Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“) provides that an officer who believes that a foreign national or permanent resident in Canada is inadmissible to Canada (for criminality, health, overstay, working without authorization, etc.) may prepare a report alleging the inadmissibility (commonly known as an “A44 Report“).   The Act further provides that once an officer prepares an A44 Report, then the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) (the agency generally responsible for this) may commence removal proceedings, or, when necessary, refer the matter to the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent administrative tribunal. I have underlined the […]

Read more ›

On March 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC“) in R v. J.F., clarified the elements of the offence of conspiracy.  The decision has immigration implications because people who have been convicted of conspiracy may be inadmissible to Canada.   Section 465 of Canada’s Criminal Code criminalizes the offence of conspiracy.  Conspiracy is a form of inchoate liability.  In other words, the actual result of the conspiracy need not occur for someone to be convicted under s. 465.  For example, a person can be convicted of “conspiracy to commit murder” even if the […]

Read more ›

In 2011, 1,108 people were declared inadmissible to Canada when they arrived at the Vancouver International Airport. The following chart obtained through an Access to Information and Privacy Act request shows these individuals’ source countries. The top 10 countries were: Citizenship 2011 United States 247 South Korea 137 Hungary 83 China 72 Taiwan 49 British 40 Australia 35 Iran 30 Hong Kong 26 India 26 Japan 26 Germany 20 Mexico 19

Read more ›

The Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 clarified the law regarding what constitutes dangerous driving under the Criminal Code.  The decision, R v. Roy, has implications for people who may be inadmissible to Canada for criminality.  Indeed, in Jolly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court of Canada affirmed that it will be a reviewable error if visa officers do not assess criminal equivalency for dangerous driving based on the mens rea standard articulated in Roy. Section 249 of the Criminal Code provides that: 249. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates (a) a motor vehicle […]

Read more ›

Much of the media attention towards Bill C-31 – the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act – has been focused on its shortening of the time periods for processing refugee claims and its removal of some appeal rights for refugee claimants that were supposed to be introduced under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.  This past week, members of the immigration bar raised concerns about another questionable change.  In short, Bill C-31 will make it so that refugees who became permanent residents of Canada will lose their permanent residence status if their refugee […]

Read more ›

Individuals can be inadmissible to Canada for numerous reasons, including criminality, misrepresentation, medical issues, and non-compliance with Canadian immigration legislation.  This latter reason, non-compliance with the Canadian immigration legislation, can seem extremely vague.  Fortunately, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada Manual 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 […]

Read more ›

The Federal Court of Appeal has answered a question regarding inadmissibility under s. 34 of IRPA.

Read more ›

The Federal Court has released its decision on the legality of the “decision” to prohibit former British MP George Galloway from entering Canada for having committed terrorism or been a member of a terrorist organization.

Read more ›