Section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that a permanent resident or foreign national is inadmissible to Canada for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding a material fact relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of Canada’s immigration laws. The general consequence of misrepresenting is a five-year ban from entering Canada. Canada is very strict on misrepresentation. In Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147, for example, Mr. Bundhel had been charged and convicted with an offence, which had been overturned on appeal. Mr. Bundhel would accordingly not have been criminally inadmissible to Canada. Because of this, he put on his immigration forms that he had never been charged or arrested. When it discovered thathehad been previously charged, what is now Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada wrote to him and provided him with an opportunity to explain why he misrepresented. After the immigration officer reviewed Mr. Bundhel’s explanation that it was an innocent mistake, the officer refused the application, and declared the person inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation. The Court wrote (citations removed): Mr. Bundhel’s complaint that the Officer should have considered the fact that he owned-up to the … Read More
Ezokola and the Test For Complicity
In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) created a new test for determining complicity in Article 1F(a) exclusion cases. Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention provides that: The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: (a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40, a crime against humanity is committed when each of the following four elements is satisfied: An enumerated proscribed act was committed (this involves showing that the accused committed the criminal act and had the requisite guilty state of mind for the underlying act); The act was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack; The attack was directed against any civilian population or any identifiable group of persons; and The person who committed the proscribed act knew of the attack and knew or took the risk that his or her act comprised … Read More
TRPs for Americans
American nationals wishing to visit Canada may be unable to do so if they have a criminal record which renders them inadmissible to Canada. In order to overcoem their inadmissibility, they need to either apply for criminal rehabilitation or a temporary resident permit (a “TRP”). TRPs Section 24 of the IRPA provides that: A foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of this Act becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a temporary resident permit, which may be cancelled at any time. The Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) TRP guidelines (the “Guidelines”) provide officers with the following guidance on issuing TRPs: Generally, individuals who do not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), or who are inadmissible under the IRPA, may be refused a permanent resident visa (PRV) or temporary resident visa (TRV) abroad refused an electronic travel authorization (eTA) reported inadmissible under section A44(1) allowed to withdraw their application to enter Canada at a port of entry (POE) refused processing within Canada In some cases, however, an officer may issue a … Read More
Excessive Demand on Health and Social Services
People applying for a Canadian permanent resident visa are regarded to undergo medical examinations. Many people with certain conditions are understandably apprehensive about how these examinations will impact their ability to immigrate. In this post, I hope to provide an overview about the issue of “excessive demand on health or social services,” which is probably the medical evaluation component that causes the most misconceptions.
Inadmissible for Crimes Against Humanity
Section 35 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA“) provides that: Human or international rights violations 35 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for (a) committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; (b) being a prescribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act; or (c) being a person, other than a permanent resident, whose entry into or stay in Canada is restricted pursuant to a decision, resolution or measure of an international organization of states or association of states, of which Canada is a member, that imposes sanctions on a country against which Canada has imposed or has agreed to impose sanctions in concert with that organization or association. Internal Guideline Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has produced a useful internal document … Read More
Inadmissibility for Being a Danger to Canada
Section 34(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA”) provides that a permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for being a danger to the security of Canada. Standard of Proof Section 33 of the IRPA provides that the facts which can give rise to an inadmissibility under IRPA s. 34(1)(d) include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, include facts for which there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have occurred, are occurring or may occur. In Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 40, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the “reasonable grounds to believe” standard requires something more than mere suspicion, but less than the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of probabilities and that reasonable grounds will exist where there is an objective basis for the belief which is based on compelling and credible information. Requirements In Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1, the Supreme Court stated: While the phrase “danger to the security of Canada” must be interpreted flexibly, and while courts need not insist on direct proof that the danger targets Canada specifically, … Read More
Temporary Resident Permits
On June 28, 2019 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada substantially changed the guidance that it provides to officers regarding the issuance of Temporary Resident Permits (“TRPs“). The biggest change was the removal of the statement that TRPs could not be issued for administrative convenience. People who do not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA“), and most commonly people who are criminally inadmissible to Canada and who are not eligible to apply for rehabilitation, require TRPs in order to enter or remain in Canada.
Immigration Consequences of the Safe Streets and Communities Act
On December 5, the House of Commons passed Bill C-10, also known as the Safe Streets and Communities Act, or the Omnibus Crime Bill. Bill C-10 introduces numerous changes which will affect Canada’s immigration system: Changes to Sentencing Provisions The following table details changes to sentencing provisions which will impact admissibility to Canada. Crime Sentence Immigration Consequence Sexual Interference (touching an individual who is under the age of 16) Remains a hybrid offense with a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years. If Crown proceeds by way of indictment mandatory minimum penalty of 1 year. Conviction results in inadmissibility for serious criminality. Mandatory minimum would result in lack of appeal rights to the IAD Invitation to Sexual Touching (for an individual who is under the age of 16) Remains a hybrid offense with a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years. If Crown proceeds by way of indictment mandatory minimum penalty of 1 year. Conviction results in inadmissibility for serious criminality. Mandatory minimum would result in lack of appeal rights to the IAD Sexual Exploitation (of a young person) Remains a hybrid offense with a maximum term of imprisonment of not more than 10 … Read More
Borderlines Podcast #56 – Responding to Deportation Letters, with Michael Greene
We discuss issues involving the deportation of long term permanent residents for criminality. Michael Greene, Q.C. is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. He served as the National Chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship & Immigration Section in 2000-2001. He is representing Jaskirat Singh Sidhu in his immigration and deportation matters. 5:45 – What are the grounds for deporting a permanent resident for criminality? 13:00 – How does the appeal process work? 17:00 – What are the factors in deportation. 19:00 – An overview of the history of the law involving the deportation of permanent residents. 26:00 – What is the probability of success for a permanent resident in avoiding deportation once proceedings start? 36:00 – Stays of removal 41:00 – Strategies and tips for responding to procedural fairness letters involving removal. [UPDATE – DECEMBER 20, 2023] The Federal Court in Sidhu v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 1681 has upheld a decision of the Canada Border Services Agency to refer Mr. Sidhu to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Citing the Federal Court of Appeal decision in Obazughanmwen v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FCA 151, the Court set forth the general principles applicable to … Read More
Non-Accompanying Dependants and Medical Exams
One of the more frustrating aspects for prospective immigrants is Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s (“CIC”) general requirement that they have their non-accompanying dependants (spouses and children) undergo medical and criminal examination. The task can be taunting for those who do not have full custody of their non-accompanying children. However, CIC’s requirement is understandable in light of Canadian immigration legislation..