In March 2017 the Government of Canada created several programs to encourage immigration to Eastern Canada through the Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program (the “AIPP“).
The AIPP consists of the following three immigration programs.
- Atlantic High-skilled Program (“AHSP“)
- Atlantic Intermediate-skilled Program (“AISP“)
- Atlantic International Graduate Program (“AIGP“)
In 2017 a maximum of 2,000 applications will be accepted, unless Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) decides to increase the cap. Within the 2,000 cap, a maximum of 646 applications will be processed for people destined for New Brunswick, 792 applications applications will be submitted for people intending to live in Nova Scotia, 442 applications for Newfoundland and Labrador, and 120 applications for Prince Edward Island will be accepted for processing.
The main attractiveness of the program compared to federal immigration programs appears to be lower language requirements and the ability of people working in National Occupational Classification (“NOC“) C to participate.
Provincial Endorsements
In each of the programs listed above, applicants must receive provincial endorsement.
Provinces can only endorse individuals in support of applications for permanent residence made through the paper-based (non-Express Entry) process.Atlantic High-skilled Program.
The PEI designation process is described in detail here.
The Newfoundland designation process is described in detail here.
The New Brunswick designation process is described in detail here.
The Nova Scotia designation process is described in detail here.
Atlantic High-skilled Program
The AHSP is for foreign nationals who intend to reside in an Atlantic province who have the ability to become economically established in that province.
A person is eligible for the AHSP if at the time of their application for permanent residence:
- they show that they have Canadian Language Benchmark 4 or higher in each of the four language skill areas (listening,
» Read more about: The Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program »
Read more ›Section 3(f) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that Canadian immigration law is to be construed and applied in a manner which complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is a signatory.
In de Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court of Appeal articulated the following principles for what this means:
- While previously international conventions to which Canada was party to did not give rise to rights and duties enforceable in Canadian courts, this is no longer the case.
- The values reflected in international human rights law may help inform the contextual approach to statutory interpretation and judicial review.
- Canadian immigration law does not incorporate into it “international human rights instruments to which Canada is signatory” but merely directs that the law be construed and applies in a manner that complies with them.
- The words “shall be construed and applied in a manner that complies with” are mandatory and appear to direct courts to give the international human rights instruments in question more than persuasive or contextual significance in the interpretation of the Canadian immigration legislation.
- Canadian immigration law must only be construed and applied in a manner that complies with international law where Canada has signed the international instrument creating it.
- It is not necessary that each and every provision of Canadian immigration legislation comply with international law. Rather, the question is whether an impugned statutory provision, when considered holistically with others, results in the law complying with international law.
- A legally binding international human rights instrument to which Canada is signatory is determinative of how Canadian immigration legislation must be interpreted and applied,
» Read more about: Canadian Immigration Law and International Law »
Read more ›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 restricted her right to make fundamental personal choices, and also that regulation 117(9)(d) deprived her of her Charter right to security of the person by subjecting her to the psychological stress of being separated from close family members.
The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed, and found that s. 7 of the Charter was not engaged because regulation 117(9)(d) was not the cause of Ms. de Guzman’s 12 year separation from her children.
» Read more about: Addressing IRPR r. 117(9)(d) »
Read more ›Half way through my second year of law school I drafted a list of 10 pieces of advice that I would give to anyone entering their first year. I passed this list on to between 5-10 people, and everyone seemed to appreciate it. After not having thought about the list for a few years someone who had heard of it recently asked me for a copy. It took me a fair bit of time searching through old Facebook messages to find it. I accordingly decided to publish the list here so that if I was ever asked again I could easily find my recommendations rather then spend time during a sunny Sunday looking for it.
Remarkably, while I have updated the rationale behind each suggestion, my recommendations for people entering first year law remain the same now as they did when I was a second year law student.
So here they are.
1) You Control How Intense Law School Is
First year law school is intense. There are typically mandatory year long courses, most of which are graded almost exclusively on a final exam. You will be surrounded by some of the smartest people that you have ever met and will (depending on the school) be graded on a curve against them. There will be a flurry of electives that you can choose from and if you’ve gone abroad for school it could be difficult to not become fully immersed in the study of law.
However, law school is only as intense as you want it to be. You could spend thirty hours a week in the library or just use other people’s summaries. For every student spending their weekend reading dozens of cases there is another student probably doing just as well who is rock climbing having just read a ten sentence summary of each case.
» Read more about: 10 Pieces of Advice Before Entering First Year »
Read more ›Sections 5 and 6 of the Immigration Division Rules, SOR/2002-229 state:
Withdrawing a Request by the Minister for an Admissibility Hearing
Abuse of process
5 (1) Withdrawal of a request for an admissibility hearing is an abuse of process if withdrawal would likely have a negative effect on the integrity of the Division. If no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, withdrawal of a request is not an abuse of process.
Withdrawal if no evidence has been accepted
(2) If no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, the Minister may withdraw a request by notifying the Division orally at a proceeding or in writing. If the Minister notifies in writing, the Minister must provide a copy of the notice to the other party.
Withdrawal if evidence has been accepted
(3) If substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, the Minister must make a written application to the Division in order to withdraw a request.
Reinstating a Request by the Minister for an Admissibility Hearing
Application for reinstatement of withdrawn request
6 (1) The Minister may make a written application to the Division to reinstate a request for an admissibility hearing that was withdrawn.
Factors
(2) The Division must allow the application if it is established that there was a failure to observe a principle of natural justice or if it is otherwise in the interests of justice to allow the application.
Application
The leading case on ss. 5 and 6 of the Immigration Division Rules is Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.
» Read more about: Withdrawing and Reinstating IRB Proceedings »
Read more ›Borderlines #15 – Gordon Maynard on New Can Consulting and the Biggest Immigration Fraud in Vancouver History
Last updated on October 24th, 2020
Xun (Sunny) Wang was a ghost consultant who is estimated to have made $10 million by filing fraudulent immigration applications for clients of his two firms, New Can Consulting and Well Long Enterprises. Mr. Wang, who is currently serving an eight year jail sentence, and his staff, apparently put fake passport stamps in peoples’ passports in order to lie about having spent sufficient time in Canada to qualify for various immigration programs. The Canada Border Services Agency is now endeavouring through what the Department is calling Project New Can to remove over 1,500 former clients of his for having committed misrepresentation to obtain Canadian permanent residency and/or maintain it. All of the lawyers involved in this podcast have and are representing some of his clients in these removal proceedings.
Gordon Maynard is a Vancouver based lawyer who practices exclusively in Canadian immigration law. He is a past Chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s Immigration Section.
Topics
1:39 – Gordon provides an overview of the timeline involved in Sunny Wang’s alleged fraud.
7:50 – What constitutes misrepresentation in Canadian immigration applications?
10:30 – We discuss some of the mechanics of what Sunny Wang is alleged to have done.
12:00 – Many New Can clients are saying that they signed blank forms and did not know that the applications were fake. Is this a defence to misrepresentation in Canadian immigration law? Plus Steven reads a summary of what a typical Project New Can procedural fairness letter or allegation looks like.
19:30 – What is the process for having a permanent resident or a foreign national removed from Canada for misrepresentation?
23:00 – What sorts of misrepresentations can actually lead to removal from Canada?
Read more ›Section 96 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA) defines a refugee as being 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, 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. A refugee also includes though who do not have a country of nationality, but who are outside of their country of former habitual residence, and, because of the same fear, are unwilling to return to that country.
Refugee law is very complicated, and components of it are the subject of numerous blog posts on this website.
In this post, I hope to cover some of the major jurisprudence involving the interpretation of IRPA s. 96.
Past Persecution vs. A Future Fear
It is important to understand that refugees need to have a forward looking fear of returning to their country of origin. The existence of past persecution will not create a rebuttal presumption that someone have a reasonable objective or subjective fear of persecution.
In Fernandopulle v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 91, the Federal Court of Appeal explicitly held that a person establishes a refugee claim by proving the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons listed in section 96 of the IRPA and that proof of past persecution for one of the listed reasons may support a finding of fact that the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution in the future, but it will not necessarily do so. If, for example,
» Read more about: Establishing that Someone is a Refugee »
Read more ›As I have previously written in this blog, there is an increasing number of judicial review applications being filed against Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) refusals. There is also accordingly a growing jurisprudence on what constitutes the “fettering of discretion” in a LMIA assessment. Those who have experience submitting LMIA applications will know that this is not surprising.
Paturel International Company v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2016 FC 541 (“Paturel“)
In Paturel, an officer with the Department of Employment and Social Development (“ESDC“) refused an LMIA application simply because the employer’s job offer did not have a wage that met or exceeded the median wage on ESDC’s Working in Canada website. The Federal Court stated that:
While the officer has broad discretion to rely on the data that he considered to be most representative of the prevailing wage in the region, I find that the officer’s sole reliance on EI data amounted to a fettering of his discretion.
Justice O’Reilly went on to note that:
- Canadian immigration legislation does not stipulate that a failure to meet the prevailing wage, alone, would be sufficient to defeat an employer’s application; and
- Because the employer had provided evidence that the Working in Canada website was inaccurate, it was unreasonable for the officer to nonetheless rely on it and to ignore the additional information.
Seven Valleys Transportation Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development), 2017 FC 195 (“Seven Valleys“)
In Seven Valleys, an ESDC officer refused an LMIA application solely because the employer advertised with a job requirement that an internal ESDC Wiki deemed excessive,
» Read more about: Service Canada Officers Fettering Discretion »
Read more ›The Minimum Necessary Income and Family Class Sponsorships
Last updated on March 3rd, 2019
One of the requirements to being a sponsor in both the Family Class and the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class is that the sponsor must on the day that the application is submitted and until the application is assessed have a minimum necessary income.
For most types of family sponsorships, the income must be equal to the minimum necessary income, which is statutorily defined as being equal to Statistics Canada Low Income Cutoff (“LICO“). The current LICO requirements are as follows:
Size of Family Unit
Minimum necessary income
1 person (the sponsor)
$24,949
2 persons
$31,061
3 persons
$38,185
4 persons
$46,362
5 persons
$52,583
6 persons
$59,304
7 persons
$66,027
More than 7 persons, for each additional person, add
$6,628
For sponsors seeking to sponsor their parents and/or grandparents, the income must be equal to the minimum necessary income plus 30% for each of the three consecutive taxation years immediately preceding the date of filing of the sponsorship application. The current requirements are as follows:
Total number of persons you would be responsible for
Minimum income required for the 3 taxation years right before the date of your application
2018
2017
2016
2 persons
$40,379
$39,813
$39,371
3 persons
$49,641
$48,945
$48,404
4 persons
$60,271
$59,426
$58,768
5 persons
$68,358
$67,400
$66,654
6 persons
$77,095
$76,015
$75,174
7 persons
$85,835
$84,631
$83,695
If more than 7 persons, for each additional person, add
$8,740
$8,616
$8,522
Canadians seeking to sponsor their spouses or common-law partners do not need to have a minimum necessary income.
Excluded from these amounts include, amongst other things, any amounts paid to the sponsor under the Employment Insurance Act, other than special benefits.
Looking Beyond the Notices of Assessment
Visa officers must accept Canada Revenue Agency Notices of Assessments as proof of income when a sponsorship application is filed.
» Read more about: The Minimum Necessary Income and Family Class Sponsorships »
Read more ›There is a slowly developing caselaw on the consequences of inconsistent applications.
In Singh v. Canada, Justice Barnes determined that an officer could not refuse a permanent resident visa because the officer thought that a study permit had been improperly issued.
» Read more about: Inconsistent Applications »
Read more ›DISCLAIMER
Please note that none of the information on this website should be construed as being legal advice. As well, you should not rely on any of the information contained in this website when determining whether and how to apply to a given program. Canadian immigration law is constantly changing, and the information above may be dated. If you have a question about the contents of this blog, or any question about Canadian immigration law, please contact the Author.
Newsletter
Social Media
Categories
- Business and Entrepreneur Immigrantion
- Citizenship Applications and Revocations
- Family Class (Spousal Sponsorships, Parents & Grandparents)
- Humanitarian and Compassionate
- Immigration and Refugee Board
- Immigration Consultants
- Immigration Trends
- Inadmissibility
- Judicial Reviews
- Labour Market Impact Assessments
- Maintaining Permanent Residency
- Podcasts
- Provincial Nominee Programs
- Refugees
- Skilled Immigration (Express Entry, CEC, FSWC, Etc.)
- Study Permits
- Tax and Trusts
- Temporary Resident Visas
- Uncategorized
- Work Permits