be in the United States.

Accordingly, I find you to be a person described in
paragraph 27(2)(i) of the Immigration Act in that you are a
person in Canada other than a Canadian citizen or permanent
resident, who left Canada on or before the date spesified in
a departure notice but has been allowed into Canada pursuant
to paragraph 14(1)(C).

Consequently pursuant to section 32(6) of the Immigration
Act you are hereby ordered deported.

Kenneth Thomson

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.