Section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding a material fact relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of Canada’s immigration laws. The general consequence of misrepresenting is a five-year ban from entering Canada. Canada is very strict on misrepresentation. In Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147, for example, Mr. Bundhel had been charged and convicted with an offence, which had been overturned on appeal. Mr. Bundhel would accordingly not have been criminally inadmissible to Canada. Because of this, he put on his immigration forms that he had never been charged or arrested. When it discovered thathehad been previously charged, what is now Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada wrote to him and provided him with an opportunity to explain why he misrepresented. After the immigration officer reviewed Mr. Bundhel’s explanation that it was an innocent mistake, the officer refused the application, and declared the person inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation. The Court wrote (citations removed): Mr. Bundhel’s complaint that the Officer should have considered the fact that he owned-up to the … Read More
Study Permit Compliance
In 2020, over 400,000 international students at the post-secondary level in Canada will return to school. Many will want to stay and work in Canada after graduating. All will be subject to mandatory conditions of their stay as a student in Canada. It is important for all international students, and especially those who wish to one day work in or immigrate to Canada, to understand these conditions, as the consequence of failing to comply with one of the them is removal from Canada and a one year bar from returning. The Law on Study Permit Compliance Regulation 220.1(1) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that the holder of a study permit in Canada must enroll at a post-secondary institution that accepts international students, also known as a designated learning institution, and remain enrolled at the designated learning institution until they complete their studies. As well, students must actively pursue their course or program of study. Canadian immigration authorities typically interpret this legislative requirement as being that students must be enrolled full-time or part-time during each academic semester (excluding regularly scheduled breaks), that they must make progress towards completing their program’s courses and that they cannot take authorized leaves … Read More
Assessing the Genuineness and Primary Purpose of a Marriage
Regulation 4 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-207 state that a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership (a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act or (b) is not genuine. Statistics From 2012-2017 around 4% of spousal sponsorship applications were refused because an officer determined that an applicant’s marriage was either not genuine or that it was primarily motivated by an immigration benefit. A Hasty Marriage In Nadasapillai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 72, Justice Diner held that the fact that a marriage was entered into after a short courtship is not determinative of a mala fide marriage. He stated: The Panel criticized the haste based on Ms. Raman’s troubled past relationship and marriage, and the fact that Ms. Raman was 38 years of age at the time, i.e., getting on in age for a single mother. There are two reasons that this is a weak conclusion. First, one can easily understand why Ms. Raman was ready for the companionship that she clearly explained she had longed for: older couples can be quick in deciding … Read More
Labour Market Impact Assessments – The Genuiness and Actively Engaged Factors
Section 203(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPR“) requires Service Canada to only issue a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA“) when it is satisfied that an employer’s job offer is genuine. The IRPR lists several specific factors which Service Canada officers must consider in a genuineness analysis. The Genuineness Factor In addition to regulation 203(1)(a) of the IRPR, regulation 200(5) of IRPR provides that: Genuineness of job offer (5) A determination of whether an offer of employment is genuine shall be based on the following factors: (a) whether the offer is made by an employer that is actively engaged in the business in respect of which the offer is made, unless the offer is made for employment as a live-in caregiver; (b) whether the offer is consistent with the reasonable employment needs of the employer; (c) whether the terms of the offer are terms that the employer is reasonably able to fulfil; and (d) the past compliance of the employer, or any person who recruited the foreign national for the employer, with the federal or provincial laws that regulate employment, or the recruiting of employees, in the province in which it is intended that the foreign national work. … Read More
Responding to Procedural Fairness Letters
Where an applicant submits a complete application, but an immigration officer nonetheless has concerns regarding the merits of it, the immigration officer will often provide a fairness letter to the applicant. This requirement has arisen from Federal Court of Canada jurisprudence which provides that the duty of procedural fairness can require that an applicant be given an opportunity to respond to a decision maker’s concerns when those concerns go beyond simply whether the legislation or related requirements are met on the face of the application. When, for example, the applicant may be unaware of the existence or the basis of the concern, procedural fairness may require prior notice of the concern before a decision is made so that the applicant has an opportunity to try to disabuse the officer of the concern. As the Court noted in Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 809, this is the case for both temporary and permanent residency applications. In Asanova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1173, the Court stated: Even so, at a minimum procedural fairness requires that an applicant for a visa have an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the application process. Consequently, the duty of procedural fairness can require … Read More
The Best Interests of a Child
Yesterday, an individual called wanting to know if the fact that she was pregnant would guarantee a successful H&C application because of the duty to consider the “best interests of the child.” The father is Canadian.
The National Occupational Classification System
Canada’s immigration system heavily relies on the National Occupational Classification (“NOC”) system, managed by Service Canada. For applicants in the economic class, a deep understanding of the NOC system is crucial. The success of their immigration applications often hinges on proving they have qualifying experience or pre-arranged employment in specific NOC categories. Employers submitting Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIAs”) applications to the Ministry of Economic and Social Development Canada (“ESDC“) need to know which NOCs their positions fall under because this will determine the respective prevailing wage and recruitment requirements. Moreover, international graduates should be mindful of the NOC classification of their first job after completing post-secondary education. Experience in certain NOCs is essential for it to count towards immigration eligibility.
Understanding Judicial Review
When a visa application has been refused and an applicant is convinced that the decision is unreasonable then it may be advisable to file an Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review with the Federal Court of Canada (the “Federal Court” or the “Court”). The Federal Court has the jurisdiction to review the decisions of visa officers. The Court will determine whether an immigration officer committed any reviewable errors that should result in the decision being set aside. Reviewable errors include errors of fact, law, or breaches of procedural fairness. If an applicant succeeds in Federal Court, then the Court will order that the immigration officer’s decision be set aside, and typically that the application be reconsidered by a different officer. Usually, a successful judicial review will ultimately result in a positive decision from the second visa officer. However, this is not always the case. Furthermore, as the Federal Court of Appeal determined in Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FCA 143, there is no obligation on the second immigration officer to specifically refer to the order of the Court in the judicial review and provide reasons as to how and why the second decision differs from the … Read More
Ezokola and the Test For Complicity
In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) created a new test for determining complicity in Article 1F(a) exclusion cases. Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention provides that: The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: (a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40, a crime against humanity is committed when each of the following four elements is satisfied: An enumerated proscribed act was committed (this involves showing that the accused committed the criminal act and had the requisite guilty state of mind for the underlying act); The act was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack; The attack was directed against any civilian population or any identifiable group of persons; and The person who committed the proscribed act knew of the attack and knew or took the risk that his or her act comprised … Read More
The Return of Incomplete Applications
I have previously written in this blog about how Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC’) has adapted an exceptionally strict approach to returning applications for incompleteness. I have also written in Policy Options about how frustrating this approach can be, because one of its main purposes appears to be to allow politicians to boast about reduced processing times, while ignoring the fact that the experience of individuals who are actually applying is actually often longer than previously. I wrote: The current rigid triage system distorts a fair comparison of processing times. Suppose an individual applies to sponsor a spouse to immigrate to Canada and forgets to include in one of the forms the city where a non-accompanying brother was born. Previously, processing might have been delayed by two to three months while IRCC contacted the family, informed them of the mistake and requested they provide the information. Now, IRCC would instead return the application one to two months after it is submitted, and the family would have to resubmit. If some supporting documents have expired, they may have to reobtain them, and the process can easily take several months. Under the previous system, this delay would have added two to … Read More