Are you an individual who has served in the government, the public service, the military, or the judiciary of a government that might have engaged in human rights or international rights obligations? Are you considering traveling to, working in, or immigrating to Canada? If you answer yes to either of these questions, you will definitely want to read on to determine whether your application could be in jeopardy.
Read more ›
On December 8, 2010, the Federal Court released its decision in Masych v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1253 (“Masych“) The case involved an individual whose temporary work permit application was denied because she did not produce income tax statements from 2002-2006 after an immigration officer (the “Officer”) requested that she do so. The reason that the Officer wanted copies of her tax statements was not to confirm her employment history for determining whether or not she was qualified for the job that she was applying for, but rather to determine whether or not she was inadmissible for having ever committed tax evasion.
The applicant had never been convicted of a criminal offense. No evidence was ever presented that she had been charged with a criminal offense. Finally, it is important to note that the applicant lived in the United Kingdom from 2002-2006, a country with a legal system similar to Canada’s.
The applicant did not produce the income tax statements as requested, and her application was rejected on the grounds that the Officer was unable to determine whether or not she was inadmissible to Canada for having committed an offense abroad that would constitute an indictable offense in Canada (tax evasion). The Federal Court upheld the Officer’s decision. The Court noted that the Officer had a duty to be satisfied that the applicant was not inadmissible, and that tax evasion could result in an applicant being inadmissible.
A reading of the case suggests that the only argument that the applicant’s counsel made was that the applicant had provided a statement stating that she only worked part time, confirmed by the employer, and that this should have satisfied the visa officer. The Federal Court quickly punted this decision aside noting that such a response did nothing to alleviate the officer’s concern.
» Read more about: Income Tax Statements and Inadmissibility »
Read more ›A person who has been found to be inadmissible to Canada on the grounds of serious criminality may not appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division.
Read more ›The Federal Court of Appeal has answered a question regarding inadmissibility under s. 34 of IRPA.
Read more ›Last updated on December 5th, 2019
Section 52(1) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that a person who has been removed from Canada cannot return to Canada unless the person first receives specific authorization from immigration authorities. This authorization is known as “authorization to return to Canada” (an “ARC“). Whether an ARC is needed will depend on what type of removal order the person received.
Types of Removal Orders
Removal orders can be issued by officers at ports of entry, inland enforcement officers and the Immigration and Refugee Board’s (the “IRB”) Immigration Division.
There are three types of removal orders in Canada. These are the “Departure Order,” the “Exclusion Order,” and the “Deportation Order”.
A Departure Order requires that a person leave Canada within 30 days after the order becomes enforceable. Failure to do so causes the Departure Order to become a Deportation Order. Examples of where a Departure Order would occur is a permanent resident who fails to meet their residency obligation or eligible refugee claimants who are pending a deciison by the IRB.
An Exclusion Order provides that the removed person cannot return to Canada for one year unless the person obtains ARC. For Exclusion Orders resulting from misrepresentation the bar is five years. Examples of where an Exclusion Order would occur include foreign nationals who arrive at a port of entry without the appropriate documentation, foreign nationals who do not leave Canada by the end of their authorized stay and unauthorized work in Canada.
A Deportation Order results in a person being permanently barred from returning to Canada. Such a person may not return unless he/she receives ARC. Examples of where a Deportation Order would occur include criminality and national security concerns.
» Read more about: Authorizations to Return to Canada »
Read more ›On October 29, 2010, the Immigration and Refugee Board released Guideline 2 on Detention. The Guidelines are to assist Immigration Division members in determining whether or not to hold an individual in detention.
Read more ›The Federal Court has released its decision on the legality of the “decision” to prohibit former British MP George Galloway from entering Canada for having committed terrorism or been a member of a terrorist organization.
Read more ›The Federal Court has affirmed that membership in the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (“SSNP”) can render an individual inadmissible to Canada pursuant to s. 34(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Read more ›Citizenship and Immigration Canada has released Operational Bulletin 226, which discusses the sharing of biometric information further to the Five Country Conference (FCC) High Value Data Sharing Protocol. The FCC (Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand) meets annually at the Deputy Minister level to discuss ways to improve immigration. In 2007, Canada, the US, the UK, and Australia (New Zealand was not yet a member) to committed to work towards the systemic exchange of biometric data for immigration purposes.
Biometric sharing has now commenced.
Read more ›Last updated on June 9th, 2020
Section 34(1) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides, amongst other things, that a foreign national or Canadian permanent resident is inadmissible to Canada for engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests, or being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in espionage against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests. It is one of the most serious inadmissibilities in Canadian immigration law.
Guidelines
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC”) Enforcement Manual 2 – Inadmissibilities contains the following definitions and guidance to officers regarding how immigration officials are to determine whether someone is inadmisisble to Canada for espionage.
Espionage is defined as a method of information gathering by spying; that is, the gathering of information in a surreptitious manner, secretly seeking out information usually from a hostile country to benefit one’s own country.
Paragraph A34(1)(a) contains two possible allegations that could render a permanent resident or foreign national inadmissible to Canada for acts of espionage:
1. if the act of espionage is against Canada, or
2. if the act of espionage is contrary to Canada’s interests.
Espionage “against Canada” means espionage activities conducted by a foreign state or organization in Canada and/or abroad against any Canadian public or private sector entity on behalf of a foreign government. It may also include activities of a foreign nonstate organization against the Government of Canada, but does not include acts of industrial spying between private entities where no government is involved.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of activities that may constitute espionage that is “contrary to Canada’s interests”:
Espionage activity committed inside or outside Canada that would have a negative impact on the safety,
» Read more about: Espionage and Immigrating to Canada »
Read more ›Social Media
