计划与家人移民到加拿大的富裕中国人，希望已经听到加拿大政府宣布将暂时不再接受申请加拿大联邦投资移民计划 (IIP)。加拿大政府在今年夏天更改条例后将恢复接受联邦投资移民计划的申请。 加拿大联邦投资移民计划越来越变成成功的商人移民到加拿大最受欢迎的选项。在 2009 年，约 1 万人在该计划下移民到加拿大。 暂停接受申请并不影响这些加拿大当局于 6 月 26 日前收到的申请表，这些将仍会正常处理。 但是，那些尚未能够提交他们申请表的人必须在加拿大政府恢复接受联邦投资移民计划的申请后，确保它们符合新条例的规定。 以前，想用联邦投资移民计划移民到加拿大的申请人，必须拥有丰富的商务经验、 有个人净资产CAD 80 万 (CN 5.2 百万)，和必须愿意作出 40 万元投资 (CN 2.6百 万），这40万将于5年后全数退回给申请人但是没有利息。在各种融资选项中，申请人支付的实际金额是 CAD 80,000 （CN 524,000）至 CAD 120,000元 (CN 787,000） 之间。这金额实质上将确保申请人的加拿大永久居民身份。 在新的联邦投资移民计划的新条例下，个人净资产要求增加了一倍CAD 1.6 万 (CN 10.4百 万)，并且愿意投资CAD 800,000，但是现在尚未有新的融资方案。 这是自 1999 年以来加拿大政府第一次更改联邦投资移民计划的规定，加拿大政府指出条例更改的部分原因是因为亚洲的经济实力。这几年来，由于经济衰退，在个人收入减少的趋势下，亚洲国家尤其是中国却反其道而行的在经济和个人所得方面上升增加。事实上，联邦投资移民计划的新规定，加拿大政府认为亚洲富人用联邦投资移民方式来加拿大的人将会超过北美来的移民，鉴于亚洲人占了联邦投资移民计划的80%，加拿大政府对该地区的持续经济复原能力明显有信心。 过去想要用联邦投资移民计划却不符合新条例的申请人应该要注意有许多其他移民的方法可用。第一，魁北克移民投资计划不会在未来的几个月内更改条例。商务移民的申请人发现省提名的方式更具吸引力，省提名规定申请人需致力于工作或经营某些类型的业务，有很多省提名的新移民到加拿大后开始赚钱。任何想移民但不符合新条例的申请人，应该立即联络他们的移民顾问或律师了解更多有关这些程序的资料。 而这些符合联邦投资移民计划新条例的申请人将受益于更快的处理时间。第一，由于净资产和投资金额的增加，符合条件的申请会减少。此外，一旦恢复接受申请表，新的申请将会和旧有的申请一起审核，这意味着在新条例下的申请人将很快获得永久居民签证。 另一方面，这些努力工作并克服障碍而达到他们的财富的申请人，应该要注意到新的条件提高的缺点。他们应该意识到他们要证明他们个人的净值并披露给加拿大政府其资产来源，在这种情况下，越来越多的新移民被审核纳税资料，他们需要多缴税金给加拿大政府。 富有的移民应该向他们的会计师、顾问或律师谘询有关避税的条例，了解各种法律税务机制以减少披露的资料。他们应该讨论设立信托基金来避开支付庞大的所得税。
Federal Investor Program Requirements To Double
In a much anticipated change, the Federal Government has announced a series of changes to the Federal Immigrant Investor Program (“FIIP“) in the Gazette. Changes to the Quebec Investor Program are expected shortly. The Doubling The Government of Canada is proposing that amendments be made to the definition of “investor” and “investment” in section 88 of the Regulations that would increase the investment amount from $400,000 to $800,000 and the personal net worth amount from $800,000 to $1.6M for Investor class applicants. Administrative Pause No FIIP applications will be accepted unless they are post-marked or received by the designated Citizenship and Immigration Canada office before June 26, 2010. This pause will extend until the coming into force of proposed regulatory amendments to the definitions of “Investor” and “Investment” applicable to Business Immigrants in Division 2 of Part 6 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Priority Processing FIIP applications received on or after the coming into force of the proposed regulatory amendments shall be processed concurrently with those federal applications received prior to the administrative pause in a ratio consistent with operational requirements. Why The Doubling? The Government of Canada is first of all confident that this will not reduce … Read More
Federal Skilled Worker Applications Cap
In this first of several changes to Canadian immigration law today, the government has introduced a cap on the number of Federal Skilled Worker applications that will be considered for processing each year. 20,000 applications will be considered each year for people that do not have an offer of employment. Within the 20,000 cap, a maximum of 1,000 Federal Skilled Worker applications per National Occupational Classification Code will be considered each year. The NOC eligibility list is also changing. The number of occupations eligible for the federal skilled worker program has been reduced from 38 to 29. Removed occupations include mangers in finance, health care and construction, computer and information systems, university professors, and vocational instructors. Being added to the list are the following occupations: psychologists, social workers, dental hygienists, pharmacists, dentists, architects, biologists, insurance adjusters, claims examiners, primary industry production managers, and professions in business services and management. In calculating the caps, applications will be considered on the date which they are received. Requests made on the basis of Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds that accompany a Federal Skilled Worker application not identified for processing will not be processed. The first year will begin on June 26, 2010, and end … Read More
Functus Officio and Citizenship Judges
On June 10, 2010, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA“) issued its decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Arif, 2010 FCA 157. The majority and concurring opinions discussed two procedural rules that will interest immigration practitioners The first issue was when a Federal Court determination regarding a Citizenship Judge’s decision can be appealed. The second was the relationship between section 399(2) of the Federal Court Rules and the principle of functus officio. When can a Federal Court Order Regarding a Citizenship Judge’s Opinion be Appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal? Section 14 of the Citizenship Act regulates appeals from Citizenship judges. Subsections 5 and 6 provide that: Appeal (5) The Minister or the applicant may appeal to the Court from the decision of the citizenship judge under subsection (2) by filing a notice of appeal in the Registry of the Court within sixty days after the day on which (a) the citizenship judge approved the application under subsection (2); or (b) notice was mailed or otherwise given under subsection (3) with respect to the application. Decision final (6) A decision of the Court pursuant to an appeal made under subsection (5) is, subject to section 20, final and, notwithstanding … Read More
Section 24 of the Charter and Immigration
On June 11, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22 (“Conway“). Conway explored the relationship between the Charter, its remedial provisions, and administrative tribunals. Sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter deal with remedies. Section 24(1) states that anyone whose Charter rights or freedoms have been infringed upon or denied may apply to a “court of competent jurisdiction” to obtain a remedy that is “appropriate and just in the circumstances.” Section 24(2) states that in those proceedings, a court can exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Charter if its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In Conway, the appellant argued that several of his Charter rights were breached when he was detained in mental and health facilities, and sought an absolute discharge as the remedy. The Ontario Review Board (the “Board“) found that it had no Charter jurisdiction to issue a s. 24(1) remedy. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant an absolute discharge as a Charter remedy because granting such a discharge would, in the appellant’s case, be a significant threat to the public and frustrate the intent of Parliament. After reviewing … Read More
Racial Profiling at Citizenship and Immigration Canada?
Charlie Gillis has an interesting article Macleans Magazine today titled “Who Doesn’t Get Into Canada”. The article analyses a government report titled “Social and Economic Outcomes of Second Generation Youth” in the context of broader trends in Canadian immigration patterns. The government report makes many very blunt observations, including that: Chinese and South Asians are the most likely to have university degrees or higher, and to be employed in high-skilled occupations; and Second-generation youth of Caribbean and Latin American origin don’t fare as well. They tend to obtain lover levels of education than native-born Canadian kids and wind up in less skilled jobs. Mr. Gillis uses this information to provide the first discussion (that I have seen) on the effects of Bill C-50. Passed in 2008, this Bill provided, amongst other things, the Minister of Immigration with the power to: Limit the number of new applications; Reject applications; Decide the order in which new applications are processed; Delay the processing of applications from specific missions abroad in order to speed those from others; and Give priority to qualified skilled professionals applying under the economic class categories. Mr. Gillis notes that the impact has appeared to have been increased wait times for … Read More
PRRA Officer Did not Consider Important Country Report
On June 7, the Federal Court released its decision in Ariyaratnam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 608 (“Ariyaratnam“) The case involved a 28 year old from Sri Lanka whose Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA“) and Humanitarian & Compassionate applications were refused. The appellant argued in Federal Court that the assessing officer (the “Officer“) had a duty to consider a UNHCR report that would have bolstered the applicant’s claim (the “Report“). The Report was released a few weeks before the Officer released her decision, and the Officer did not consider it.
Bill C-37, the Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act
On June 10, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-37, also known as the Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act (“Bill C-37“). The legislation will result in five changes if passed. These are: Regulate Citizenship Consultants Increases Penalties for Citizenship Fraud Strengthen Rules For Residence Requirement Expand Ban on Criminals Becoming Citizens Crown Exception to First Generation Limit Streamlining the Revocation Process 1) Regulate Citizenship Consultants Citizenship consultants are not currently regulated or licensed. Bill C-37 will change this. The amendments will introduce a new s. 21.1 of the Citizenship Act, which will state: 21.1 (1) Every person commits an offense who knowingly represents or advises a person for consideration — or offers to do so — in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act. The offense will be a hybrid offense. If the Crown elects to proceed by way of indictment, the maximum penalty would be a fine of $50,000 and/or two years imprisonment. There will be exceptions for lawyers, members of a designated body, and other exceptions similar to those for immigration consultants. In fact, the language in Bill C-37 regarding the regulation of citizenship consultants largely mirrors that in Bill C-35, the Cracking Down on Crooked … Read More
Family Class Undertakings
The spousal sponsorship undertaking is a binding contract between sponsors (and co-signers) and the Minister of Immigraiton, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Sponsors must provide the sponsored person with basic requirements from the day they enter Canada until the end of the undertaking. They are obligated to repay the government any social assistance payments made to the sponsored person during the undertaking period. In spousal sponsorship applications, the length of the undertaking is 3 years (36 months) from the date of becomming a permanent resident. The Supreme Court in Mavi On June 10, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, 2011 SCC 30. The case involved an appeal from numerous Ontario residents regarding relief from the sponsorship undertakings that they had signed to sponsor a family class member. Potential immigrants under the family class are only eligible to apply for permanent residency once a Canadian citizen’s or permanent resident’s application to sponsor them has been approved. Family class immigrants are not assessed independently on their ability to support themselves, as is the case with other immigrants. The burden of showing sufficiently financial wherewithal lies with the sponsor. I have yet to witness a … Read More
Ineligibility to Make a Refugee Claim
Section 101(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states: 101. (1) A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if (a) refugee protection has been conferred on the claimant under this Act; (b) a claim for refugee protection by the claimant has been rejected by the Board; (c) a prior claim by the claimant was determined to be ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division, or to have been withdrawn or abandoned; (d) the claimant has been recognized as a Convention refugee by a country other than Canada and can be sent or returned to that country; (e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or (f) the claimant has been determined to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, except for persons who are inadmissible solely on the grounds of paragraph 35(1)(c). Serious criminality (2) A claim is not ineligible by reason of serious criminality under paragraph (1)(f) unless (a) in the case of inadmissibility by reason of a conviction in Canada, the conviction is … Read More