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
When the Court Will Award Costs
In this post, which will be updated frequently, I will be looking at scenarios where the Federal Court ordered costs. I’m hoping that this post can become a useful reference for Federal Court practitioners.
Intention to Reside and Provincial Nominees
Sections 87(1) and (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provide that: 87 (1) For the purposes of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the provincial nominee class is hereby prescribed as a class of persons who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada. Member of the class (2) A foreign national is a member of the provincial nominee class if (a) subject to subsection (5), they are named in a nomination certificate issued by the government of a province under a provincial nomination agreement between that province and the Minister; and (b) they intend to reside in the province that has nominated them. In Dhaliwal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 131, Justice Diner wrote: The assessment of intention, since it is a highly subjective notion, may take into account all indicia, including past conduct, present circumstances, and future plans, as best as can be ascertained from the available evidence and context. In this case, the Applicant clearly expressed her intention to permanently reside in Brampton, Ontario, as well as her intention to finish her PhD in Quebec, which required continued temporary residence in Quebec. These intentions are not contradictory; … Read More
Work Experience Under the FSWP and the CEC
In both the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Canadian Experience Class, and indeed most economic immigration programs, the government of Canada relies on Service Canada’s National Occupational Classification (“NOC“) system to determine eligibility. In the Canadian Experience Class, for example, subsections 87.1(2)(b) and (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “IRPR“) set out the job duties that applicants to the Canadian Experience Class must perform in order to meet the requirements of having experience in an eligible NOC. Subsection 87.1(2)(b) provides that an applicant must have performed the “actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out [in the NOC]”, while subsection 87.1(2)(c) provides that an applicant also must have performed a “substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the NOC, including all of the essential duties.” In the Federal Skilled Worker Program, meanwhile, s. 75(2)(a)-(c) of the IRPR states: A foreign national is a skilled worker if (a) within the 10 years before the date on which their application for a permanent resident visa is made, they have accumulated, over a continuous period, at least one year of full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work, in the occupation … Read More
Inadmissible for Crimes Against Humanity
Section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA“) provides that: Human or international rights violations 35 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for (a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; (b) being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; or (c) being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in Canada is restricted pursuant to a decision, resolution or measure of an international organization of states or association of states, of which Canada is a member, that imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association. Internal Guideline Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has produced a useful internal document … Read More
The Parent & Grandparent Sponsorship Program
Under the Parent & Grandparent Sponsorship Program (the “PGP“), Canadian citizens and permanent residents can sponsor their foreign national parents and grandparents. Sponsors must sign an undertaking with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (“IRCC“) or with the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Diversité et de l’Inclusion for those in Quebec. The undertaking ensures that the sponsored individuals and their family members do not have to apply for social assistance. The length of undertaking in the PGP is 20 years. As per the IRCC website, sponsors must: be 18 years of age or older; be a Canadian citizen, Registered Indian or permanent resident; be sponsoring their parents or grandparents; live in Canada; sign an undertaking promising to provide for the basic requirements of the person being sponsored; sign an agreement with the person theyare sponsoring; and prove that they have sufficient income. Co-signers are permissible. Exclusions A Canadian citizen or permanent resident cannot be a sponsor if they: are in receipt of social assistance for a reason other than disability; are in default of an undertaking, an immigration loan, a performance bond, or family support payments; are an undischarged bankrupt; were convicted of an offence of a sexual nature, a violent criminal offence, an … Read More
Addressing IRPR r. 117(9)(d)
Regulation 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that a foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined. An exception exists where the foreign national was not examined because an immigration officer determined that they did not need to be. Regulation 117(9)(d) typically arises where a person immigrates to Canada, does not disclose that they are either married or have children, and then attempt to sponsor for immigration the people that they did not disclose. The Charter If one has a regulation 117(9)(d) refusal and wishes to make a Charter challenge, they should know that the Federal Court of Appeal has already held that the law is constitutional. In de Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] 3 FCR 655, 2005 FCA 436, Ms. de Guzman’s counsel argued that by preventing her from sponsoring her children, and keeping her apart from them, regulation 117(9)(d) deprived her of the Charter’s right to liberty because it … Read More
Arguing Incompetence of Counsel in an Appeal
Many lawyers when they meet with clients often review rejected applications and/or appeals where it is obvious that the individual’s previous representative was incompetent. The examples of incompetence range from missed deadlines to ignorance of the law. Some specific examples include: former counsel being told by an Immigration Appeal Division member to “sit down” because they were incompetent; an immigration consultant not knowing the difference between a “conviction” and a “dismissal”; an immigration consultant stating that the “prevailing wage = the wage paid to Canadians at the employer’s company”; and a lawyer filing late because “deadlines are policy, not statute.” While the previous representative’s incompetence may serve as a ground for relief in a judicial review, cases based on incompetence and/or negligence of previous counsel are exceptionally difficult. The Federal Court’s March 7, 2014, Procedural Protocol on arguing incompetence of counsel only make these cases more challenging. The Law on Incompetence of Counsel As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in R v. GDB for incompetence/negligence of previous counsel/representative to count as a ground for judicial review, it must be established that (1) previous counsel’s acts or omissions constituted incompetence and (2) that a miscarriage of justice resulted from the incompetence. The Federal … Read More
Introducing Express Entry
On January 1 2015, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC“) is expected to overhaul its economic immigration programs with the launch of Express Entry. On December 1, 2014, the Government of Canada released detailed Ministerial Instructions regarding Express Entry. In this post I hope to provide an easy to read overview of the new program. Express Entry will significantly alter every economic immigration program, including the Federal Skilled Worker Program (“FSWP“), the Canadian Experience Class (“CEC“), the Federal Skilled Trades Program (“FSTP“), and the Provincial Nominee Program (“PNP“). Rather than first in, first processed for permanent residence applications Express Entry will feature a “selection” of candidates who the Government of Canada believes is most likely to succeed in Canada. Express Entry will consist of two steps for potential applicants: Completing an Online Express Entry Profile Receiving a Letter of Invitation CIC is touting that Express Entry is not a new immigration per se, but rather a way for CIC to manage economic immigration applications online. However, a quick review of Express Entry suggests that who will be eligible to immigrate to Canada under Express Entry will fundamentally change.
Understanding the Citizenship Revocation Process
Between 1977 and 2010 only 63 people had their citizenship revoked. In July, 2011, Jason Kenney, then the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (“Minister Kenney“), announced that as many as 1,800 Canadians could be stripped of their citizenship because they obtained their citizenship fraudulently. The 1,800 individuals were identified following a three-year investigation by the RCMP, other police forces and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. On September 9, 2012, Minister Kenney announced that the number of people who would likely have their citizenship revoked had risen to 3,100, with an additional 11,000 people under investigation. An Access to Information Act request revealed that most of the Canadian citizens who were the subject of investigations were originally from the following countries. By the end of 2012, the process of revoking these peoples’ citizenship had already begun. Ultimately, after Federal Court litigation and a change in government, citizenship revocations continue at a rate much smaller than it seemed would occur, but more than before. In 2021, 7 people had their citizenship revoked. In 2022, it was 25. Section 10 of the Citizenship Act The authority of the Government of Canada to strip people of their citizenship is legally provided for by s. 10 of the … Read More