Category Archive

The following is an IRCC manual on assessing Provincial Nominee Class applications submitted through Express Entry.

In Sahloul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1331, Justice Régimbald provided the following powerful statements about how Canadian refugee does not prohibit asylum shopping: According to some, a legitimate refugee is compelled to leave their national state out of fear of persecution at the first opportunity, and seek the first state possible that will provide safe haven. No other choice is permissible, including the choice to seek asylum in one state over another. To behave otherwise would be incommensurate with the actions of the legitimate refugee and as such, these individuals lack subjective fear. This contention has not been formed in accordance with the law. The Court should not behold refugee claimants to a mirage that robs them of their agency and imputes dishonesty where there is none. Availing oneself of the first, or closest, opportunity for international protection is not a precondition to finding refuge in Canada.  

Section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states:  34 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for (a) engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests; (b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government; (b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada; (c) engaging in terrorism; (d) being a danger to the security of Canada; (e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or (f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c). The Test for Subversion Canadian immigration legislation does not define subversion. Several Federal Court of Canada decisions have found that it does not require violence, including Oremade v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1077, where Justice Phelan stated: I agree with the IAD’s conclusion that the term “by force” is not simply the equivalent of “by violence”. “By force” includes coercion or compulsion by violent means, coercion or compulsion … Read More

One of the most common questions that immigration lawyers and consultants get asked is whether someone can visit, work or study in Canada if they either have a permanent residence application in process or plan to submit one.  The issue is often especially pronounced in Canada’s family reunification programs, as families do not want to wait the years that it can take Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC” ) to reunite, at least temporarily.  It can also, however, arise in economic immigration programs, as foreign workers who arrive in Canada may ultimately want to immigrate. The same is true with students. Section 22(2) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “IRPA“) states that: An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. This is commonly referred to as the dual intent provision. Because of this, IRCC’s program manuals specifically state that “having 2 intents (one for temporary residence and 1 for permanent residence) is legitimate.” However, “the possibility that an applicant for temporary residence may, at some point in … Read More

The following is a sample successful Canadian refugee claim from Kenya. I have re-posted it on order to show the different factors that applicants must demonstrate in their asylum claim.

  In this episode, Vancouver criminal defense lawyer and Driving Law podcast host Kyla Lee unpacks Canada’s criminal justice system, tackling listener questions on bail, sentencing, and mental health treatment. From the nuances of bail hearings and the presumption of innocence to the principles of sentencing like deterrence and rehabilitation, Kyla offers expert insights into how courts address crime, trauma, and addiction. She also explores controversial topics like involuntary treatment, the impact of Gladue reports for Indigenous offenders, and the challenges of prison overcrowding, while proposing solutions like supportive housing to address root causes of crime.

When permanent residents and foreign nationals can be found inadmissible for violating human or international rights.

Deanna and Steve discuss an internal IRCC document listing numerous challenges that employers are having with IRCC, including processing delays, security screening, the BC PNP, high points in Express Entry, and more.

As per the CBSA website, Canadas Temporary Suspension of Removals (“TSR”) program interrupts removals to a country or place when general conditions pose a risk to the entire civilian population. Examples include armed conflict within a country or place or an environmental disaster resulting in a substantial temporary disruption of living conditions. An individual who is not allowed into Canada on grounds of criminality, international or human rights violations, organized crime, or security can still be removed despite the TSR. Canada currently has a TSR in place for Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Iraq. The primary difference between the TSR and the Administrative Deferral of Removals (“ADR”) are that an ADR is generally put in place within a short period of time to immediately respond to a change in country conditions. Jurisprudence In the Humanitarian & Compassionate (“H&C”) contest, Justice Grant assessed the significance of a TSR as being: The TSR program interrupts removals to a country or place when general conditions pose a risk to the entire civilian population. Examples include armed conflict within a country or place or an environmental disaster resulting in a substantial temporary disruption of living conditions. An individual who is not allowed … Read More

Regulation 90(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “IRPR”) identifies who qualifies as a member of the Quebec investor class. Under this provision, a foreign national is considered part of this class if two criteria are met: (a) they intend to reside in the province of Quebec, and (b) they are named in a Certificat de sélection du Québec (CSQ) issued by the Quebec government. Jurisprudence In Quan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 576, Justice Gascon ruled that procedural fairness does not require that officers specifically warn applicants prior to interviews that they may be concerned about intention to reside in Quebec. He wrote: As pointed out by the Minister, this Court has determined on several occasions that immigration officers have no obligation to share their concerns regarding the evidence submitted in support of a permanent residence application when these concerns arise directly from one of the requirements of the statutes and regulations (Naboulsi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1651, at para 92; Zeeshan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 248 at paras 33, 46; Rukmangathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 284 at para 23). In the case of … Read More