An interesting aspect of judicial review is that provincial courts show much more deference to provincial nomination programs than the Federal Court does of visa officers. Here are some key passages of two British Columbia Provincial Nomination Program judicial reviews. Chaudan v. British Columbia (Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training), 2016 BCSC 2142 This case essentially stands for the proposition that officers can look beyond an offer of employment to determine whether a proposed job offer meets BC PNP program requirements. Justice Bowden wrote: In determining whether an applicant met the criterion of PNP, if a decision maker relied only upon a future offer of employment, that might well be unreasonable. Not only would that ignore the factor of past employment over a nine month period but also an offer of employment in the future is not an assurance that the criterion will be met. Raturi v. British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 9 In this case Madam Justice E.A. Arnold-Bailey provided a useful summary of existing jurisprudence on provincial nomination judicial reviews. She wrote: Moving from more general statements of principle to specific cases more closely aligned to the present case, I note that among the cases referred to by the … Read More
Determining Whether a Marriage Is Genuine
Arguably the most important part of any spousal or common-law sponsorship application is establishing that a relationship is not encompassed by r. 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”). Regulation 4(1) provides that: 4. (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership (a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; or (b) is not genuine. Despite the importance of applicants demonstrating that their relationship is genuine and not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act”) there are no set criteria which determine whether an application is bona-fide. As the Federal Court noted in Koffi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 7 (citations removed) It is well established in the case law of this Court that there is no specific criterion, or even a set of criteria, to determine whether a marriage is genuine pursuant to section 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. It is exclusively up … Read More
Medical Exam Requirements to Visit Canada
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has removed 45 countries from the designated country or territory list, and added four. The countries removed include Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore.
LMIAs and Labour Disputes
Section 203(3)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states an assessment provided by the Department of Employment and Social Development (“ESDC”) with respect to the whether the entry of a foreign national is unlikely to have a positive or neutral effect on the labour market in Canada shall be based, in part, on whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to adversely affect the settlement of any labour dispute in progress of the employment of any person involved in the dispute. ESDC policy is short on this matter, and states that employers should not use the Temporary Foreign Worker Program to circumvent a legal work stoppage or to influence the outcome of a labour dispute. A labour dispute is defined as occuring when the parties to a collective agreement have reached an impasse in their efforts to enter into, renew or revise a collective agreement and require the intervention of a third party (e.g., government labour officials) to resolve the differences. It does not include all grievances between a union and employer. Labour disputes, which often arise during collective agreement/contract negotiation between an employer and a union, may include: work stoppage, strikes, refusal to work, picketing, lockouts, etc. They … Read More
Inadmissibility Due to Non-Compliance with the Act
Individuals can be inadmissible to Canada for numerous reasons, including criminality, misrepresentation, medical issues, and non-compliance with Canadian immigration legislation. The latter reason, non-compliance with the Canadian immigration legislation, can seem extremely vague. Fortunately, the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Guidelines contains a list of the different frequently used reasons for declaring someone inadmissible for non-compliance with the Act. They are: Entering Canada to remain on a permanent basis without first obtaining a permanent resident visa. Entering Canada to remain on a temporary basis without first obtaining a temporary resident visa. Entering Canada to study without first obtaining a study permit. Entering Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit. Not answering questions truthfully or producing required relevant documents. Not submitting to a medical examination. Not holding a medical certificate that is based on the last medical examination. Not holding the required documents to enter Canada. Not establishing that the person will live Canada by the end of the authorized period. Where a person is subject to an enforced removal, returning to Canada without authorization. Working without authorization. Studying without authorization. Not leaving Canada at the end of the authorized period. Not reporting to a port of entry examination without … Read More
Protected: North Vancouver Playgrounds
There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.
Borderlines Podcast #38 – R v. Zora – The Supreme Court of Canada Addresses Breach of Bail Conditions, with Sarah Runyon
R v. Zora is a 2020 Supreme Court of Canada decision involving the criminal offence of breaching bail conditions. It is relevant in the Canadian immigration context as individuals who are convicted of this crime in Canada, or who are convicted of or commit an equivalent offence abroad, are inadmissible to the country. Steven and Deanna are joined by Sarah Runyon, who was counsel for Mr. Zora at the Supreme Court. We discuss how bail works in Canada, the offence of breach of bail conditions, and the implications of the Supreme Court decision.
Borderlines Podcast #37 – The Closure of the Canada – US Border and the Supreme Court’s DACA Decision, with Andrew Hayes
Andrew, Deanna and Steven discuss the closure of the Canada – US border during COVID-19 and how the agreement has been implemented in the two policies, recent Executive Orders regarding immigration, and the United States Supreme Court decision in Department of Homeland Security et al v. Regents of the University of California et al. Andrew Hayes is a US immigration lawyer who practices in Vancouver. His website is www.usborderlaw.com 2:00 -The closure of the Canada – US border 25:00 – Recent Executive Orders pertaining to immigration in the United States 45:00 – The DACA decision
Borderlines Podcast #36 – The Canadian Immigration Consequences of COVID19
Deanna Okun-Nachoff and Steven Meurrens discuss how COVID19 has caused havoc to Canada’s immigration system, including border closures, operational slowdowns and the suspension of litigation proceedings.
Borderlines Podcast Episode 35 – The Implications of the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in Vavilov
Vavilov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) is a 2019 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada outlined a new framework for the standard of review in Canadian administrative law.