The following is an article that I wrote for Policy Options. On February 14, 2018, Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), announced that the processing time for spousal sponsorship applications had been reduced from 26 months to 12 months in 80 percent of cases. The Minister attributed the reduction to a “Family Class Tiger Team” that had redesigned application packages and introduced workflow efficiencies. What the Minister didn’t mention was that IRCC achieved its reduction in processing at least in part because it has established an unbelievably strict triage system for marriage-based immigration applications. As reported in several media outlets at the end of January 2018, this intake-management system has in many instances left Canadian families in limbo, caused people who were legally in Canada to lose their status and impeded the ability of the foreign-national spouses of Canadian citizens to work. On the same day that the Minister made his announcement, IRCC issued an Operational Bulletin stating that effective March 15, 2018, IRCC would return as incomplete applications that do not include a detailed form listing personal and address history, and police certificates from countries where applicants have lived. These forms and police certificates were previously … Read More
Law Cans Episode 8 – R v. Boutilier (Dangerous Offender Designations) with Eric Purtzki
R. v. Boutilier is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court had to determine whether Canada’s dangerous offender designation regime is constitutional. Eric Purtzki is a criminal defence attorney in Vancouver who was counsel to Mr. Boutilier before the Supreme Court. We discuss how Canada’s dangerous offender designation regime works, the consequences of being designated a dangerous offender, his arguments at the Supreme Court, and the decision. 1:15 – The facts of the case – Mr. Boutilier robs a pharmacy with an imitation firearm. A car chase ensues. He pleads guilty to six criminal charges to this. The Crown afterwards seeks a designation that Mr. Boutilier is a dangerous offender. Mr. Boutilier challenged the law on the dangerous offender designation. 2:00 – What are the consequences of being designated a Dangerous Offender? 2:30 – What is the purpose of the dangerous offender designation? 9:30 – What are the requirements to be designated a dangerous offender? 13:30 – What are the statistics of release for dangerous offenders, and how does someone get released from indefinite detention if they are a dangerous offender? 17:00 – When someone enters into a plea … Read More
French Citizens Waitlisted for the Young Professionals Program
I recently received a call from a French citizen who was frustrated because they were continuously unsuccessful in the Young Professionals lottery. There was no need for them to be in the lottery, as they would have qualified for Mobilité francophone. As previously explained on my blog here, IRCC has a work permit program specifically designed for Francophones who want to work in a skilled position outside of Quebec. As the Young Professionals Program requires a skilled offer of employment, as long as the French person had a job offer outside of Quebec they would qualify for Mobilité francophone. Here are three basic things to note about Mobilite Francophone. To qualify for the LMIA exemption, applicants must: apply at a visa office outside Canada; be going to work in an occupation which falls under National Occupation Classification 0, A or B; have French as his/her habitual language; and be destined to a province other than Quebec.
Borderlines Episode 22 – The Implications of the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R v. Wong
R v. Wong is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether a person could withdraw a guilty plea if they they did not know that their pleading guilty would lead to deportation. Peter Edelmann and Erica Olmstead are lawyers at Edelmann & Co. They represented the accused at the Supreme Court. Lobat Sadrehashemi represented one of the invervenors, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. 2:00 – The facts of the case. Mr. Wong pleads guilty to trafficking cocaine. He learns afterwards that this will lead to his deportation. He did not know this when he pled. Can he reverse his plea? 4:29 – How does a guilty plea work? Is it like in the movies? 7:40 – What was the judicial history of this case? 8:50 – What was the perspective of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers regarding whether previously unknown immigration consequences should result in a person being able to set aside their guilty plea? 14:00 – When Peter, Erika and Lobatt talk about whether people should know about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, what does “immigration consequences” mean? How did the court rule? 19:00 … Read More
Law Cans Episode 7 – R v. Wong (Informed Plea Bargains and Immigration) with Peter Edelmann
R v. Wong is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether a person could withdraw a guilty plea if they they did not know that their pleading guilty would lead to deportation. Peter Edelmann and Erica Olmstead are lawyers at Edelmann & Co. They represented the accused at the Supreme Court. Lobat Sadrehashemi represented one of the invervenors, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. 2:00 – The facts of the case. Mr. Wong pleads guilty to trafficking cocaine. He learns afterwards that this will lead to his deportation. He did not know this when he pled. Can he reverse his plea? 4:29 – How does a guilty plea work? Is it like in the movies? 7:40 – What was the judicial history of this case? 8:50 – What was the perspective of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers regarding whether previously unknown immigration consequences should result in a person being able to set aside their guilty plea? 14:00 – When Peter, Erika and Lobatt talk about whether people should know about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, what does “immigration consequences” mean? How did the court rule? 19:00 … Read More
Biometric Requirements to Enter Canada
On July 31, 2018 Canada is imposing new biometric requirements on individuals wishing to visit Canada. Biometrics refers to the taking of fingerprints and a photograph. Biometrics collection is being expanded to include all persons (with certain exemptions) applying for temporary or permanent residence, including all those applying for a temporary or permanent resident visa or status, work permit, study permit, or temporary resident permit. The Government of Canada is also introducing systematic fingerprint verification for all biometrically enrolled travellers at Canada’s major airports and expand fingerprint verification capacity at additional ports of entry. Finally, Canada will enhance biometric information sharing between Canada and the United States and introduce biometric information sharing with other the Migration 5 partners, which are Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The change is part of a worldwide trend. More than 70 countries worldwide have implemented or are planning to implement biometrics in their immigration and border programs, including allies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. Who is Required to Provide Biometrics Since 2013, citizens of 29 visa-required countries and one territory have been required to provide biometrics. Biometrics have also been collected from overseas refugee … Read More
Do Cruise Ship Employees Need Work Permits?
Regulation 186(s) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations“) regulates when crew members are permitted to work in Canada without first obtaining a work permit. The Regulations state: R186(s). A foreign national may work in Canada without a work permit as a member of a crew who is employed by a foreign company aboard a means of transportation that (i) is foreign-owned and not registered in Canada, and (ii) is engaged primarily in international transportation Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has published helpful guidance as to how this Regulation is to be interpreted (the “Guidelines“). What is a Member of a Crew As per the Guidelines, on a cruise ship, crew members include: licensed officers: master, first officer, chief officer or chief mate, first engineer or chief engineer, and subordinate officers and engineers; non-licensed crew: ordinary seamen, able-bodied seamen, bosun (deck crew foreman), engine- room crew (oilers and fitters), and kitchen and mess-room staff (cooks, stewards and messmen); and the hotel manager, cruise director, purser, medical staff, managers and staff of the ship’s bars, restaurants, boutiques and casino, as well as house-cleaning staff and entertainers. Crew members do not include: supernumeraries: spouses, children and other dependants of crew … Read More
Certified Questions and the Federal Court of Appeal
The Federal Court of Canada has the ability to review the decisions of administrative tribunals, including decision makers with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. Most people familiar with judicial systems know that decisions of lower courts can be appealed to higher courts. However, section 74(d) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and s. 22.2(d) of the Citizenship Act provide that an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may only be made if a Federal Court judge, when rendering judgement, the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question. It is important to note that once a judge certifies a question an appeal to the Federal Court of Canada is not limited to the question that the judge certified. In Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Supreme Court stated that (citations removed): Once an appeal has been brought to this Court by way of certified question, this Court must deal with the certified question and all other issues that might affect the validity of the judgment under appeal. The certification of a question “is the trigger by which an appeal is justified” and, once triggered, the appeal concerns … Read More
Law Cans Episode 6 – Office of the Children v. Baldev (International Child Abduction) with Ari Wormeli
Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court had to determine what the test should be for determining where to return a child under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention). Ari Wormeli is a lawyer at YLAW Group, a prominent Vancouver family law firm. We discuss the Supreme Court decision, and Ari discusses what it is like being a family law lawyer, what he thinks is the number one indicator of whether a marriage will end in divorce and whether he has ever felt threatened by an opposing party. 1:00 – The facts of the case. A couple is married in Ontario. They move to Germany in 2001 where their two children are born. They struggle with school in Germany so the father gave his time‑limited consent for the children to move to Canada with the mother for the 2013‑14 school year. The children attended school in Ontario where they resided with the mother and their grandparents. Because he suspected that the mother would not return the children to Germany at the end of the school year, the father purported to … Read More
IRCC Application Refusal – Example of Internal Reasons for Study Permit Refusal
In a previous blog post I wrote about how IRCC’s internal reasons for refusal are often much more detailed than what is in the refusal letters that IRCC sends to refused applicants. The recent case of Aguilar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 947 illustrates this. There, the refusal letter stated: The checklist reasons for refusal further added that the reasons for refusal were “employment prospects of country of residence” and “current employment situation.” The internal reasons for refusal, which could only be obtained through filing an Access to Information Act request or going to Federal Court were much more detailed, and stated that: As you can see, it would be impossible for people who did not have the internal reasons to fully understand why their application was refused. It is for this reason that people with refusals should always seek to obtain the full reasons for refusal before re-applying.