Both Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada as well as the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) are responsible for ensuring that Canada’s immigration system maintains the security of Canadian society. One of the ways that both departments do this is by determining that individuals are inadmissible to Canada. In this post I will review and summarize a CBSA Intelligence Advisory that was obtained through an informal Access to Information Act. The Intelligence Advisory was produced by the CBSA Intelligence Operations and Analysis Division in September 2016. It expired in January 2017. The Intelligence Advisory identified certain countries that at the time posed unique issues for CBSA’s mandate of protecting Canadians. In reproducing the information below my goal is not to stigmatize members of these communities nor to imply that their citizens are a threat. Rather, it is to present information as produced by the CBSA for informational purposes only. Every person deserves to be treated as an individual. However, it is contrary to common sense to suggest that certain communities don’t have unique circumstances. Statistics on Inadmissibility From 2007 to 2016, the Canada Border Services Agency wrote reports for the following inadmissibilities: Year Security Grounds Human Rights Criminal Serious Criminal Organized Crime Health Financial … Read More
Bill C-46 and Retrospectivity
As previously noted on this blog, Bill C-46 will when it takes effect make many offences that currently render someone inadmissible for criminality inadmissible for serious criminality. The Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has now affirmed that these changes will not apply retrospectively. As such, people who were previously deemed rehabilitated will continue to be so. As well, people who committed an offence prior to December 18, 2018 will benefit from the previous sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code.
Providing a Right of Appeal to Medically Inadmissible Immigrants
On December 3, 2015, Don Davies, the member of Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway, introduced Bill C-214, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Appeals) (Bill C-214). If passed, Bill C-214 would provide a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) for prospective immigrants whose applications for permanent residency are refused because Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) determines that they will likely represent an excessive demand on Canada’s health and social services systems. Because Bill C-214 is a private member’s bill, it is unlikely to become law. Indeed, Davies has introduced similar bills in previous Parliamentary sessions, to no effect. However, what he is proposing is certainly worthy of discussion and debate. I hope that if he reads this post that he will consider my comments, if he ever reintroduces or amends his proposed legislation. As well, at the end of this article I will discuss another immigration issue that Davies has proposed that I hope he reintroduces soon. Inadmissibility for Excessive Demand Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada on health grounds if their health conditions might reasonably be expected to cause an excessive demand on Canada’s health or social services. Health … Read More
Suing Schools for Post-Graduation Work Permit Refusals
People who graduate from designated learning institutions are often eligible to apply for post-graduation work permits (“PGWP“). However, not all schools are eligible. In addition to other requirements, to be eligible, a student must have graduated from a: public post-secondary school, such as a college, trade/technical school or university, or CEGEP in Quebec; or private post-secondary school that operates under the same rules as public schools (currently applies only to certain private post-secondary institutions in Quebec); or private secondary or post-secondary school (in Quebec) that offers qualifying programs of 900 hours or longer, leading to a diplôme d’études professionnelles (DEP) or an attestation de spécialisation professionnelle (ASP); or Canadian private school that can legally award degrees under provincial law (for example, Bachelors, Masters or Doctorate degree) but only if the student was enrolled in a study programs leading to a degree as authorized by the province. Lawsuits There have been recent media stories about international graduates suing designated learning institutions for misleading them into thinking that they would have been eligible for post-graduate work permits once they graduated. The requirements to establish a claim in negligent misrepresentation are: There must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee; The … Read More
Foreign Worker Protection in British Columbia
Section 9.4 of Annex B of the Canada – British Columbia Immigration Agreement 2015 provides that “if Canada or B.C. determines that there is a real and substantial risk to a foreign worker as a result of an employer not complying with federal or provincial laws, Canada and B.C. will jointly undertake actions to mitigate such risk, including, where appropriate, issuing a new Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”) through the priority Labour Market Impact Assessment process, or issuing a new work permit without the need for an LMIA provided that the Foreign Worker meets all other requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “IRPR”). On May 4, 2018 the Government of Canada announced how it will apply the LMIA exemption to foreign workers who are at risk as a result of potential employer non-compliance in British Columbia. The policy will be in force until April 7, 2020. The measures are available to all foreign nationals in B.C. who hold an employer-specific work permit for an employer located in B.C. or who are authorized to work without a work permit. Eligibility Under the policy, visa officers may consider issuing a work permit if they have reason to suspect potential employer … Read More
Make Spousal Sponsorships Work to Reunite Families
The following is an article that I wrote for Policy Options. On February 14, 2018, Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), announced that the processing time for spousal sponsorship applications had been reduced from 26 months to 12 months in 80 percent of cases. The Minister attributed the reduction to a “Family Class Tiger Team” that had redesigned application packages and introduced workflow efficiencies. What the Minister didn’t mention was that IRCC achieved its reduction in processing at least in part because it has established an unbelievably strict triage system for marriage-based immigration applications. As reported in several media outlets at the end of January 2018, this intake-management system has in many instances left Canadian families in limbo, caused people who were legally in Canada to lose their status and impeded the ability of the foreign-national spouses of Canadian citizens to work. On the same day that the Minister made his announcement, IRCC issued an Operational Bulletin stating that effective March 15, 2018, IRCC would return as incomplete applications that do not include a detailed form listing personal and address history, and police certificates from countries where applicants have lived. These forms and police certificates were previously … Read More
Law Cans Episode 8 – R v. Boutilier (Dangerous Offender Designations) with Eric Purtzki
R. v. Boutilier is a 2017 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Court had to determine whether Canada’s dangerous offender designation regime is constitutional. Eric Purtzki is a criminal defence attorney in Vancouver who was counsel to Mr. Boutilier before the Supreme Court. We discuss how Canada’s dangerous offender designation regime works, the consequences of being designated a dangerous offender, his arguments at the Supreme Court, and the decision. 1:15 – The facts of the case – Mr. Boutilier robs a pharmacy with an imitation firearm. A car chase ensues. He pleads guilty to six criminal charges to this. The Crown afterwards seeks a designation that Mr. Boutilier is a dangerous offender. Mr. Boutilier challenged the law on the dangerous offender designation. 2:00 – What are the consequences of being designated a Dangerous Offender? 2:30 – What is the purpose of the dangerous offender designation? 9:30 – What are the requirements to be designated a dangerous offender? 13:30 – What are the statistics of release for dangerous offenders, and how does someone get released from indefinite detention if they are a dangerous offender? 17:00 – When someone enters into a plea … Read More
French Citizens Waitlisted for the Young Professionals Program
I recently received a call from a French citizen who was frustrated because they were continuously unsuccessful in the Young Professionals lottery. There was no need for them to be in the lottery, as they would have qualified for Mobilité francophone. As previously explained on my blog here, IRCC has a work permit program specifically designed for Francophones who want to work in a skilled position outside of Quebec. As the Young Professionals Program requires a skilled offer of employment, as long as the French person had a job offer outside of Quebec they would qualify for Mobilité francophone. Here are three basic things to note about Mobilite Francophone. To qualify for the LMIA exemption, applicants must: apply at a visa office outside Canada; be going to work in an occupation which falls under National Occupation Classification 0, A or B; have French as his/her habitual language; and be destined to a province other than Quebec.
Borderlines Episode 22 – The Implications of the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R v. Wong
R v. Wong is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether a person could withdraw a guilty plea if they they did not know that their pleading guilty would lead to deportation. Peter Edelmann and Erica Olmstead are lawyers at Edelmann & Co. They represented the accused at the Supreme Court. Lobat Sadrehashemi represented one of the invervenors, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. 2:00 – The facts of the case. Mr. Wong pleads guilty to trafficking cocaine. He learns afterwards that this will lead to his deportation. He did not know this when he pled. Can he reverse his plea? 4:29 – How does a guilty plea work? Is it like in the movies? 7:40 – What was the judicial history of this case? 8:50 – What was the perspective of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers regarding whether previously unknown immigration consequences should result in a person being able to set aside their guilty plea? 14:00 – When Peter, Erika and Lobatt talk about whether people should know about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, what does “immigration consequences” mean? How did the court rule? 19:00 … Read More
Law Cans Episode 7 – R v. Wong (Informed Plea Bargains and Immigration) with Peter Edelmann
R v. Wong is a 2018 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada had to determine whether a person could withdraw a guilty plea if they they did not know that their pleading guilty would lead to deportation. Peter Edelmann and Erica Olmstead are lawyers at Edelmann & Co. They represented the accused at the Supreme Court. Lobat Sadrehashemi represented one of the invervenors, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. 2:00 – The facts of the case. Mr. Wong pleads guilty to trafficking cocaine. He learns afterwards that this will lead to his deportation. He did not know this when he pled. Can he reverse his plea? 4:29 – How does a guilty plea work? Is it like in the movies? 7:40 – What was the judicial history of this case? 8:50 – What was the perspective of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers regarding whether previously unknown immigration consequences should result in a person being able to set aside their guilty plea? 14:00 – When Peter, Erika and Lobatt talk about whether people should know about the immigration consequences of a guilty plea, what does “immigration consequences” mean? How did the court rule? 19:00 … Read More