China is one of the top source countries for temporary resident visa applications to China. In 2016, the number of people who applied for temporary resident visas was 492,370. Of the people who were granted visas, 822 declared refugee status. The number is unbelievably small, and represents what Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada calls a risk ratio of 0.16%. I have reproduced an internal Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) report titled 2016 Annual Refugee Claim Trend Analysis Summary report below. Notwithstanding this, IRCC is extremely diligent in monitoring which Chinese provinces have the highest amount of refugee claimants. This can apparently lead to refusals for borderline cases.
Canada’s Interpretation of Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention
Article 1F(b) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 6 (the “1951 Refugee Convention“) states that the provisions of this 1951 Refugee Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee. Section 98 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA” or the “Act“) incorporates Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention into Canadian immigration law. What is the Purpose of Article 1F(b)? Does Is it Restricted to Fugitives? If a Person is Rehabilitated Can They Still be Excluded from Refugee Protection? In Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2014 SCC 68 (“Febles“), the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court“) addressed the issue of whether the application of Article 1F(b) of the 1951 Refugee Convention is simply a matter of looking at the seriousness of a crime when it was committed, or whether it requires consideration of other matters, including, for example, whether a refugee claimant is a fugitive and/or whether an individual is rehabilitated. The Supreme Court found that the purpose of Article 1F(b) … Read More
How Refugee Resettlement to Canada is Funded
A common complaint about refugee resettlement is the cost. However, refugees resettled to Canada must pay for their medical exam and their travel to Canada. Canada’s Immigrant Loans Program ensures that refugees who are unable to pay for their resettlement have access to a funding source. Canadian immigration legislation provides that the most that can be loaned is $126,000,000. Historically, the Government of Canada has issued $13,000,000 in loans annually. Approximately 93% of loaned funds are repaid. Since 2002, the average loan has been approximately $3,000, with roughly 20% of loans issued for more than $5,000. The current policy is to cap the maximum loan amount to $10,000 per family. 2018 Changes Prior to 2018, the loan repayment schedule was as follows: Balance at Start of Repayment Period (Which Is 30 Days After Arrival in Canada) Period the Loan Must be Repaid in Full (Months) Start of Interest Accrual Up to $1,200 12 13th month $1,201 to $2,400 24 25th month $2,401 to $3,600 36 37th month $3,601 to $4,800 48 37th month Over $4,800 72 37th month In 2018, the Government of Canada amended the above to: eliminate interest charges on all new immigration loans; eliminate further interest … Read More
Danger Opinions
Section 115 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that Canada shall not deport a protected person or a refugee to a country where they would be at risk of persecution of reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion or at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. There are exceptions, however, for people who are: inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality and the government believes that the person is a danger to the public in Canada; or inadmissible to Canada on grounds of security, violating human or international rights or organized criminality and the government believes that the person should not be allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature and severity of the acts committed or of danger to the security of Canada. Determining Whether to Issue a Danger Opinion In considering whether to issue a Danger Opinion for criminality, officers will go beyond looking at just the conviction and the sentence, and will also analyze a person’s past and current offences and activities to determine whether a person is a danger to the public. The following are some of the factors that are considered: criminal … Read More
Personalized vs. Generalized Risk
As the political situations in several Latin American countries worsens, there has been a steady increase in the number of refugee cases being decided on the issue of personalized vs. generalized risk. Section 97(1)(b)(ii) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that a person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to another country would subject them personally to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country. The Federal Court has grappled with how to distinguish between personalized and generalized risk. Proophete As noted in Prophète v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 331, the difficulty in analyzing personalized risk in situations of generalized human rights violations, civil war, and failed states lies in determining the dividing line between a risk that is “personalized” and one that is “general”. What, for example, is the risk to an individual who has been targeted in the past and who may be targeted in the future but whose risk situation … Read More
Establishing that Someone is a Refugee
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 … Read More
Borderlines Episode #14 – How to overcome systemic barriers in LGBTQ asylum claims, with Sharalyn Jordan
In this episode we discuss how to overcome systemic barriers in LGBTQ asylum claims. Much of this episode is dedicated to establishing how LGBTQ asylum claimants must prove their sexual identity during their refugee claim. How does someone from a country where being gay is illegal and who has been a closeted homosexual for their entire life prove that they are gay? What do Immigration and Refugee Board members expect? How can counsel assist? Finally, we discuss whether LGBTQ asylum claimants should even be required to prove their sexual orientation as part of their asylum claim. Sharalyn can be reached on Twitter @SharalynJordan Sharalyn Jordan is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. She works with with community agencies that support LGBTQ and refugee mental health as they develop and assess their counselling practices and programs. Topics 1:13 – Sharalyn provides an overview of the history of how Canada’s immigration and refugee system has restricted the ability of LGBT people to relocate to Canada. 5:12 – Canada’s immigration and refugee system often requires that people prove their sexual orientation. How can LGBT people prove their orientation? 20:00 – Are there circumstances in which an … Read More
No Credible Basis in Refugee Claims
Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides: No credible basis 107(2) If the Refugee Protection Division is of the opinion, in rejecting a claim, that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision, it shall state in its reasons for the decision that there is no credible basis for the claim. Manifestly unfounded 107.1 If the Refugee Protection Division rejects a claim for refugee protection, it must state in its reasons for the decision that the claim is manifestly unfounded if it is of the opinion that the claim is clearly fraudulent. A finding of “no credible basis” may only be made where there is no credible or trustworthy evidence on which the Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD“) could make a positive finding. It is a high threshold that limits an applicant’s subsequent procedural rights. Before determining that an applicant’s refugee claim has no credible basis, the RPD must look to the objective documentary evidence for any trustworthy or credible support for an Applicant’s claim. A lack of credibility is not the same as saying that a claim has no credible basis. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, 2016 FCA 300 In Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Singh, the … Read More
The Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program After Alan Kurdi
The following is a cross-post from Policy Options.
Admitting New Evidence at the Refugee Appeal Division
Section 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA“) provides that at the Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD“) a person may only present evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. Specifically, it states: Evidence that may be presented (4) On appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection. Exception (5) Subsection (4) does not apply in respect of evidence that is presented in response to evidence presented by the Minister. Hearing (6) The Refugee Appeal Division may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3) (a) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal; (b) that is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; … Read More