Dan Berulis NLRB whistleblower

Convention Refugees and Persons in Need of Protection

Claim for Refugee Protection

99 (1) A claim for refugee protection may be made in or outside Canada.

Marginal note:

Claim outside Canada

(2) A claim for refugee protection made by a person outside Canada must be made by making an application for a visa as a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances, and is governed by Part 1.

Claim inside Canada

(3) A claim for refugee protection made by a person inside Canada must be made in person to an officer, must not be made by a person who is subject to a removal order, and is governed by this Part.

Marginal note: Claim made inside Canada — not at port of entry

(3.1) A person who makes a claim for refugee protection inside Canada other than at a port of entry must provide the officer, within the time limits provided for in the regulations, with the documents and information — including in respect of the basis for the claim — required by the rules of the Board, in accordance with those rules

inadmissibility 101 (f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.

in the case of inadmissibility by reason of a conviction outside Canada, the conviction is for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

CONVICTION

documents and information to be provided The burden of proving that a claim is eligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division rests on the claimant, who must answer truthfully all questions put to them. 100 (1) An officer shall, after receipt of a claim referred to in subsection 99(3), determine whether the claim is eligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division and, if it is eligible, shall refer the claim in accordance with the rules of the Board.

(4) A person who makes a claim for refugee protection inside Canada at a port of entry and whose claim is referred to the Refugee Protection Division must provide the Division, within the time limits provided for in the regulations, with the documents and information — including in respect of the basis for the claim — required by the rules of the Board, in accordance with those rules.

Marginal note: Date of hearing

(4.1) The referring officer must, in accordance with the regulations, the rules of the Board and any directions of the Chairperson of the Board, fix the date on which the claimant is to attend a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division.

101 (f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.

in the case of inadmissibility by reason of a conviction outside Canada, the conviction is for an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.

CONVICTION

Although Ms. Wilcox has no desire to aid the President in establishing a test case, she is also cognizant of the fact that, if no challenge is made,

the President will have effectively succeeded in rendering the NLRA’s protections—and, by extension, that of other independent agencies—nugatory.

As a rightful member of the Board, Ms. Wilcox accordingly seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the President’s unlawful action, ensure that the Board can resume its important work, and restore the Board’s congressionally mandated independence

President’s firing of Ms. Wilcox by late-night email was a blatant violation of the

National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.

which allows the President to remove Board members only in cases of

“neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause,” and only after “notice and hearing,” 29 U.S.C. § 153(a).

The President’s removal of Ms. Wilcox without even purporting to identify any neglect of duty or malfeasance, and without notice or a hearing,

defies ninety years of Supreme Court precedent

that has ensured the independence of critical government agencies like the Federal Reserve.

And because the removal reduced the National Labor Relations Board to just two members, it also eliminated a quorum—

bringing an immediate and indefinite halt to its critical work of adjudicating labor-relations disputes..

Rather than identifying any “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,” as required by section 153(a), the email cites the President’s belief that “heads of agencies within the Executive Branch must share the objectives of [his] administration”—a blatantly political purpose that flies in the face of the NLRB’s independent status. Although the email acknowledges that “the National Labor Relations Act purports to limit removal of Board members to ‘neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,’” it asserts that “this limitation is inconsistent with the vesting of the executive Power in the President.”

THIS IS A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN TRUMP LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND SPACEX/ELON MUSK