To qualify for the Self-Employed Class in Canada, applicants must demonstrate at least two years of relevant experience in cultural activities, athletics, or farm management (for applications submitted before March 10, 2018). This experience must fall within the five-year period prior to the application date and extend until a final decision is made on the application for permanent residency. Eligible experience includes either two one-year periods of self-employment in cultural activities, two one-year periods of participation at a world-class level in cultural activities, or a combination of both. Similarly, for athletics, the required experience can be met by either two one-year periods of self-employment in athletics, two one-year periods of participation at a world-class level in athletics, or a combination of both. What is Self-Employment? The Self-Employed Class section of the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) website does not describe what self-employment is. However, the Canadian Experience Class section of the website provides the following: Determining an applicant’s employment status Applicants under the CEC must satisfy a CIC officer that they meet all program requirements [R87.1]. Any period of self-employment shall not be included in calculating the period of qualifying work experience under the CEC [R87.1(3)(b)]. As such, the … Read More
Indian Applications
Here are some IRCC PPT slides on Canadian asylum claims from Indian nationals, and southbound apprehensions by US border patrol. IRCC has plans to reduce the overall claim rate from India back to 2019 levels. It anticipates that its plan could lead to reduced approval rates and increased processing times.
Punjabi Weddings
The following is an IRCC one-pager on the major ceremonies of a Punjabi wedding.
Leaving Canada by the end of Authorized Stay
How can temporary foreign workers show that they will leave Canada at the end of their work permit?
Court Certifies Question on Judicial Review of 117(9)(d) Refusals
The Federal Court (the “Court“) in Habtenkiel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), has certified a question that if answered in the affirmative would seem to pretty much shut the door on humanitarian & compassionate (“H&C“) appeals of s. 117(9)(d) refusals. The certified question is: In light of sections 72(2)(a), 63(1) and 65 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, and the case of Somodi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 288 (CanLII), [2010] 4 F.C.R. 26 (F.C.A.), where the applicant has made a family class sponsorship application and requested humanitarian and compassionate considerations within the application, is the applicant precluded from seeking judicial review by the Federal Court before exhausting their right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division where the right of appeal is limited pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227? That question is long and confusing, but lets break it down.
C-11 Work Permits
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC”) International Mobility Program contains Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) exemption code C-11, titled Canadian interests – Significant benefit – Entrepreneurs/self-employed candidates seeking to operate a business. The exemption falls under Regulation 205(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. According to the IRCC website, the eligibility requirement can be divided into those who seek permanent residence and those who don’t. For those who seek permanent residence, an applicant must: be an actual or potential provincial nominee undertaking business activities or be a Quebec-destined entrepreneur or self-employed person issued a Quebec Selection Certificate (a “CSQ”); and have a letter of support from the province or territory (this letter of support should count towards evidence that their admission to Canada to operate a business may create significant economic, social or cultural benefit to Canada) or a request from the Ministère de l’Immigration, de la Diversité et de l’Inclusion (MIDI) requesting early entry. For those who do not seek permanent residence, an applicant must: demonstrate that their admission to Canada to operate their business would generate significant economic, social or cultural benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents. Benefits to Canadian clients of a self-employed worker may … Read More
Cover Letters
In Sayekan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 97, the Court reiterated that a cover letter can create a presumption that a document was submitted.
Right to Counsel at Interviews
In Brar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 130, Justice Norris reiterated that the right to have counsel present at an interview has been recognized as an element of procedural fairness. While visa officers have the discretion to exclude counsel from an interview, that discretion must be exercised consistently with the duty of fairness and in light of the particular facts of the case. In order to demonstrate that there was a breach of procedural fairness, it must be demonstrated what would have been different had counsel been permitted to attend.
Humanitarian & Compassionate Applications – The Establishment Factor
Subsection 25(1) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides immigration officers with the flexibility to grant on humanitarian and compassionate (“H&C“) exemptions to overcome the requirement of obtaining a permanent residence visa from abroad and/or to overcome class eligibility requirements and/or inadmissibilities. H&C applications may be based on a number factors, including: establishment in Canada; ties to Canada; the best interests of any children affected by their application; factors in their country of origin (this includes but is not limited to: Medical inadequacies, discrimination that does not amount to persecution, harassment or other hardships that are not related to a fear of return based on refugee determination factors; health considerations; family violence considerations; consequences of the separation of relatives; inability to leave Canada has led to establishment; and/or any other relevant factor they wish to have considered not related to a fear of return based on refugee determination factors. The purpose of this post is to focus on the establishment factor. Establishment in Canada Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Guidelines (the “Guidelines“) provides that the degree of an applicant’s establishment may be assessed by analyzing the following questions: Does the applicant have a history of stable employment? Is there a pattern of sound financial management? … Read More
Mandamus Orders
A mandamus order is a judicial command to a government body to do, or forbear from, doing a specific act which it is obligated in law to do. The Federal Court’s decision in Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159, is one of the most cited case in the immigration context for setting forth the test for when a mandamus order will be given. There, Justice Snider stated: The equitable remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a public legal duty that a public authority refuses or neglects to carry out when called upon to do so. Mandamus can be used to control procedural delays (Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 at para. 149). The test for mandamus is set out in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 F.C. 742 (C.A.), aff’d [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100 (and, more recently, discussed in the immigration context in Dragan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 4 F.C. 189 (T.D.), aff’d [2003] F.C.J. No. 813, 2003 FCA 233,). The eight factors are: (i) There must be a public legal duty to act; (ii) The duty must be owed to the Applicants; (iii) … Read More