IMMReps
Customs Rules for Returning Residents
The following is a super helpful IRCC presentation on customs rules for returning residents.
Renouncing Permanent Resident Status
Prior to November 21, 2014, there was no formal way for permanent residents to voluntarily renounce their permanent resident status in Canada. Incredibly, permanent residents who wanted to voluntarily relinquish their status had to generally first be declared inadmissible to Canada by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”). This changed in 2014, and the ability to formally relinquish permanent resident status will benefit numerous individuals. As the IRCC website states: In some cases, permanent residents know that they failed to meet the residency obligation and have no desire to remain in Canada as permanent residents, but they wish to visit Canada without being reported for non-compliance with respect to their residency requirements. In other cases, individuals may be required to provide proof that they have given up Canadian permanent resident status in order to obtain benefits from their country of origin or a third country, such as accepting a diplomatic posting, renewing civil documents (national identity cards, health or pension coverage, etc.) or entering military service.
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
Section 87 Orders
When immigration judicial reviews involve sensitive national security information, the ordinary rules of open court proceedings can change dramatically. Section 87 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) creates a unique procedure that allows the Minister to ask the Federal Court to protect certain information from disclosure during a judicial review. Although these applications are relatively uncommon, they play an important role in cases involving security screening, intelligence information, or confidential investigative material. What is a Section 87 Order? Section 87 of the IRPA permits the Minister, during a judicial review, to apply for an order preventing the disclosure of information or other evidence. Rather than creating a standalone procedure, s. 87 incorporates the procedural framework found in s. 83 of the IRPA—with the exception of the requirements to appoint a special advocate and provide a summary of the confidential information. In practical terms, this allows the Federal Court to receive evidence in a closed hearing, outside the presence of the applicant and their counsel, if disclosure could: injure international relations; injure national defence; injure national security; or endanger the safety of any person. How Does the Process Work? When the Minister brings a s. 87 application, the Court … Read More
When Procedural Fairness Requires a Fairness Letter
One of the most complicated topics in immigration law is determining when procedural fairness will require an immigration officer who is assessing an application to seek clarification in the form of a fairness letter or interview. As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) the the concept of procedural fairness is eminently variable and its content is to be decided in the specific context of each case. When a visa officer does not rely on third party extrinsic evidence to make a decision it can often appear unclear when exactly it is necessary for an officer to afford an applicant an interview or a right to respond to the officer’s concerns. However, there will be a right to respond under certain circumstances. Requirement to Provide Complete Applications Visa officers do not have any legal responsibility to advise applicants of incomplete or inadequate applications. In Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 758, for example, the Federal Court dismissed a judicial review application of a visa officer’s refusal of an applicant under the Federal Skilled Worker Program. A visa officer determined that the application was deficient as it failed to include required information regarding … Read More
Understanding the Citizenship Revocation Process
Between 1977 and 2010 only 63 people had their citizenship revoked. In July, 2011, Jason Kenney, then the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (“Minister Kenney“), announced that as many as 1,800 Canadians could be stripped of their citizenship because they obtained their citizenship fraudulently. The 1,800 individuals were identified following a three-year investigation by the RCMP, other police forces and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. On September 9, 2012, Minister Kenney announced that the number of people who would likely have their citizenship revoked had risen to 3,100, with an additional 11,000 people under investigation. An Access to Information Act request revealed that most of the Canadian citizens who were the subject of investigations were originally from the following countries. By the end of 2012, the process of revoking these peoples’ citizenship had already begun. Ultimately, after Federal Court litigation and a change in government, citizenship revocations continue at a rate much smaller than it seemed would occur, but more than before. In 2021, 7 people had their citizenship revoked. In 2022, it was 25. Section 10 of the Citizenship Act The authority of the Government of Canada to strip people of their citizenship is legally provided for by s. 10 of the … Read More
Work Experience Under the FSWP and the CEC
In both the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Canadian Experience Class, and indeed most economic immigration programs, the government of Canada relies on Service Canada’s National Occupational Classification (“NOC“) system to determine eligibility. In the Canadian Experience Class, for example, subsections 87.1(2)(b) and (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “IRPR“) set out the job duties that applicants to the Canadian Experience Class must perform in order to meet the requirements of having experience in an eligible NOC. Subsection 87.1(2)(b) provides that an applicant must have performed the “actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out [in the NOC]”, while subsection 87.1(2)(c) provides that an applicant also must have performed a “substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the NOC, including all of the essential duties.” In the Federal Skilled Worker Program, meanwhile, s. 75(2)(a)-(c) of the IRPR states: A foreign national is a skilled worker if (a) within the 10 years before the date on which their application for a permanent resident visa is made, they have accumulated, over a continuous period, at least one year of full-time work experience, or the equivalent in part-time work, in the occupation … Read More