Jennifer Bond joins Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss refugee resettlement and ensuring that legislation is Charter compliant. Jennifer Bond is a professor at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, and is also a Special Advisor to Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship. Jennifer sat on the founding national executive of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and is founder and current co-director of the University of Ottawa’s Refugee Assistance Project, a multi-year, national initiative aimed at mitigating and researching the access to justice implications of Canada’s new refugee legislation. She is also the Faculty Coordinator of the University of Ottawa’s Refugee Hub, supervisor of the Refugee Law Research Team, and a member of the Public Law Group. Her e-mail is jennifer.bond@uottawa.ca 00:26 – 21:31- We discuss international refugee resettlement law. Specific topics include whether countries are obligated to resettle refugees, Canada’s commitment to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees, and the role private sponsorship programs in the global refugee resettlement effort. Jennifer also explained the security screening that Canada undertakes when it resettles refugees, and how this security process compares to Canada’s other immigration streams. Finally, we asked Jennifer for her take on what we discussed last week, which is whether … Read More
Can the Federal Court Order Continued Detention
The Federal Court in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Lunyamila has certified the following question of general importance: Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to usurp the jurisdiction of the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to order the release of the detainee pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, by ordering that the detainee shall remain in detention until further Court order? The timeline giving rise to the question was as follows: 5 January 2016 Mr. Lunyamila is ordered released from detention. The very same day the Minister applied for leave and judicial review under docket number IMM-63-16 and obtained an interim stay from Madam Justice Simpson. 8 January 2016 Mr. Justice Shore extended the interim stay to 19 January as a transcript of the hearing was not yet available. 20 January 2016 Mr. Justice Shore granted an interlocutory stay. While he noted that there would be another 30-day review upcoming and that the case might possibly be heard on an expedited basis he stayed the release “until the application for leave and judicial review is determined on the merits.” 2 February 2016 Mr. Lunyamila was again ordered released … Read More
Borderlines Podcast Episode 1 – Peter Edelmann, Deanna Okun-Nachoff, Steven Meurrens
Peter Edelmman, Deanna Okun-Nachoff, and myself have started the Borderlines podcast. The goal of the podcast is to provide a forum for the discussion of immigration law and policy. We are currently creating a website and social media channels. In the meantime, our first episode is available on Soundcloud. In this introductory episode the three of us discuss recent developments in Canadian immigration law, as well as some recent news items and a specific case. 00:30 – 8:39 – We discuss how immigration policy in general has changed under the Liberal government, with a specific emphasis on the Liberal’s repealing the portions of Bill C-24 which revoked the Canadian citizenship of certain individuals convicted of certain offences related to national security. 8:39 – 19:03 – The conversation shifts to Donald Trump, BREXIT, and whether Canada under the Liberal government is bucking an international trend towards increased protectionism. 19:03 – 25:06 – In discussing immigration policy under the new Liberal government, we note that unlike under the Conservatives, where Jason Kenney seemed to be directly or indirectly responsible for all government departments related to immigration law, the Liberals are providing autonomy to the Ministers of each Ministry, and what impact that this may have. 25:06 … Read More
War Deserters, Refugee Status and H&C
Being a war deserter does not in of itself mean that either a refugee claim or an application for permanent residency based on humanitarian & compassionate (“H&C“) grounds will succeed. Hinzman On July 6, 2010,the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA“) released its decision in Hinzman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FCA 177 (“Hinzman“) Hinzman involved an American soldier who for moral and religious beliefs was against “all participation in war.” In 2004, upon learning that his unit would be deployed to Iraq, Mr. Hinzman fled the United States for Canada. He was AWOL from the US army since his arrival in Canada. He originally claimed refugee status, a claim which was unsuccessful. Mr. Hinzman then filed a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA“) and an application for permanent residence based on H&C grounds. A Citizenship and Immigration Canada officer (the “Officer“) rejected the PRRA. She found that: [t]he possibility of prosecution under a law of general application is not, in and of itself, sufficient evidence that an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution. The PRRA application is not an avenue to circumvent lawful and legitimate prosecutions commenced by a democratic country. Mr. Hinzman did not seek leave to apply for judicial … Read More
The Constitutionality of the PRRA Bar
The Federal Court has certified numerous questions regarding the constitutionality of s. 112(2)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which in essence provides that a person may not apply for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) if they were previously a refugee claimant until 12 months have passed since their refugee hearing, or 36 months in the case of people from designated countries of origin. In Peter v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FC 1073, Justice Annis certified the following two questions: Does the prohibition contained in section 112(2)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act against bringing a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application until 12 months have passed since the claim for refugee protection was last rejected infringe section 7 of the Charter? If not, does the present removals process, employed within 12 months of a refugee claim being last rejected, when determining whether to defer removal at the request of an unsuccessful refugee claimant for the purpose of permitting a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application to be advanced, infringe section 7 of the Charter? In Atawnah v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 774, Madam Justice Mactavish certified the following additional question: Does the prohibition contained in section 112(2)(b.1) of … Read More
The Preclearance Act, 2016
On June 17, 2016, Ralph Goodale, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, introduced Bill C-23, An Act respecting the preclearance of persons and goods in Canada and the United states (short titled the “Preclearance Act, 2016”). Amongst other things, the Preclearance Act, 2016 provides for the creation of preclearance areas and perimeters in the United States by Canadian officers of travellers and goods bound for Canada. Canadians who have travelled by air to the United States during the last several years will be familiar with the concept of preclearance, as the United States already has preclearance areas at most major Canadian airports. There, passengers travelling to the United States clear customs at Canadian airports. When the passengers arrive at American airports, they disembark at domestic terminals, and do not have to again clear customs. The Preclearance Act, 2016 will allow Canada to set up preclearance areas and perimeters in the United States, and will allow the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) officials to exercise their powers under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in preclearance areas and preclearance perimeters whose locations will be agreed upon between the United States and Canada. Both Canada and the United States have … Read More
“Country of Origin” in the Refugee Context
Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA“) provides that: Convention refugee 96. A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, (a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country. There has recently been disagreement within the Federal Court over what the term “countries of nationality” encompasses, and on May 11, 2015, Justice Mosely certified the following question: Do the expressions “countries of nationality” and “country of nationality” in Section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act include a country where the claimant is a citizen but where he may face impediments in exercising the rights and privileges which attach to citizenship, such as the right to obtain a passport? The Federal Court of Appeal has previously addressed the issue of the definition of “countries … Read More
Addressing Ghost Consultants
For years, Canadian politicians have been grappling with the issue of how to end untrained and unregulated people from providing immigration advice, a practice commonly known as “ghost consulting.” There appears to be a general consensus that tens of thousands of people each year are scammed by ghost consultants. As well, even though they are not licensed, ghost consultants harm the reputation of the immigration consulting profession broadly. The Government of Canada has launched numerous attempts at cracking down on ghost consultants, including, requiring licensing, creating the designated the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, and creating videos. As well, in June, 2010, the previous Conservative Government of Canada stepped up Canada’s efforts to regulate immigration consultants by introducing Bill C-35, also known as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act.
No Credible Basis in Refugee Claims
Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides: No credible basis 107(2) If the Refugee Protection Division is of the opinion, in rejecting a claim, that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision, it shall state in its reasons for the decision that there is no credible basis for the claim. Manifestly unfounded 107.1 If the Refugee Protection Division rejects a claim for refugee protection, it must state in its reasons for the decision that the claim is manifestly unfounded if it is of the opinion that the claim is clearly fraudulent. A finding of “no credible basis” may only be made where there is no credible or trustworthy evidence on which the Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD“) could make a positive finding. It is a high threshold that limits an applicant’s subsequent procedural rights. Before determining that an applicant’s refugee claim has no credible basis, the RPD must look to the objective documentary evidence for any trustworthy or credible support for an Applicant’s claim. A lack of credibility is not the same as saying that a claim has no credible basis. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 300 In Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, the … Read More
Polygamy and Canadian Immigration
Polygamous marriages are not legal in Canada and are an offence under the criminal code. Regulation 117(9)(c)(i) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that a spouse is not a member of the family class if the spouse or sponsor was already married to another person at the time of the subsequent marriage. Canadian immigration law prohibits a second wife from being recognized as a spouse within the family class and provides that only the first marriage may be recognized for immigration purposes. Recognizing First Marriage For the first marriage to be recognized, the couple must live together in a monogamous marriage in Canada. Canadian common law imparts that a polygamous marriage can be converted into a monogamous marriage provided that the couple live together in a monogamous relationship from the time of arrival in Canada. This can be demonstrated if the couple states their intention to convert their marriage to a monogamous one, followed by some factual evidence that they have complied. Departmental Report In March 2014, a paper was prepared for the Admissibility Branch of Citizenship and Immigration Canada titled “Polygamy and Immigration.” Although it is now two years old, it is useful reading for anyone looking … Read More