Last Updated on June 21, 2012 by Steven Meurrens
The Conservative Government has introduced Bill c-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. The changes are:
1) Eligible individuals may file an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) if sentenced to less than two years imprisonment inCanada.
Eligible individuals could file an appeal to the IAD only if sentenced to less than six months’ imprisonment inCanada.
For example, a permanent resident who has lived in Canada since he was a child and who was sentenced to 6 months in jail (including a suspended sentence) for assault would no longer be eligible to appeal a removal order.
2) Foreign nationals who are inadmissible on the most serious grounds have access to humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) provisions to overcome their inadmissibility.
Foreign nationals inadmissible on the grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality would no longer be able to apply under H&C provisions.
For example, a former war criminal would be ineligible to request H&C considerations as a way to delay removal or remain in Canada permanently no matter how long the person has lived in Canada and no matter how many Canadian citizens are dependent on the person. There will be no discretion.
However, the Minister may, at his own initiative, determine an individual who is inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of security, human or international rights violations, or organized criminality to be admissible to Canada.
3) Prior to a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, the Minister of Public Safety was obligated to consider a wide range of factors (including those not related to national security and public safety, such as H&C) when deciding whether to grant a request for relief from inadmissibility (on grounds of security,Read more ›
Last Updated on June 18, 2012 by Steven Meurrens
CTV Ottawa is reporting that in 2011 Canada was one of the top 10 global refugee destinations.
The list is:
- South Africa: 110,000
- U.S.: 76,000
- France: 52,100
- Germany: 45,700
- Italy: 30,300
- Sweden: 29,600
- Belgium: 26,000
- U.K.: 25,500
- Canada: 25,000
- Ghana: 20,100
It’s interesting that both Belgium and Sweden took in more refugees than Canada, despite having a fraction of the population and landmass that we do.Read more ›
Last Updated on June 17, 2012 by Steven Meurrens
The Citizenship and Immigration Canada office closures continue.
Effective July 1, 2012, the Temporary Foreign Worker Units (TFWUs) in Vancouver, Calgary, and Moncton will close. Only the TFWUs in Toronto and Montreal will remain open.
The Toronto TFWU will be responsible for providing services to employers in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
The Montreal TFWU will be responsible for providing services to employers in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The TFWUs in Vancouver and Calgary will accept opinion requests and respond to Labour market Opinion and/or Work Permit exemption related enquiries until June 15, 2012. These offices will then focus on finalizing work already in process.Read more ›
Last Updated on June 16, 2012 by Steven Meurrens
On June 1, 2012, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) introduced two new Labour Market Opinion (“LMO”) exemptions. The first is for some Certificat de sélection du Québec (“CSQ”) holders. The second is for certain francophones intending to work outside of Quebec. As well, on June 11, 2012, CIC updated its re-configuring of the U.S.processing network.
LMO Exemption for Some CSQ Holders
Effective June 1, 2012, temporary foreign workers residing in Quebec who hold a skilled CSQ and who are waiting for a decision in regards to their applications for permanent residency will be able to renew their work permits without having to obtain LMOs. Such applicants must either be:
- seeking to extend their work permit for their current employer; or
- seeking to renew their current work authorization with a new employer in theprovinceofQuebec; or
- be a foreign student who has obtained a post-graduation work permit and has a job offer in theprovinceofQuebec; or
- be a work permit holder through the International ExperienceCanadaprogram.
The work permits will be valid for the duration of the job offer and cannot exceed two years.
Only employer-specific work permits may be issued.Read more ›
Last updated on October 4th, 2018
Last Updated on October 4, 2018 by Steven Meurrens
The media is reporting that once Bill C-38 passes, the Conservative government has indicated that it will stop issuing work visas to foreign strippers. One of the more insightful reports on the issue is from the Adult Video News’ Ann Oui, who wrote:
“Together with other legislation passed this year, provisions under Bill C-38 will take it one step further—all existing temporary work visas to foreign-born strippers will be cancelled, all new applications will be denied and all ‘open’ work visa holders will be barred from working in the adult entertainment industry,” reported the Sun.
In spite of the clamor by conservatives, while in power they reportedly granted 496 permits to foreign exotic dancers between 2006 and 2011, and renewed a relatively paltry 100. For Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney, who is blaming the opposition for blocking efforts to amend current law, the number is beside the point.
“Now we have the power, which we’ll begin using as soon as those regulations are done this summer, to deny visas to people who we think … might have a high chance of trafficking or exploitation,” he said.
That is quite an odd rationalization, however, considering the visas he wants to deny are specifically for work in adult entertainment, which would hardly be the case if the individuals were being illegally trafficked rather than imported as professionals already experienced in the same line of work.
Similarly, cancelling current visas is hardly consistent with his alleged reasons for wanting the law, but it is certainly consistent with the strategy of moralistic politicians who must wrap their abusive laws in altruism,Read more ›
Last Updated on June 14, 2012 by Steven Meurrens
Restructuring of North American Processing Network (Continued)
In a previous post, I wrote about how on May 29, 2012, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) restructured its North American Processing Network. The restructuring included the closure of immigration section of the Canadian consualte in Buffalo, as well as the realigninment of Work Permit and Study Permit functions of the Canadian consulates in New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Detroit, and Seattle. For information on those changes, I encourage you to read that post.
On June 11, 2012, CIC released a further Operational Bulletin detailing additional changes to which consulates which process Temporary Resident Permit applications, Rehab applications, and Authorization to Return to Canada applications. .
Re-Configuring the U.S. Network (TRPs, Rehab, and ARC)
Effectively June 18, the Seattle, Detroit, and New York consulates will no longer be processing new TRP, Rehab, and ARC applications. Only the Los Angeles and Washington DC consulates will process new applications in these categories. Furthermore, applicants residing in the United States will not be able to choose which consulate to submit their application to. Applicants living in the United States east of the Mississippi River (including in Puerto Rico, Bermuda, and St. Pierre et Miqueldon) must apply to the Washington DC Consulate. Applicants residing in the United States living west of the Mississippi River must apply to the Los Angeles consulate.
Verification of Entry
Verification of Entry
Verification of Entry
Verification of Entry
Study Permit (U.S.Read more ›
Last Updated on June 13, 2012 by Steven Meurrens
My June article in Canadian Immigration Magazine titled “Learn the Language” has generated considerable feedback, not least of which has been the question “am I sure that xxxx language test isn’t accepted for immigration?”
Right now, the four main programs which require language tests are the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Canadian Experience Class, (soon) the Provincial Nominee Programs, and (soon) citizenship.
For the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the designated language testing agencies are the IELTS, the CELPIP, and the TEF.
For the Canadian Experience Class, the only test results that are accepted are the IELTS and the TEF. You can find this in third last question of the program’s FAQ here.
For the PNP, the acceptable language tests will be the IELTS, CELPIP-General, and the TEF.
The tests for citizenship have not yet been formally announced, however, the announcement that language testing will be required states that they will be the same as for the above programs.
The follow-up question has generally been “who chooses which testing agencies are acceptable?” To be honest, I’m not sure. However, there are generally public consultations prior to language testing being introduced into a program, so if you want to have a certain agency’s test qualify, perhaps contact your local Member of Parliament or Citizenship and Immigration Canada to learn how to attend a stakeholder meeting.Read more ›
Last Updated on June 12, 2012 by Steven Meurrens
Got a Work Permit this morning for someone who was born in Vietnam.
Considering that there is only one Vietnam, perhaps it would be better to just put “Vietnam.”Read more ›
Last Updated on June 11, 2012 by Steven Meurrens
Under the PRSP, there are three types of sponsors. The first are Sponsorship Agreement Holders (“SAHs“). SAHs are local, regional, and national incorporated organizations that have signed multi-year agreements with Citizenship and Immigration Canada for the purpose of submitting sponsorship cases on a regular basis. The second are Groups of Five (“G5s“), which are five or more Canadian citizens or permanent residents who live in the applicant’s expected community of settlement who sponsor refugees. They account for 40% of the PRSP. The third are Community Sponsors (“CS“), which are organizations that have not signed formal agreements.
As of 2012, the PRSP has brought over 200,000 refugees and persons in refugee-like situations to Canada. As the PRSP has grown, so too didthe backlog and the refusal rate. Some missions abroad currently have waiting lists exceeding five years. Excluding Iraq, the average G5 approval rate is only 37%.
The proposed changes to the PRSP were meant to address this. The changes included requiring that the foreign national’s application for protection from abroad be submitted at the same time as the sponsor’s application. As well, the proposed amendments would limit G5s and CSs to submitting applications for persons recognized by either the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR“) or a foreign state as a refugee. An additional rationale for the changes to the PRSP to that in the Gazette can be found in the Memorandum to the Minister in which Citizenship and Immigration recommended the changes to Minister Kenney.
When the changes were announced,Read more ›
Last updated on March 18th, 2019
Last Updated on March 18, 2019 by Steven Meurrens
The Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 clarified the law regarding what constitutes dangerous driving under the Criminal Code. The decision, R v. Roy, has implications for people who may be inadmissible to Canada for criminality. Indeed, in Jolly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court of Canada affirmed that it will be a reviewable error if visa officers do not assess criminal equivalency for dangerous driving based on the mens rea standard articulated in Roy.
Section 249 of the Criminal Code provides that:
249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates
(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place;
In R v. Roy, the Supreme Court noted that (emphasis added):
It is, therefore, critically important to ensure that the fault requirement for dangerous driving has been established. Failing to do so unduly extends the reach of the criminal law and wrongly brands as criminals those who are not morally blameworthy. The distinction between a mere departure, which may support civil liability, and the marked departure required for criminal fault is a matter of degree. The trier of fact must identify how and in what way the departure from the standard goes markedlybeyond mere carelessness.Read more ›