CTV Ottawa is reporting that in 2011 Canada was one of the top 10 global refugee destinations.
The list is:
- South Africa: 110,000
- U.S.: 76,000
- France: 52,100
- Germany: 45,700
- Italy: 30,300
- Sweden: 29,600
- Belgium: 26,000
- U.K.: 25,500
- Canada: 25,000
- Ghana: 20,100
It’s interesting that both Belgium and Sweden took in more refugees than Canada, despite having a fraction of the population and landmass that we do.Read more ›
Under the PRSP, there are three types of sponsors. The first are Sponsorship Agreement Holders (“SAHs“). SAHs are local, regional, and national incorporated organizations that have signed multi-year agreements with Citizenship and Immigration Canada for the purpose of submitting sponsorship cases on a regular basis. The second are Groups of Five (“G5s“), which are five or more Canadian citizens or permanent residents who live in the applicant’s expected community of settlement who sponsor refugees. They account for 40% of the PRSP. The third are Community Sponsors (“CS“), which are organizations that have not signed formal agreements.
As of 2012, the PRSP has brought over 200,000 refugees and persons in refugee-like situations to Canada. As the PRSP has grown, so too didthe backlog and the refusal rate. Some missions abroad currently have waiting lists exceeding five years. Excluding Iraq, the average G5 approval rate is only 37%.
The proposed changes to the PRSP were meant to address this. The changes included requiring that the foreign national’s application for protection from abroad be submitted at the same time as the sponsor’s application. As well, the proposed amendments would limit G5s and CSs to submitting applications for persons recognized by either the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR“) or a foreign state as a refugee. An additional rationale for the changes to the PRSP to that in the Gazette can be found in the Memorandum to the Minister in which Citizenship and Immigration recommended the changes to Minister Kenney.
When the changes were announced, the Canadian Bar Association expressed concerns with the requirement that privately sponsored refugees had to be recognized as refugees by the UNHCR.Read more ›
Much of the media attention towards Bill C-31 – the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act – has been focused on its shortening of the time periods for processing refugee claims and its removal of some appeal rights for refugee claimants that were supposed to be introduced under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. This past week, members of the immigration bar raised concerns about another questionable change. In short, Bill C-31 will make it so that refugees who became permanent residents of Canada will lose their permanent residence status if their refugee status ceases.
Currently, the Immigration and Refugee Board may cease a person’s refugee status. Amongst other reasons, it may do so if the reasons for which the person sought refugee protection have ceased to exist, or if the person reavails himself to the protection of his country of origin. Until now, the cessation of refugee status did not result in the loss of permanent resident status. Accordingly, ceasing a refugee’s refugee status was rarely pursued where the refugee had become a permanent resident.
Bill C-31, however, changes this. It provides that when the IRB ceases a refugee’s refugee status, then the former refugee also loses his/her permanent resident status. Bill C-31 also provides that such an individual would be inadmissible toCanada. Through omission it also provides that there will be no appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division, meaning that humanitarian & compassionate grounds (such as hardship and establishment inCanada) cannot be considered in deciding whether to revoke the person’s permanent resident status.
This will apply to refugees who made their claims in Canadaand to those who were resettled to Canadafrom refugee camps from abroad. It would apply to refugees who recently obtained status, and to refugees who became permanent residents many,Read more ›
On February 16, Jason Kenney and the Conservative government introduced Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada’s Immigration Act. The Act makes many reforms to Canada’s refugee system, and amends previous amendments to Canada’s immigration legislation contained in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act which have not yet come into affect. Bill C-31 was greeted by many refugee lawyers and advocates with much criticism, and was received with particular indignation from the New Democratic Party.
It is not difficult to see why the NDP was outraged by the introduction of Bill C-31. Less than two years ago, the Conservatives and the NDP worked together to introduce the Balanced Refugee Reform Act. Its passage was seen as a good example of compromise, and how the parties in a minority Parliament can cooperate to introduce what was generally viewed as good legislation. I would also imagine that the NDP spent some political capital with its base by cooperating with the Conservatives and to makeCanada’s refugee system stricter.
Minister Kenney has now thrown all of that to the wind.
By abandoning the grand compromise that was the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, Mr. Kenney has taken several political risks. First, he has abandoned any good-will that he had with the NDP. Should the Conservatives ever find themselves in a minority government again, I doubt that they will find the NDP being very willing to work with them in the same away as they did in 2012.
Second, he has provided the NDP with the ability to criticize the upcoming reforms to Canada’s refugee system. Because the NDP were co-drafters of the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, they could not really criticize the upcoming changes because they themselves owned the amendments.Read more ›
A myth exists that it costs Canada a lot of money to resettle refugees from abroad. “Why,” I am sometimes asked, “should my tax dollars pay to fly someone from Rwanda to Canada?”
The short answer is: they don’t.
The longer answer is that the cost of transporting refugees from abroad to Canada is shared between the International Organization for Migration, and the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada’s portion is $10,000, and is actually structured as a loan to the refugee through the Immigration Loans Program. In other words, the refugee is expected to repay the Government of Canada for transporting him/her to Canada.
Surrey mayor Dianne Watts recently highlighted the Immigration Loans Program when she called on the federal government to drop the Transportation Loan to refugees. The Province story on her statements summarized the loan as:
Officials with Citizenship and Immigration Canada told The Province that individual refugees may be responsible to repay up to $10,000 per person under the Immigrant Loans Program to cover the costs of medical examinations abroad, travel documents and transportation to Canada.
“The maximum amount of the loan the refugee would pay is $10,000, as there’s a cap,” said a CIC official. “Loans in excess of that amount are paid for by the IOM [International Organization for Migration]. So the refugee pays zero dollars to $10,000, then IOM would pay the remainder if it’s over $10,000.
The loan is not merely a black hole of non-repayment. In a 2008 Report to Parliament, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (the most recent report that I could find) stated that the repayment rate currently exceed 91%. » Read more about: Refugees and Transportation Loans »Read more ›
When can military deserters can claim refugee status?Read more ›
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.
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 is similar to a segment of the larger population? In Prophète, for example, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer, after much deliberation, determined that s. 97 can be interpreted to include a sub-group within the larger one that faces an even more acute risk.
Definition of Generliazed
Further complicating the issue is that there are varying definitions of what the word “generalized” means. In Osorio v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1459,Read more ›
One of the biggest issues in immigration law is credibility.
When a tribunal finds a lack of credibility based on inferences there must be a basis in the evidence to support the tribunal’s inferences. It is not open to tribunal members to base their decision on assumptions and speculations for which there is no real evidentiary basis.
In Jones v. Great Western Railway Co. (1930), 47 T.L.R. 39, the House of Lords (in a decision frequently cited by Canadian courts) noted that:
The dividing line between conjecture and inference is often a very difficult one to draw. A conjecture may be plausible but it is of no legal value, for its essence is that it is a mere guess. An inference in the legal sense, on the other hand, is a deduction from the evidence, and if it is a reasonable deduction it may have the validity of legal proof. The attribution of an occurrence to a cause is, I take it, always a matter of inference.
At the same time, as per the Federal Court of Canada decision in Giron v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), credibility assessment is “the heartland of the discretion of triers of fact”, and in making its determination, the Immigration and Refugee Board is entitled to take into account the discrepancies, contradictions and omissions in the evidence and to view the evidence from the perspective of rationality and common sense.
Why Does Credibility Matter?
Credibility matters because a general finding of a lack of credibility on the part of an applicant may extend to all relevant evidence emanating from that individual’s testimony.
In the refugee context, for example, as claimant’s testimony may often be the only evidence linking the claimant to the alleged persecution and,Read more ›
Australia has “boat people” issues that far exceed Canada’s. According to The Economist, in 2010 134 boats carrying 6,535 refugee-claimants landed off the shores of Australia. The Australian government has introduced many policies to reduce those numbers, including the controversial detention of most sea-arrival refugee claimants on Christmas Island.
Another potential policy, which was recently struck down by the High Court of Australia, was to exchange certain refugee claimants with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognized refugees in Malaysia. Under the arrangement, Australia would send 800 seaborne asylum-seekers to join tens-of-thousands of others currently queuing in Malaysia to have their refugee claims heard by the UNHCR. In return, Malaysia would be allowed to send 4,000 people who the UNHCR had recognized as being refugees, and who were awaiting resettlement in a third country, to Australia.
On August 31, 2011, the High Court of Australia held that the plan was invalid. The main reason was because Malaysia is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and is therefore not legally bound to provide the access and protections required by the convention.
Ignoring the issue of whether such a swapping proposal would be constitutional in Canada, I wonder what readers think of this approach to processing refugee claimants.
Suppose that Canada were to enter into a swapping agreement with a third-party country that was a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Would you support a policy whereby Canada would transfer refugee claimants to the third party to be processed by the UNHCR, and in exchange the UNHCR would send 1-4 times that many people to Canada?Read more ›
Some countries, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, have a requirement that an individual obtain an exit visa (i.e. permit) to leave the country. The Federal Court of Appeal decision in Valentin v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),  3 FC 390 bars self-induced refugee status. Valentin starts from the premise that a claimant has a valid exit visa. It then bars the claimant from overstaying the visa and relying on that overstay as a ground of persecution. Valentin has been cited in numerous Federal Court decisions. In Zandi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 311, a case involving an Iranian who defected to Canada during an athletic competition, the Federal Court stated:
To paraphrase the Federal Court of Appeal in Valentin, supra, a defector cannot gain legal status in Canada under IRPA by creating a “need for protection” under section 97 of IRPA by freely, of their own accord and with no reason, making themselves liable to punishment by violating a law of general application in their home country about complying with exit visas, i.e. returning.
Fortunately for would-be defectors, however, the analysis does not end there. Subsequent jurisprudence has since ruled that it is necessary to determine the persecutory nature of the exit law, as well as extra-judicial punishment that may result. In Castaneda v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)  FCJ No 1090, a case involving a Cuban who defected, the Court noted that:
However, as I read the Valentin decision, the isolated nature of the sentence and the lack of direct relationship between the sentence and the offender’s political opinion were determinative factors in the minds of the Appeal justices.Read more ›
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.
- 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
- Judicial Reviews
- Labour Market Impact Assessments
- Maintaining Permanent Residency
- Provincial Nominee Programs
- Skilled Immigration (Express Entry, CEC, FSWC, Etc.)
- Study Permits
- Tax and Trusts
- Temporary Resident Visas
- Work Permits