Section 36(3)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides the legislative basis for rehablitation applications. It states that: 36(3)(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated. IRCC Rehabilitation Guide The following PDF is IRCC’s United States Criminality Assessment Guide. As well, here is an internal IRCC New York memo which provides context on the number of rehabilitation applications that they receive. Where To Submit IRCC’s preference is that rehabilitation applications be submitted separate from permanent or temporary residence applications. Statistics Jurisprudence In Hadad v. Canada (The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism), 2011 FC 1503, the Federal Court affirmed several important principles of rehabilitation applications, including that: The Minister should take into consideration the unique facts of each particular case and consider whether the overall situation warrants a finding that the individual has been rehabilitated; rehabilitation is forward looking; and an officer commits a reviewable error if they too much importance to … Read More
Remorse in the Rehabilitation Context
In Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1329, the Federal Court certified the following rather interesting question of general importance: Does the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, in the exercise of its humanitarian jurisdiction, err in law in considering adverse to an appellant lack of remorse for an offence for which the appellant has pled not guilty but was convicted? The issue of whether one should express remorse for a crime that they are adamant they did not commit frequently arises in the rehabilitation and humanitarian & compassionate context. Applicants who have criminal records frequently deny guilt, even when convicted, and even including when they entered into a plea bargain (which is perhaps not surprising given the leverage that the state has during plea bargaining). In Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1329, the applicant argued that when an accused pleads not guilty, it is an error of law to consider lack of remorse as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing, and that this principle should be extended to the immigration context. Justice Russell disagreed, stating that in the immigration context, the lack of remorse and failure to take responsibility for past crimes goes to … Read More
Refugees, Article 1F, and Rehabilitation
Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention excludes individuals who have committed serious crimes from being eligible for refugee status under the Convention. It states: Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention states: F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: ( a ) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; ( b ) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee; ( c ) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Section 98 of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“) provides that a person encompassed by the 1951 Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to the Act. In Hernandez Fables v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1103, the Federal Court certified the following question: When applying article 1F (b) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of … Read More
Restructuring of the North American Processing Network (Continued)
Restructuring of North American Processing Network (Continued) In a previous post, I wrote about how on May 29, 2012, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) restructured its North American Processing Network. The restructuring included the closure of immigration section of the Canadian consualte in Buffalo, as well as the realigninment of Work Permit and Study Permit functions of the Canadian consulates in New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Detroit, and Seattle. For information on those changes, I encourage you to read that post. On June 11, 2012, CIC released a further Operational Bulletin detailing additional changes to which consulates which process Temporary Resident Permit applications, Rehab applications, and Authorization to Return to Canada applications. . Re-Configuring the U.S. Network (TRPs, Rehab, and ARC) Effectively June 18, the Seattle, Detroit, and New York consulates will no longer be processing new TRP, Rehab, and ARC applications. Only the Los Angeles and Washington DC consulates will process new applications in these categories. Furthermore, applicants residing in the United States will not be able to choose which consulate to submit their application to. Applicants living in the United States east of the Mississippi River (including in Puerto Rico, Bermuda, and St. Pierre et Miqueldon) must apply to … Read More