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 & […]

Read more ›

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 […]

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 […]

Read more ›

It’s not often that you see a Federal Court decision specifically discussing whether an officer’s decision to reject an Application for Criminal Rehabilitation was reasonable.  That’s why I read the just released decision in Hadad v. Canada (The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism), 2011 FC 1503, with much interest. The case 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. That rehabilitation […]

Read more ›