Borderlines Episode 17 – Issues with PreClearance at Customs Offices, with Michael Greene

Michael Greene, Q.C. is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. He served as the National Chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship & Immigration Section in 2000-2001

In this episode we discuss Bill C-23, the Preclearance Act, 2016.  This episode was recorded in June 2017.

The United States currently operates border preclearance facilities at a number of airports and ports in Canada. These are staffed and operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. Travelers pass through U.S. Immigration and Customs, Public Health, and Agriculture inspections before boarding their aircraft, ship, or train.

Bill C-23 will:

  • provide United States preclearance officers with enhanced powers, including the ability to carry firearms;
  • establish that the exercise of any power and performance of any duty or function by a United States preclearance officer is subject to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act;
  • authorizes Canadian police officers and the officers of the Canada Border Services Agency to assist United States preclearance officers in the exercise of their powers and performance of their duties and functions;
  • allows a traveller bound for the United States to withdraw from the preclearance process, unless the traveller is detained;
  • authorize Canada to set up preclearance facilities in the United States;
  • specifies how Canadian immigration law will apply to travellers bound for Canada who are in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters in the United States, and extends the application of other Canadian legislation that relates to the entry of persons and importation of goods into Canada to those preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters; and
  • deems an act or omission committed in a preclearance area or preclearance perimeter to be committed in Canada, if the act or omission would constitute, in Canada, an offence relating to the entry of persons or importation of goods into Canada.

The Canadian Bar Association’s comments can be found here – http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=1b0e8f11-c92b-4d80-859b-1e06c379a538

 

 

 


IRCC Complaints About Immigration Consultants

In June 2017 I wrote an article for Policy Options about how I believed that while the existence of the immigration consultant profession in Canada promoted access to justice reforms were needed to strengthen the weeding out of some unethical behaviour.  One of the things that I recommended was that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) temporarily have the power to refuse to process applications submitted by people represented by consultants whom IRCC has previously determined to be unscrupulous, and that IRCC should also be allowed to levy fines against unscrupulous representatives in certain circumstances.

I recently received the results of an Access to Information Act request where the requester asked to see copies of all complaints sent by IRCC to provincial law societies and the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (the “ICCRC”), the body which regulates immigration consulants.  The results, which were over 13o pages, were astonishing for several reasons.

First, I have previously suspected despite general perception to the contrary that the number of complaints filed against immigration consultants was probably the same as against lawyers.  However, I seem to have been wrong. Based on the Access to Information Act results, it appears that IRCC has never filed a complaint about a lawyer to a provincial law society.  While it is possible that complaints against lawyers simply did not make their way into the Access to Information Act results, or that all of the complaints against lawyers were redacted, this seems unlikely, and at a minimum after reviewing the Access to Information Act results it is clear that the number of complaints that IRCC has made to the ICCRC about unscrupulous consultants dwarfs the number of complaints made about lawyers (which again appears to be none).

Second, the unethical behaviour that IRCC has encountered from unscrupulous representatives ranged from “what was that person thinking” to the truly disturbing.

Finally, the Access to Information Act results make it clear that IRCC is (or at least was previously as things may have changed since the release of the Access to Information Act results) frustrated with the ICCRC disciplinary process.  I know many upstanding immigration consultants who are exasperated with what some of their fellow less ethical colleagues appear to have gotten away with impunity.  These concerned professionals would not be comforted in learning how broken the complaints process between IRCC and the IRCC appears to be.

Examples of Complaints

Not all of the complaints that IRCC made to the ICCRC were related to particularly egregious conduct.  Indeed, some of the actions appear to simply be childish behaviour.  For example, as shown in the screen shots below, one instance involved an immigration consultant who submitted a request for a status update on the reconsideration request for a client whose permanent residence application was refused.

The visa office responded by stating that an immigration officer had reviewed the immigration consultant’s reconsideration request, and that the visa office was maintaining the refusal.

The immigration consultant responded by calling the visa officers assholes.

One can only wonder what was going through this person’s head.

Most of the other complaints that IRCC sent the ICCRC were for much more egregious behavior.  For example, in one case IRCC sent the ICCRC a complaint which contained allegations that an immigration consultant was conspiring with an educational institution to provide fake transcripts to international students who were not attending the school but needed proof of attendance to renew their study permits.  As IRCC’s complaint noted, this constitutes criminal behaviour (s. 127 of IRPA pertains to criminal misrepresentation).

In another case a consultant allegedly counselled his clients who wished to seek asylum in Canada to pretend that they were gay and to even “attend [a] gay pride parade in order to support their claims.”  The issue of the Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”) occasionally requiring that LGBT claimants prove their sexual orientation is controversial.  The idea that an authorised representative has apparently been recommending that people fabricate their orientation is insulting to everyone who represents legitimate LGBT claimants.

Other examples of complaints that IRCC sent the ICCRC include situations where consultants:

  • advised privately sponsored refugee that he had to pay all resettlement costs;
  • encouraged clients to contact Members of Parliament on the basis that MPs can help expedite applications;
  • fabricated employer reference letters;
  • forged signatures;
  • counselled misrepresentation; and
  • advertised in a way to suggest that they had inside connections at IRCC.

In highlighting all of the above my point is not to disparage all immigration consultants. As I have said repeatedly, many, if not most, immigration consultants are upstanding and provide valuable advice to their clients.  Early on in my practice one of my mentor’s was a licensed consultant.  Rather, in reproducing and summarizing the complaints above my goal is to demonstrate that IRCC has been diligently referring complaints about unethical behaviour on the part of some immigration consultants to the ICCRC.

As well, it is of course necessary to note that all of the complaints that IRCC sent to the ICCRC are allegations.  However, most appear to have been well founded and were substantiated by documentary evidence.

Frustration with the Disciplinary Process

The Access to Information Act results also demonstrated a certain level of frustration amongst IRCC with the ICCRC disciplinary process.  When reading the disclosed documents I was astounded at how IRCC complaints were handled.  I really hope that there is more co-operation than what the Access to Information Act results revealed, or that things have changed, because if not, the current situation is simply depressing.

In almost every instance, the ICCRC Complaints Committee determined that it had decided not to refer an IRCC complaint about unscrupulous behaviour to the ICCRC Disciplinary Committee.  What was very interesting to read was that the letter that the ICCRC representative sent IRCC conveyed the impression that the author didn’t even realize that the complainant was the government.   The ICCRC even informed IRCC, a government agency, that if it wanted a refund for the consultant’s services that IRCC would have to pursue the matter in a local “small claims court.”

Given the ICCRC’s boiler plate responses which often did not seem to even acknowledge that the complainant was the government, it was not surprising then to see that in some of its complaints, IRCC expressed frustration with the ICCRC complaints referral process process.  For example, in one instance, IRCC sent a second complaint to the ICCRC about a particular immigration consultant and expressly stated that the ICCRC’s response to the matter had been insufficient.

In another example, IRCC essentially demanded an explanation for why no action had apparently been taken by the ICCRC against an immigration consultant who had an active arrest warrant for counselling misrepresentation and who had fled the country.

It is also apparent that in response to IRCC’s expressed dissatisfaction with the ICCRC disciplinary process that the ICCRC committed to changing its processes.  Indeed, as shown below, in May 2015 ICCRC legal counsel even met with IRCC to discuss the issue.  The ICCRC subsequently committed to changing how it handles complaints.

While it is possible that these changes have resulted in a more robust disciplinary mechanism, I am skeptical.  For one, many of the e-mails from the ICCRC to IRCC in which the ICCRC treated the government as if it were the client of an immigration consultant post-date the above letter.  As well, at the Standing Committee of Citizenship and Immigration an Assistant Deputy Minister with the Ministry of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada stated in May 2017 about the ICCRC that:

I don’t think we’re where we need to be yet. I think there are issues with the organization that can be strengthened in terms of its own internal governance, in terms of some of its issues around finance, and thirdly, I think, in terms of sometimes the effectiveness of its own enforcement processes. This includes ensuring timely enforcement that is appropriately calibrated to the nature of the infraction, and ensuring that there’s follow up in those areas.
I think it’s an organization that is, frankly, still finding its feet. It’s still fairly early days and it has made real progress, but, yes, there are areas where it can be strengthened.

I continue to believe that most immigration consultants play a valuable role in ensuring access to justice. I also think that it makes little sense to replace the ICCRC, which is only six years old, with a new regulatory body that has no experience.  However, until the ICCRC “finds its feet” (to quote the Assistant Deputy Minister) Canada’s immigration department should have the ability to sanction or refuse to process applications from consultants that it knows are unethical.  Such a temporary measure would ultimately be in the best interests of the ICCRC, the immigration consulting profession, and the integrity of Canada’s immigration system.


Getting Permanent Residency as an Owner or Self-Employed Person

The following is an article that I wrote for The Canadian Immigrant. 

It is generally understood that small businesses are the bedrock of the Canadian economy. The entrepreneurs who start them are often considered the lifeblood of the Canadian economy. Unfortunately, it can be difficult for foreign worker entrepreneurs in Canada to use their Canadian business experience to qualify for economic immigration programs. Prospective immigrants who are self-employed or run small businesses in Canada, or want to, need to understand the immigration consequences of doing so in order to properly structure and time the establishment of their companies.

Self-employment and immigrating

Many of Canada’s economic immigration programs restrict or penalize Canadian self-employment. For example, one of the basic eligibility requirements of Canada’s largest economic immigration program, the Canadian experience class, is that applicants have at least 12 months of skilled work experience within three years of applying to immigrate. It specifically excludes self-employment from being eligible experience.

In the Express Entry application intake management system, prospective immigrants to Canada are ranked against each other. People can get points for a variety of factors, and points for Canadian work experience can be especially valuable. However, any experience that was gained through self-employment is ineligible for points.

Incorporating isn’t the answer

Many individuals assume that if their business is incorporated then they will not count as being self-employed. However, it is not this simple.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) adopts a holistic approach to determining whether someone is self-employed. Relevant factors include: the degree of the worker’s control or autonomy in terms of how and when work is performed; whether the worker owns and provides their own tools, the degree of financial risk assumed by the worker; whether the worker is free to make business decisions that affect his or her ability to realize a profit or incur a loss; and other relevant factors.

The IRCC website specifically notes that individuals who own substantial ownership and/or exercise management control of a business for which they are also employed are generally considered to be self-employed. So simply incorporating a business does not shield small business owners from having their Canadian work experience determined ineligible for immigrating.

Options for the self-employed

Because of this, the best advice for temporary foreign workers in Canada who are employees and who wish to start a business is to wait. We once represented a Working Holiday Program participant who worked as a carpenter earning $25 an hour. He wanted to start his own business. We told him to wait until his permanent residency was approved. He did, got his PR status and now runs a multi-million dollar business employing more than 30 people. Incredibly, Canadian immigration requirements would have made his immigration very cumbersome and uncertain had he started his business while on a work permit.

However, foreign workers in Canada who own a small business should not be completely discouraged. There are many options to consider.

First, the federal skilled worker class permits self-employment. This means that self-employed individuals can still qualify for Express Entry.

Second, while Canadian work experience that is self-employment is not eligible for Express Entry points, small business owners can qualify for bonus points through qualifying arranged employment. They may also apply for recruitment exempt owner-operator Labour Market Impact Assessments, which also result in additional points.

Third, many provincial nomination programs contain entrepreneur programs, which vary from province to province.

Finally, the start-up visa allows certain businesses who will be participating in incubators or receiving venture capital funding to be eligible to immigrate.

None of these options, however, is completely satisfactory. What is further confounding is that while a foreign worker’s entrepreneurial experience in Canada is ineligible for Express Entry points, their foreign self-employment work experience is. As the Government of Canada looks to encourage small business growth, they may wish to address this paradox.


Labour Market Impact Assessment – Recruitment Requirements (2017)

(This post is a follow-up to my previous post on this topic here.)

Employers wishing to apply for Labour Market Impact Assessments are required to first conduct recruitment efforts to hire Canadian citizens and permanent residents.

The Ministry of Economic and Social Development (“ESDC” or “Service Canada“) is very stringent in its recruitment requirements, some of which are not publicly available.  I would like to thank Jacobus Kriek, an immigration consultant with Matrixvisa Inc., for providing me copies of the internal Service Canada directives and e-mails that he has obtained.

Please note that what I have reproduced below should not be viewed as legal advice by ESDC or Service Canada.  The reproduction of the material below has not occurred with the affiliation of the Government of Canada, nor with the endorsement of the Government of Canada. As well, given the nature of relying on internal documents, some of the information may be out of date.

Continue reading “Labour Market Impact Assessment – Recruitment Requirements (2017)”


Undisclosed Criminal Records and Criminal Rehabilitation

A difficult situation that some prospective immigrants who are already inside Canada face is that they have a criminal record that they have not previously disclosed to Canadian immigration officials.

What is often especially unfortunate in such situations is that the criminal conviction can be really old, but the instances where someone failed to disclose their conviction to Canadian immigration officials more recent.

Having successfully represented several individuals in such situations obtain permanent residency, there are several legal principles that I think anyone in such a situation needs to understand.

1. An individual who has a foreign criminal record can apply to Canadian immigration officials for a determination that they are rehabilitated if it has been more than five years since the sentence was completed.  

Rehabilitation assessments are forward-looking. The test is whether a person is likely to commit criminal conduct.  Officers must consider both positive an neutral factors relevant to the application.

2. An individual not disclosing a criminal record to Canadian immigration authorities can be treated as a negative factor in a rehabilitation assessment. 

The Federal Court has in several cases (such as Tejada v. Canada) held that an individual’s past dealings with Canadian immigration authorities is a relevant factor in determining whether an individual is likely to commit a criminal offence in Canada in the future, with the logic being that a person who is willing to break immigration legislation might also be willing to break criminal laws.

3. In determining whether someone has misrepresented the existence of a criminal record, it is important to analyze one’s previous interactions with Canadian immigration officials on this issue. 

Prior to the introduction of the Electronic Travel Authorisation, people who could travel to Canada without a visa were often never asked if they had a criminal record.  This was especially true for individuals who applied for work permits at Canadian ports of entry.  Because these individuals were never directly asked whether they had criminal records, visa officers were more forgiving for their omission than they would have been for someone who had outright misrepresented.

Immigration officials are also generally forgiving where someone did not realise that they were charged with a criminal offence. The most frequent area that this occurs is in the drunk driving context, which in many jurisdictions is dealt with administratively rather than criminally.  Indeed, the Canadian province of British Columbia provides a good example of how complicated it can be to know whether one has been charged with a criminal offence.  Police officers in British Columbia can decide to issue someone roadside citations under provincial regulations rather than criminal ones.  If someone were later asked whether they had ever been charged with a criminal offence it is unclear what they should say.

4. It is better to disclose than be caught.

As a general rule immigration officials are much more forgiving to individuals who disclose criminal records than to those who are caught with them.


Procedural Fairness Where Credibility is an Issue

In any application to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) the burden is on the applicant to put forward a complete, convincing and unambiguous application which provides sufficient evidence to establish that the requirements of Canadian immigration legislation have been met.

Visa officers are not under an obligation to ask for additional information where the submitted material is insufficient.

However, where there is a concern regarding the credibility or the genuineness of the evidence submitted, as opposed to the sufficiency of or weight to be given to that information, then the duty of fairness generally requires that the applicant be given the opportunity to address the concern.

Examples from Jurisprudence

Farooq v. Canada, 2013 FC 164 (“Farooq“) is a useful example of how to distinguish a refusal based on credibility concerns vs. one of insufficient evidence. There, IRCC’s refusal letter stated:

He claims he worked from January 2005 to August 2006 as software developer and from 2006 to present as manager (software development) for Tricastmedia PVT Ltd in Lahore Pakistan. Such rapid promotion is not credible as computer and information systems managers normally require several years of experience in systems analysis, data administration software engineering, network design or computer programming, including supervisory experience. Some of the duties in his employment letter repeat verbatim the duties of NOC 0213 which raises the question of the credibility of that employment letter. The other duties are similar to those of information systems analysts and consultants (NOC Code 2171).

Although the NOC Code 0213 corresponds to an occupation specified in the instructions, the information submitted to support this application is insufficient to substantiate that applicant meets the occupational description and/or a substantial number of the main duties of NOC 0213.

Justice Roy’s reasons in determining that the failure of the visa officer to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to his concerns about credibility was a breach of procedural fairness provide a comprehensive summary of the law on this issue, and I have reproduced them in full, bolding the key points:

Justice O’Keefe was confronted to the same kind of situation in the case of Patelsupra. (“Patel“) Paragraphs 24 to 27 seem to me to apply squarely to the situation at hand. They read:

Regulation 75 clearly indicates that a foreign national is only a skilled worker if he can show one year of full time employment where he performed the actions in the lead statement of the NOC and a substantial number of the main duties.

As such, if the visa officer was concerned only that the employment letter was insufficient proof that the principal applicant met the requirements of Regulation 75, then she would not have been required to conduct an interview.

However, the officer states that her concern is that the duties in the employment letter have been copied directly from the NOC description and that the duties in the experience letter are identical to the letter of employment. I agree with the principal applicant that the officer’s reasons are inadequate to explain why this was problematic. I find that the implication from these concerns is that the officer considered the experience letter to be fraudulent.

Consequently, by viewing the letter as fraudulent, the officer ought to have convoked an interview of the principal applicant based on the jurisprudence above. As such, the officer denied the principal applicant procedural fairness and the judicial review must be allowed.

The narrow issue that needs to be decided here is whether or not this is a case regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, in the sense that, in the words of Justice Richard Mosley in Hassani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1283, [2007] 3 FCR 501:

there is no obligation on the part of the visa officer to apprise an applicant of her concerns that arise directly from the requirements of the former Act or Regulations …

It is also certainly true that a visa officer does not have an obligation to provide a “running score” of the weaknesses in an application. However, where the issue is credibility, “the duty of fairness may require immigration officials to inform applicants of their concerns with applications so that an applicant may have a chance to “disabuse” an officer of such concerns, even where such concerns arise from evidence tendered by the applicant” (Rukmangathan, above, at paragraph 22). Justice de Montigny, in Talpursupra, finding support inHassani, summarized clearly what I believe is the state of the law:

It is by now well established that the duty of fairness, even if it is at the low end of the spectrum in the context of visa applications … require visa officers to inform applicants of their concerns so that an applicant may have an opportunity to disabuse an officer of such concerns. This will be the case, in particular, where such concern arises not so much from the legal requirements but from the authenticity or credibility of the evidence provided by the applicant.

Here, the visa officer indicates clearly that the credibility of the applicant, or lack thereof, is the fundamental concern he has. Contrary to other cases where an opportunity is given to the applicant to address the concerns, there is nothing of the sort in this case. It would seem to me that both Patel and Rukmangathanare dispositive of the issue and that the matter should be remitted to a different visa officer for the purpose of a re-determination of the matter.

Another example of this principle can be found in Madadi v. Canada, 2013 FC 176.  There, in determining that an applicant did not perform a substantial number of the Main Duties in NOC 0711, IRCC did not consider any duties in the applicant’s confirmation of employment which either copied the NOC descriptions or closely paraphrased them.  After not considering those job duties, the officer found that the applicant did not perform a substantial number of the duties listed in NOC 0711.  The Court determined that procedural fairness was breached, because the visa officer’s concerns related to the genuineness of the confirmation of employment.

Examining Whether Credibility is an Issue

When reviewing refusal reasons it is important to examine whether credibility may have been an issue leading to refusal.

Sometimes it is obvious.  For example, in Azizian v. Canada, a visa officer wrote:

 Given the availability of the information [about the CBI], I found it difficult to believe that the applicant has never heard of these concerns during his employment at CBI and since retiring… I do not find credible that the applicant would have not been involved in policy decision making and decisions concerning allocation of funds, especially since the PA held the position of Secretary General of the bank and because he indicated in his affidavit that his duty in 2003-2009 was to develop and supervise the implementation of the by-laws and guidelines for the Iranian banking system.

This was found to clearly be a credibility concern.

Credibility assessments are often implicit, however, rather than explicit. In Khodchenko v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), IRCC’s refusal reasons in part stated that:

REVIEWED INFO SUBMITTED FOR THE FILE. PI’S EXPENCES WILL BE PAID BY MR. NAZAREVICH – FAMILY FRIEND. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHY HE WOULD PAY SUCH AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR PI. NOT SATISFIED PI IS FORTHCOMING ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THE TRIP. TIES TO UKRAINE ARE WEAK. REFUSED. (sic) [emphasis added]

The Federal Court found that the officer made a veiled credibility assessment of the benefactor and the applicant in questioning that the employment arrangement was what the applicants said it was, and that the officer accordingly owed a duty of fairness to the applicant to put his concerns directly and explicitly and give her an opportunity to respond.

In Rani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), meanwhile, Madam Justice Strickland found that a visa officer’s  statement that “evidence of [the applicant’s] involvement with spouse’s business comes only from her own statements and that of her supporting relative in Canada. It is therefore not clear to what extent the context of English language use…could be considered familiar” to also be an implicit credibility assessment, and ordered the matter re-decided.

Another Helpful Summary of this Principle

Bajwa v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship) contains another helpful summary of the distinction between credibility and insufficient evidence. There, Justice Russel wrote:

These words give rise to a familiar dispute in the jurisprudence as to whether the Visa Officer is questioning the credibility of the Applicants or simply deciding that the evidence is not sufficient to support the criteria that must be established in order to qualify for the status applied for. Justice Kane provided a summary of the Court’s approach to this issue in Ansari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 849:

If the concern is truly about credibility, the case law has established that a duty of procedural fairness may arise [Hassani]. However, if the concern is about the sufficiency of evidence, given that the applicant is clearly directed to provide a complete application with supporting documents, no such duty arises. Distinguishing between concerns about sufficiency of evidence and credibility is not a simple task as both issues may be related.

The case law has established that each case must be assessed to determine if the concern does in fact relate to credibility. In several of the cases referred to, although the duties were copied or paraphrased from the NOC, there were additional factors confirming that the concern of the officer was about the authenticity or veracity of the document or the credibility of the author of the document. Simply using the term credibility is not determinative of whether the concern is about credibility, though the use of the term cannot be ignored.

Applicants often find it very difficult to understand this distinction. They reason that if their own representations are not accepted then they are not believed, so the officer concerned must be questioning their credibility and this requires an interview or an adequate opportunity to address credibility on grounds of procedural fairness.

I think the issue is best explained in lay terms by recognizing that applicants have a double obligation. First of all, they are under a duty of candor to tell the truth and not to conceal relevant facts. If an officer suspects that the duty of candour is not being met, then he or she must put the matter to the applicant and provide a reasonable opportunity – either in writing or in person – for the applicant to address the officer’s concerns. Where misrepresentation or breach of the duty of candor is the issue, then an application is usually refused on the basis of misrepresentation and s 40 of the Act.

But applicants also have an obligation – over and above the duty of candor – to support their applications with documentation that confirms their positions. Documentation is required by the legislation in all applications and a failure to provide adequate documentation can result in a refusal that is not based upon credibility. If this were not the case, then all applications would have to be accepted upon their own unsupported assertions. There will be situations where documentation is not available and the Act makes adequate allowances for this. Applicants are permitted to explain why they cannot provide documents that are required and/or expected in their particular situations.

In the present case, the treatment of the two letters from Mr. Singh has to be read in the context of the Decision as a whole in order to determine what the Visa Officer means by “satisfied.” Does she mean that the evidence is inadequate to support the application or does she mean that she questions the veracity of that evidence when she says that “I am not satisfied that the client is a bona fide worker under R 205 (D) or will leave after her authorized stay.”

In all work permit applications and extension applications, the officer has to decide on the evidence whether the applicant is likely to leave at the end of the period requested. And interviews and/or fairness letters are not required in most situations. As the Respondent points out, it is generally not a procedural fairness requirement that work permit applicants be granted an opportunity to respond to the concerns of officers. However, there have been situations in the context of work permit applications where officers have been required for reasons of procedural fairness to seek further clarification for credibility concerns in particular.

In Hamza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 264, the application was rejected on the basis that the work experience letter mirrored the job duties of the NOC description, which the visa officer described as “self-serving.” Justice Bédard found that by stating the letter was self-serving, the officer was saying that he or she doubted the veracity of its content. It was thus distinguished from Kaur, above, because the applicant had provided sufficient evidence and a duty to provide the applicant an opportunity to respond was found. The decision quoted Justice Snider in Perez Enriquez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1091:

The first duty raised by the Applicant is the duty to seek clarification. When an Applicant puts his or her best foot forward by submitting complete evidence and a visa officer doubts that evidence, the officer has a duty to seek clarification (Sandhu, above at paras 32-33). Although this duty is not triggered in situations where an applicant simply presents insufficient evidence, it will arise if the officer entertains concerns regarding the veracity of evidence; for example, if the officer questions the credibility, accuracy or genuine nature of the information provided (Olorunshola, above at paras 32-35). On the facts of this case, a duty to clarify may have arisen but was discharged by the Officer’s questions to the Applicant during the interview. There was no breach of fairness.

The second duty raised by the Applicant is a duty to provide an opportunity to respond. When an applicant submits information that, if accepted, supports the application, he or she should be given an opportunity to respond to the officer’s concerns if the officer wishes to make a decision based on those concerns (Kumar, above at paras 30-31). Procedural fairness may require an interview; for example, if a visa officer believes an applicant’s documents may be fraudulent (Patel, above at paras 24-27). (…)

(some references omitted)

Justice Zinn’s decision in Madadi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 716 at para 6 provides a succinct summary:

The jurisprudence of this Court on procedural fairness in this area is clear: Where an applicant provides evidence sufficient to establish that they meet the requirements of the Act or regulations, as the case may be, and the officer doubts the “credibility, accuracy or genuine nature of the information provided” and wishes to deny the application based on those concerns, the duty of fairness is invoked[.]

(references omitted)


Sponsoring Relatives other than Spouses, Parents, and Children

Canadian immigration legislation provides that a Canadian citizen or permanent resident may sponsor their spouse, common-law partner, child, parents or grand-parents to immigrate to Canada.  It also provides that in certain circumstances a Canadian may sponsor another relative.

Section 117(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPR“) provides that:

A foreign national is a member of the family class if, with respect to a sponsor, the foreign national is

a relative of the sponsor, regardless of age, if the sponsor does not have a spouse, a common-law partner, a conjugal partner, a child, a mother or father, a relative who is a child of that mother or father, a relative who is a child of a child of that mother or father, a mother or father of that mother or father or a relative who is a child of the mother or father of that mother or father

(i) who is a Canadian citizen, Indian or permanent resident, or

(ii) whose application to enter and remain in Canada as a permanent resident the sponsor may otherwise sponsor.

The following are key things to know about sponsoring relatives other than spouses, common-law partners, children, parents or grand-parents.

1. The Canadian sponsor must not have a spouse, common-law partner, child, parent or grand-parent that is either a Canadian citizen or one that they can sponsor. 

Indeed, when assessing such applications, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) will often ask applicants to provide detailed family trees listing all family members and to provide evidence as to whether a person’s parents and grandparents are deceased.

2. It does not matter if the Canadian sponsor is not close to, or estranged from, his or her parents. 

In Bousaleh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Justice Fothergill stated that although the results may seem unfair, it does not matter if a potential Canadian sponsor is estranged from his or her parents. The fact that they can legally be sponsored means that the Canadian cannot sponsor another relative instead.

3. There is uncertainty in the law as to whether a sponsor’s parents or grand-parents have to be deceased, or simply likely inadmissible to Canada. 

Traditionally, most people have interpreted Canadian immigration law as requiring that a Canadian may sponsor a relative only if they do not have any living spouses, children, or parents who they can sponsor.  However, the Federal Court in Sendwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) ruled that this is too restrictive.  The Federal Court found that the stated that the purpose and intent of paragraph 117(1)(h) of the IRPR is “to favour persons who do not have relations in Canada and have no possibility to sponsor any relations under other provisions.”  The Court went on to state:

In the present case, the Immigration Appeal Division held that the Applicant’s application was rejected simply because her parents were alive. The Immigration Appeal Division did not consider whether the Applicant would (even) be eligible (or in position) to sponsor her parents. As a result, the IAD’s decision is unreasonable.

In Bousaleh, Justice Fothergill certified the following question of general importance:

Does determination of a person’s eligibility to sponsor a relative under s 117(1)(h) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 require consideration of whether an application to sponsor a person enumerated in s 117(1)(h) has a reasonable prospect of success?

 


Retrospective Legislation

In a recent Borderlines episode, Garth Barriere, Eric Purtzki, Peter Edelmann and I discussed the constitutionality of laws that are retroactive or retrospective.  This episode can be found here:

A link to this episode’s synopsis can be found here.

The following post provides a more detailed written summary of retroactive and retrospective legislation in the immigration context.

Continue reading “Retrospective Legislation”