In 2021 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada introduced facilitative measures to provide open work permits to residents of Hong Kong and facilitative measures creating two pathways to permanent residence to facilitate the immigration of certain Hong Kong residents. Work Permits The public policy allows for the issuance of open work permits to eligible residents of Hong Kong, whether they are in Canada or abroad, for a period of up to three years. Eligible family members may also be issued an open work permit. To be eligible, the foreign national must: hold a valid passport issued by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the United Kingdom to a British National Overseas; have graduated no more than 10 years before theyapply for this open work permit, with one of the following: a degree (for example, associate, bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral) from a designated post-secondary learning institution in Canada or an institution abroad; a diploma for a minimum 2-year program from a designated post-secondary learning institution in Canada or an institution abroad; or a graduate or post-graduate credential from a program of at least 1 year that required the completion of a post-secondary degree or diploma, as a prerequisite for acceptance into … Read More
Express Entry PNP Applications
The following is an IRCC manual on assessing Provincial Nominee Class applications submitted through Express Entry.
Borderlines Podcast #176 – Canadian Immigration in 2027
Steven and Deanna dig into two new Government of Canada consultations on immigration policy. The first is on immigration levels planning for 2027 and beyond. The second is on new Express Entry categories. Topics include the survey questions, the results of last year’s consultations, caps on workers, and the proposed new categories of senior managers, scientists & researchers and allied soldiers.
Asylum Shopping
In Sahloul v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1331, Justice Régimbald provided the following powerful statements about how Canadian refugee does not prohibit asylum shopping: According to some, a legitimate refugee is compelled to leave their national state out of fear of persecution at the first opportunity, and seek the first state possible that will provide safe haven. No other choice is permissible, including the choice to seek asylum in one state over another. To behave otherwise would be incommensurate with the actions of the legitimate refugee and as such, these individuals lack subjective fear. This contention has not been formed in accordance with the law. The Court should not behold refugee claimants to a mirage that robs them of their agency and imputes dishonesty where there is none. Availing oneself of the first, or closest, opportunity for international protection is not a precondition to finding refuge in Canada.
Borderlines Podcast #175 – August Crimmigration Updates
We cover recent developments at the intersection of criminal and immigration law. We review significant Supreme Court of Canada decisions, highlight problematic CBSA investigations, discuss judicial errors during sentencing, and explore current trends in immigration policy and processing. We also answer live audience questions about express entry scores, humanitarian and compassionate applications, parent and grandparent sponsorship backlogs, and more. Timestamps: 0:17 – Introduction and overview of crim-immigration updates 1:36 – Supreme Court decision on Canada’s sex work laws (R. v. Kloubakov, 2025 SCC 25) 13:02 – U.S. convictions and IRPA section 36(2) “committing an offence” provisions 16:03 – California automatic relief and foreign spent convictions 19:08 – Supreme Court decision on youth sentencing (R. v. I.M., 2025 SCC 23) and inadmissibility 20:56 – Why youth convictions abroad still trigger inadmissibility: Flores Giron v. Canada 21:15 – CBSA officer self-investigation leads to stayed charges 23:33 – Judicial misconduct: judge misreads sentence and conceals error 33:38 – IRCC now providing refusal notes with TR applications: impact on litigation 38:05 – Political narratives around “letting criminals into Canada” 48:08 – Live Q&A
Borderlines Podcast #174 – Bill C-2, Carney’s Big Beautiful Border Bill
We conduct a comprehensive analysis of the immigration implications of Bill C-2, an omnibus bill tabled by the federal government that significantly expands government authority and introduces sweeping changes across multiple areas of Canadian law. Bill C-2’s immigration provisions would: Grant the federal government broad powers to suspend, cancel, or vary immigration documents, including permanent resident visas, permanent resident cards, temporary resident visas, work permits, study permits, and electronic travel authorizations, based on vague “public interest” criteria. Permit the bulk suspension or cancellation of immigration and refugee applications without individual case review, raising serious concerns regarding Charter rights and judicial oversight. Introduce major restrictions on refugee protection claims, including a one-year filing bar for those who do not make a claim within 12 months of arrival and expanded ineligibility for individuals who cross the Canada–U.S. border irregularly. Timestamps: 0:00 – Introduction & overview of Bill C-2 6:39 – The democratic and constitutional concerns with omnibus legislation 10:28 – Government powers to cancel immigration documents and applications 27:04 – Refugee claim restrictions: one-year filing bar and ineligibility rules 33:05 – Transitional provisions and measures already in effect 40:09 – Designated representatives and capacity considerations 46:16 – Admissibility hearings, PR status … Read More
Article 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention
Article 1E of the 1951 Refugee Convention states: This Convention shall not apply to a person who is recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which he has taken residence as having the rights and obligations which are attached to the possession of the nationality of that country. The leading case for interpreting Article 1E is Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Zeng, 2010 FCA 118. There, the Federal Court of Appeal stated: Considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status, substantially similar to that of its nationals, in the third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is excluded. If the answer is no, the next question is whether the claimant previously had such status and lost it, or had access to such status and failed to acquire it. If the answer is no, the claimant is not excluded under Article 1E. If the answer is yes, the RPD must consider and balance various factors. These include, but are not limited to, the reason for the loss of status (voluntary or involuntary), whether the claimant could return to the third country, the risk the claimant would face in the home country, … Read More
Borderlines Podcast #173 – Bill C-3 – Expanding Canadian Citizenship by Descent
<iframe src=”https://embed.acast.com/659f464c3f69070017409684/687fd1abf6d4262b0784f7b6?theme=light” frameBorder=”0″ width=”100%” height=”80px”></iframe> The complexities of Canadian citizenship by descent with immigration lawyers Amandeep Hayer and Lisa Middlemiss. [1:35] What citizenship by descent means. [3:17] Historical and current limitations, including the first-generation rule and exceptions. [5:55] The 2023 Bjorkquist decision. [9:49] Bill C-3. [13:57] Interim measures. [20:26] Debates over residency rules and comparisons to U.S. laws. [31:00] Voting rights for citizens abroad and potential fraud risks. [44:02] How to prove citizenship without birth certificates. [45:43] Citizenship for displaced Native Americans, and
Work Permits Under The North American Free Trade Agreement / CUSMA
(the following is largely paraphrased from the IRCC website) The North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA“) is a free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. It facilities the temporary entry of individuals, including providing certain Americans and Mexicans with the ability to work in Canada without first requiring Labour Market Impact Assessments (“LMIAs“). NAFTA does not assist permanent admission, does not apply to permanent residents of the United States and Mexico and does not remove the need for Americans and Mexicans to undergo security screening before entering Canada. The categories are: Business Visitors; After – Sales Services; Investors; Intra-Corporate Transferees; and Professionals. Business Visitors To qualify as a business visitor, an American or Mexican citizen must be entering Canada to conduct activities that are international in scope, have no intention to enter the Canadian labour market, have their primary source of remuneration be outside of Canada and their principal place of business remain outside of Canada. For example, business visitors engage in international business activities related to research and design; growth, manufacture and production; marketing; sales; distribution; after-sales service; and general service. Typical examples of business activities include, but are not limited to, consultation, negotiation, discussion, research, … Read More
Inadmissibility for Subversion
Section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states: 34 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for (a) engaging in an act of espionage that is against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests; (b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government; (b.1) engaging in an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada; (c) engaging in terrorism; (d) being a danger to the security of Canada; (e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or (f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (b.1) or (c). The Test for Subversion Canadian immigration legislation does not define subversion. Several Federal Court of Canada decisions have found that it does not require violence, including Oremade v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1077, where Justice Phelan stated: I agree with the IAD’s conclusion that the term “by force” is not simply the equivalent of “by violence”. “By force” includes coercion or compulsion by violent means, coercion or compulsion … Read More