Two days ago I met with an individual who claimed to have received horrible treatment from two separate immigration consultants in Metro Vancouver. The specific alleged deplorable actions included that: Consultant A refused to give the individual her Visitor Record until she paid him $2,000.00. Consultant A refused to provide her with a BC PNP refusal letter, and to this day has not provided a copy of the refusal letter. Consultant B refused to submit a response to a BC PNP fairness letter without receiving a large payment that was not mentioned in the retainer agreement. Consultant B refused to meet with her once the application was refused. Both of these consultants are licensed consultants and members of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (“ICCRC“). I recommended that the individual file complaints against both consultants. Unfortunately, my recommendation came with the caveat that to my knowledge the ICCRC has not once yet disciplined a single consultant against whom a complaint was filed.
Standard of Review in Refugee Appeal Division Hearings
On December 15, 2012, the Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD“) began considering appeals against decisions from the Refugee Projection Division (the “RPD“) to allow or reject refugee claims. According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s website, the steps to a RAD appeal are: Once you receive the written reasons for the decision from the Refugee Protection Division, you have 15 days to file a Notice of Appeal. You have 30 days from the day you received your written reasons for the RPD decision to perfect your appeal by filing an Appellants Record. The Minister may choose to intervene at any point in the appeal. The RAD Member makes a decision on your appeal. In most cases, this decision will be provided to you no later than 90 days after you have perfected your appeal, unless an oral hearing is held. Almost immediately there was uncertainty over what the role of the RAD was. The RAD began operating under the assumption that it would review RPD decisions using the reasonableness standard, and its members began stating that the following principles governed its appeals: that deference is owed to RPD findings of fact and questions of mixed law and fact; … Read More
Grounds for Judicial Review – Findings of Fact in a Perverse or Capricious Manner
Section 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, states that the grounds for judicial review are: The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal (a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; (b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe; (c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; (d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it; (e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or (f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law. Based its Decision or Order on an Erroneous Finding of Fact in a Perverse or Capricious Manner In Rahal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 319, Justice Gleason provided the following guidance on interpreting s. 18.1(4): In the seminal case interpreting section 18(1)(d) of the FCA, … Read More
Human Smuggling – A Very Broad Offence
A Canadian citizen helps an undocumented refugee claimant come to Canada without the proper documentation to seek asylum by paying for part of his transportation. A Canadian marries a foreign national, and helps bring her to Canada without going through the proper process. The couple are now staying with the Canadian’s mother, who is providing temporary accommodation while the couple looks for a place to rent. When asked to describe a human smuggler, most people are unlikely to think of the above two scenarios. Rather, they will generally describe organized criminal elements who are paid to transport people across borders. However, in Canada it was unclear until November 2015 if the offence of “human smuggling” encompassed the above two scenarios, when the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in R v. Appulonappa, 2015 SCC 59. Background to Appulonappa Appulonappa arose from the October 17 2009 arrival to Vancouver Island of the MV Ocean Lady, which carried 76 undocumented Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers to Canada. The Crown charged four individuals with human smuggling pursuant to s. 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”), which states: No person shall knowingly organize, induce, aid or … Read More
Disguised Extradition
Extradition and deportation are two different things. Extradition is the official process whereby one country transfers a suspected or convicted criminal to another country, generally for prosecution. Deportation, on the other hand, is the removal of an individual from a country generally done for the purpose of achieving an immigration objective. In Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) recognized that it was an abuse of process for a government department to exercise a statutory power for a reason that is unrelated to the purpose for which that power was granted. In the immigration context, it is accordingly an abuse of process for immigration authorities to initiate removal proceedings against an individual to extradite someone. In United States v. Rogan, 2014 BCSC 116 (“Rogan”), Justice Fish summarized the principles of what is known as “disguised extradition” as follows: (Citations and paragraph numbers removed) Deportation and extradition have fundamentally different underlying objectives. Deportation is a discretionary decision made by Canadian immigration authorities aimed at protecting the public good. Extradition, which is initiated by foreign authorities, is aimed at delivering a person sought for prosecution to that foreign authority. A person subject to extradition proceedings has a panoply of constitutionally-enshrined … Read More
The Upcoming Litigation Over Immigration, the TFWP, and Privacy
Last month, a British Columbia Provincial Nomination Program (“BC PNP”) officer requested that one of my employer clients provide payroll documents for individuals who were not a part of the BC PNP application. We politely pointed out that the employer could not do this without the third party employees’ consent, as to provide the documents without their consent would be contrary to BC’s Personal Information Privacy Act. Alternatively, the BC PNP had to at least provide the statutory authority to compel the production of these third party documents The British Columbia Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner confirmed that we were correct. The BC PNP officer respected our position, and the events left me confident in the Province of British Columbia’s respect for personal privacy. We were of course not the first to navigate the complicated intersection between the government’s administering its immigration programs the right to privacy, which pursuant to numerous Supreme Court of Canada is a quasi-constitutional right. For example, as noted in the following “Findings under the Privacy Act,” Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) recently agreed with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada that it was an unreasonable breach of privacy for CIC to request the tax information of potential employers of … Read More
Government of Canada Overhauls the Temporary Foreign Worker Program
On June 20, 2014, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) and the Ministry of Economic and Social Development Canada (“ESDC”) announced significant reforms to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (“TFWP”). The changes will affect all employers of Temporary Foreign Workers (“TFWs”) in Canada. Many of the changes take effect immediately, with the remainder being phased in over the next year in a half. The reforms are comprehensive, and include the following: Labour Market Impact Assessment Program New Labour Market Information Assessment (“LMIA”) Replaces the Labour Market Opinion (“LMO”) LMIA Application Fee of $1,000 Guaranteed 10-Day Processing For Certain Occupations Dividing LMIAs into High-Wage and Low-Wage Positions Cap on Low-Wage TFWs for Individual Companies Refusing Low-Skilled LMIA Applications in Areas of High Unemployment in Some Occupations Reducing the Duration of Low-Wage Work Permits Introduction of Transition Plans for High-Wage Positions Stronger Enforcement and Tougher Penalties Increasing the Number and Scope of Inspections Monetary Fines for Employers Who Break the Rules International Mobility Programs (“IMP”) IMP Replacing LMO-Exempt Work Permit Program New Fee and Employer Compliance System New Privilege Fee for Open Work Permit Applicants Amending Provincial Annexes International Experience Canada Program Being Restructured Intra-Company Transfer Program – New Rules for Specialized Knowledge Applicants … Read More
ETA Regulations Announced
On August 1, 2015, Canada will adopt an Electronic Travel Authorization (“eTA“) program that is similar to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (“ESTA“) that the United States currently has, and the Electronic Travel Authority that Australia has. In order to minimize impacts on the travelling public and Canadian travel and tourism industries, eTA-required travellers will be exempted from this new entry requirement until March 15, 2016. The eTA will impact nearly all travellers to Canada who do not have to apply for Temporary Resident Visas (“TRV“) to visit Canada. According to the Gazette, TRV-exempt foreign nationals, excluding U.S. citizens, represent approximately 74% of foreign nationals who arrive by air in Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC“) does not currently screen these individuals for admissibility until they arrive at a Canadian port of entry (“POE“). Rather, TRV-exempt nationals are examined by the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) only upon arrival at a POE . As noted in the The Canadian Immigrant excerpt above, the eTA will change this. However, on June 21, 2014, the Government of Canada (“GoC“) in the Canada Gazette (the “Gazette“) published proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPR“) pertaining to the eTA. On April 22, 2015, the final version of the IRPR amendments were published. … Read More
Service Canada Ends the International Graduate LMO
More to follow.. http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/jobs/foreign_workers/higher_skilled/students/index.shtml Effective immediately, the Department is ending the Recruitment and Advertisement Exemption for employers wishing to hire international students who have graduated from recognized Canadian post-secondary institutions and whose Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) is expiring. Employers submitting a labour market opinion (LMO) to hire an individual transitioning from the PGWP must now ensure that they meet all of the Program requirements for the applicable stream:
Security Certificates and the Harkat Decision
On May 14, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) issued its decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Harkat, 2014 SCC 37 (“Harkat“). While the SCC upheld the constitutionality of Canada’s security certificate regime, it provided detailed guidance to the Federal Court on applying the process. Mohamed Harkat and the Security Certificate Regime Mohamed Harkat (“Mr. Harkat”) entered Canada in 1995, and obtained refugee status shortly thereafter. In 2002, the Government of Canada detained him under a security certificate (described in more detail below). It declared that Mr. Harkat was a threat to Canada for allegedly being an al-Qaeda sleeper agent, and sought to have him declared inadmissible to Canada. During the past decade, Mr. Harkat has either been detained or living under strict conditions. At the SCC, Mr. Harkat argued that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c27, did not provide him a fair opportunity to defend himself against the Government of Canada’s allegations. His arguments were similar to those that Adil Charkaoui successfully made when the SCC struck down Canada’s previous security certificate regime as being unconstitutional. The Security Certificate Regime Canada’s security certificate regime compared to its criminal justice system offers the Government of Canada numerous procedural advantages. As the SCC noted in Harkat: From a practical … Read More