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 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.
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.
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 the number of applicants. 80% of FIIP applicants in 2009 came from the Asia-Pacific Region, which continues to boom despite the global economic crisis.
According to the Gazette, the increase will result in a net economic benefit to Canada of $59,229 per investment. In total, this would result in a benefit of $600,000,000 per year to Canada.
While $600,000,000 isn’t bad (you could almost fund security for a G8 summit with that amount), it’s interesting to note that an increase of $400,000 per investment only results in a $60,000 benefit.Read more ›
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 on June 30, 2011.
The Official Gazette detailing the new rules can be found here.Read more ›
Last updated on July 21st, 2018
Regulation 186(s) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations“) regulates when crew members are permitted to work in Canada without first obtaining a work permit. The Regulations state:
R186(s). A foreign national may work in Canada without a work permit as a member of a crew who is employed by a foreign company aboard a means of transportation that
(i) is foreign-owned and not registered in Canada, and
(ii) is engaged primarily in international transportation
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) has published helpful guidance as to how this Regulation is to be interpreted (the “Guidelines“).
What is a Member of a Crew
As per the Guidelines, on a cruise ship, crew members include:
- licensed officers: master, first officer, chief officer or chief mate, first engineer or chief engineer, and subordinate officers and engineers;
- non-licensed crew: ordinary seamen, able-bodied seamen, bosun (deck crew foreman), engine- room crew (oilers and fitters), and kitchen and mess-room staff (cooks, stewards and messmen); and
- the hotel manager, cruise director, purser, medical staff, managers and staff of the ship’s bars, restaurants, boutiques and casino, as well as house-cleaning staff and entertainers.
Crew members do not include:
- supernumeraries: spouses, children and other dependants of crew members;
- foreign contractors and shipping company technicians: foreign nationals temporarily assigned to a vessel for the sole purpose of making repairs;
- shipping company superintendents, including persons referred to as supercargo, superintendent engineers, or port captains;
- employees or executives of a marine transportation company who travel aboard or who visit ships to monitor or supervise operations such as maintenance and repairs,
Last updated on April 29th, 2019
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:
(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.
(6) A decision of the Court pursuant to an appeal made under subsection (5) is, subject to section 20, final and, notwithstanding any other Act of Parliament, no appeal lies therefrom.
Subsection six clearly states that the FCA is precluded from hearing appeals from Federal Court decisions pursuant to an appeal of a citizenship judge’s determination. But, does the FCA have jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Federal Court reconsidering, or refusing to reconsider, its decisions?
In answering this question,Read more ›
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 the jurisprudence surrounding the application of s. 24 to administrative tribunals, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated a two-part test to determine whether an administrative tribunal has the jurisdiction to issue a particular s. 24 remedy. The two parts are:
- Does the administrative tribunal has explicit or implicit jurisdiction to decide questions of law? If it does, and unless it is clearly demonstrated that the legislature intended to exclude the Charter from the tribunal’s jurisdiction,
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 family class applicants of South American or Caribbean descent that are disproportionately greater than the increase for those of Asian descent. He notes that:
The average wait time for someone wishing to bring a spouse into the country through Kingston, Jamaica has ballooned to 15 months, fully three times the processing time in 2006. A similar application lodged in New Delhi takes just six months.
……Read more ›
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.Read more ›
Please note that none of the information on this website should be construed as being legal advice. As well, you should not rely on any of the information contained in this website when determining whether and how to apply to a given program. Canadian immigration law is constantly changing, and the information above may be dated. If you have a question about the contents of this blog, or any question about Canadian immigration law, please contact the Author.
- Business and Entrepreneur Immigrantion
- Citizenship Applications and Revocations
- Family Class (Spousal Sponsorships, Parents & Grandparents)
- Humanitarian and Compassionate
- Immigration and Refugee Board
- Immigration Consultants
- Immigration Trends
- Judicial Reviews
- Labour Market Impact Assessments
- Maintaining Permanent Residency
- Provincial Nominee Programs
- Skilled Immigration (Express Entry, CEC, FSWC, Etc.)
- Study Permits
- Tax and Trusts
- Temporary Resident Visas
- Work Permits