We discuss issues involving the deportation of long term permanent residents for criminality. 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. He is representing Jaskirat Singh Sidhu in his immigration and deportation matters. 5:45 – What are the grounds for deporting a permanent resident for criminality? 13:00 – How does the appeal process work? 17:00 – What are the factors in deportation. 19:00 – An overview of the history of the law involving the deportation of permanent residents. 26:00 – What is the probability of success for a permanent resident in avoiding deportation once proceedings start? 36:00 – Stays of removal 41:00 – Strategies and tips for responding to procedural fairness letters involving removal. [UPDATE – DECEMBER 20, 2023] The Federal Court in Sidhu v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681 has upheld a decision of the Canada Border Services Agency to refer Mr. Sidhu to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Citing the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Obazughanmwen v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151, the Court set forth the general principles applicable 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
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.
Labour Market Impact Assessments- Prevailing Wage
In order to obtain a positive Labour Market Impact Assessments, an employer must commit to paying a prospective foreign worker at least the prevailing wage for an occupation in a geographic area. The prevailing wage is set by Employment and Skills Development Canada (“ESDC“)/Service Canada. It is a very strict requirement, and Service Canada officers currently have no discretion to vary it.
Misrepresentations and H&C
Several large scale immigration frauds in recent years have resulted in thousands of permanent residents facing removal of Canada for misrepresentation. Many are filing appeals based on humanitarian & compassionate considerations. In assessing such appeals, both the Canada Border Services Agency, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Immigration Appeal Division face the task of weighing an individual’s previous misconduct against the compassionate mitigating factors which may exist. To quote Justice Russel in Yu v. Canada, 2017 FC 10-88 the decision in Dowers v Canada (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, 2017 FC 593 at paragraphs 2 to 6, stresses the point that concern about the past must be separated from concern about the future: A situation such as the Applicant’s, where a person comes to Canada and stays without adhering to the immigration laws, but, nevertheless, succeeds to be a positive, productive, and valuable member of society must be given careful attention. Section 25 has no purpose if that person is easily condemned for her or his immigration history. The history must be viewed as a fact which is to be taken into consideration, but within a serious holistic and empathetic exploration of the totality of the evidence, to discover whether … Read More
What Happens After a Judicial Review
The Federal Court of Canada (the “Federal Court“) has the jurisdiction to review immigration decisions, including those of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) and the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“). The Federal Court will not order a specific result. Rather, the Federal Court will order that the application be sent back for re-determination by a different officer. Many people often wonder how that process works. Jurisprudence In Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Superior Propane Inc. (C.A.), 2003 FCA 53, the Federal Court of Appeal stated: The principle of stare decisis is, of course, well known to lawyers and judges. Lower courts must follow the law as interpreted by a higher co-ordinate court. They cannot refuse to follow it: Canada Temperance Act (The), Re, 1939 CanLII 58 (ON CA), [1939] O.R. 570 (C.A.), at page 581, affd 1946 CanLII 351 (UK JCPC), [1946] 2 D.L.R. 1 (P.C.); Woods v. The King, 1951 CanLII 36 (SCC), [1951] S.C.R. 504, at page 515. This principle applies equally to tribunals having to follow the directions of a higher court as in this case. On redetermination, the duty of a tribunal is to follow the directions of the reviewing court. In Canada (Citizenship and … Read More