Andrew Hayes is a US immigration lawyer who practices in Vancouver.
In this episode we discuss how the immigration systems of Canada and the United States each deal with the issue of immigrants and social assistance.
How similar is the “public charge” rule in the United States and “financial inadmissibility” in Canada? What is a sponsorship bar? Can permanent residents be deported for imposing a fiscal burden on the state?
00:30 – How does US immigration law and policy development work?
1:45 – What is the public charge rule?
2:30 – What is an affidavit of support?
4:00 – Does the United States have a points based economic immigration system?
5:40 – What are the concerns about Donald Trump’s changes from a substantial impact?
8:00 – What is the Low Income Requirement in Canada? Is there a similar requirement in the United States?
11:00 – There are often situations where the sponsor of a family member may be poor, but the breadwinner of the family is the prospective immigrant. How does Canadian and American immigration law account for this?
13:00 – Are affidavits of support usually enforced? What about sponsorship undertakings?
23:00 – How does financial inadmissibility work in Canada?
25:30 – What is the consequence of being determined to be financially inadmissible?
27:00 – Can a permanent resident of Canada be financially inadmissible to Canada? What about to the United States?
38:20 – Can someone be medically inadmissible to the United States?
43:30 – How are the courts likely to react to Trump’s changes to the public charge rule?
57:20 – Can refugees be financially inadmissible?
Read more ›Sean Rehaag is an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. His academic research focuses on empirical studies of immigration and refugee law decision-making processes.
Sean, Deanna, Peter and Steven discuss his quantitative research which has used large data-sets to study extra-legal factors that influence outcomes in Canadian refugee adjudication. Does immigrating to Canada, getting refugee status or winning a judicial review simply depend on the luck of who decides your application?
<iframe width=”100%” height=”300″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”no” allow=”autoplay” src=”https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/640997427&color=%23ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true”></iframe>
Read more ›Jamie Chai Yun Liew is a law professor at University of Ottawa and an immigration lawyer. She acted for the Canadian Council for Refugees as intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration).
Jamie, Peter, Deanna and Steven discusses humanitarian & compassionate considerations in Canadian immigration law, including the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Baker and Kanthasamy. We also discussed Regulation 117(9)(d), which excludes unexamined family members from future sponsorship, and the recently announced pilot to mitigate the impact of this exclusion.
2:45 – What is Regulation 117(9)(d)?
6:30 – What is a Family Member?
7:00 – What does it mean to be “examined” for immigration purposes?
7:30 – What are the consequences of someone’s ability to immigrate to Canada if they have an inadmissible family member?
14:00 – How does IRPR r. 117(9)(d) work to exclude immigration?
15:45 – Why would someone not declare a family member when they immigrate?
26:00 – What options are available to bring a family member excluded by Regulation 117(9)(d) to Canada?
33:00 – What is the difference between a humanitarian & compassionate application vs. a family sponsorship?
36:00 – What was the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Baker?
39:00 – What was the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Kanthasamy?
50:00 – What were the Minister’s recent announcements regarding Regulation 117(9)(d)?
Read more ›Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has a call-center to provide customer service. The information is here:
Telephone: 1-888-242-2100 (in Canada only)
- Automated telephone service (available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week)
If you have a touch-tone telephone, you can listen to pre-recorded information about our programs, and check the status of your application. - Client Support Centre agents – Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., your local time, except for statutory holidays. Services are available in French and English.
Agents can help you with general and case specific enquiries. They cannot:
- make decisions on applications
- help process applications faster, unless you meet the criteria for urgent processing
Relying on the Call Center
In Ni v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 725, the IRCC call-center instructed an applicant to provide a certain document, and made a representation that this would result in the approval of the application. The applicant did just that, and the application was refused. Justice Brown wrote:
… the failure of justice in this case arises solely from the Applicant following CIC’s instructions. Therefore, as between these two parties, responsibility must fall on the party who directed the erroneous course of conduct, which is in this case is CIC through its call centre. The Applicant cannot be required to suffer the loss of her PGWP, loss of temporary student resident status and her immediate removal from Canada, simply because she followed CIC’s instructions even though those turned out to be incorrect.
Contacting the IRCC Call Center
When the IRCC call-center e-mails someone, it is important that applicants follow their instructions.
» Read more about: The IRCC Call Center »
Read more ›Canadian work experience that is volunteer does not typically count towards immigration.
Regulation 73(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states that for the purposes of this Division, work means an activity for which wages are paid or commission is earned. The Division includes the Federal Skilled Worker Class, the Canadian Experience Class, the Federal Skilled Trades Class and the Provincial Nominee Class. The reason is that economic classes are designed to determine whether an applicant can become economically established.
» Read more about: Volunteer Work and Immigrating to Canada »
Read more ›Sections 36(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states:
36 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
(b) having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years;
Sections 36(2)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states:
(2) A foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of criminality for
(a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by way of indictment, or of two offences under any Act of Parliament not arising out of a single occurrence;
(b) having been convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, or of two offences not arising out of a single occurrence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute offences under an Act of Parliament;
This blog post discusses what is a conviction.
» Read more about: What is a Conviction »
Read more ›Regulation 5 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states that a a foreign national shall not be considered the spouse of a person if at the time the marriage ceremony was conducted either one or both of the spouses were not physically present unless the person was not physically present at the ceremony as a result of their service as a member of the Canadian Forces and the marriage is valid both under the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place and under Canadian law. There are similar provisions excluding such individuals from the Family Class and the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class.
The Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) Guidelines state that:
Proxy, telephone, fax, Internet or similar forms of marriage where one or both parties are not physically present are excluded relationships in all temporary and permanent immigration programs.
Proxy marriage is defined as a marriage in which one or both of the participants are not physically present, but they are represented by another person who attends the solemnization. A telephone, fax or Internet marriage is a marriage in which one or both of the participants are not physically present at the same location, but participate in the solemnization of the marriage by telephone, fax, Internet or other means (e.g. Skype or FaceTime). It is possible that someone other than the persons getting married participates on their behalf as well as over the telephone, by fax, Internet or other means.
Applications received by IRCC before June 11, 2015, from persons married by proxy, telephone, fax or Internet are not subject to this exclusion.
To be considered physically present at a marriage ceremony, both parties (e.g. sponsor and spouse or principal applicant and accompanying spouse) must have participated in a wedding ceremony in person.
» Read more about: Proxy Marriages »
Read more ›Social Media
