Borderlines

This episode is a repost of episode 56. We discuss issues involving the deportation of long term permanent residents for criminality. 5:45 - What are the grounds for deporting a permanent resident for criminality? 13:00 - How does the appeal process work? 17:00 - What are the factors in deportation. 19:00 - An overview of the history of the law involving the deportation of permanent residents. 26:00 - What is the probability of success for a permanent resident in avoiding deportation once proceedings start? 36:00 - Stays of removal 41:00 - Strategies and tips for responding to procedural fairness letters involving removal. Michael Greene, K.C. is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. He served as the National Chair of the Canadian Bar Association's Citizenship & Immigration Section in 2000-2001. He is representing Jaskirat Singh Sidhu in his immigration and deportation matters.

Tamara Mosher Kuczer is the Founder & Principal Lawyer of Lighthouse Immigration Law Professional Corporation. She can be found on Twitter @ttrrmk.

Deanna Okun-Nachoff, Erica Olmstead, Erin Roth, Kamaljit Kaur Lehal and Laura Best discuss compassion fatigue in the practice of refugee law and how they avoid burnout.

Mason v. Canada was a Supreme Court of Canada decision which assessed whether inadmissibility on security grounds for engaging in violence required a nexus to national security.

“When and why did Canada develop the legal powers to detain and deport immigrants?” This is the question asked by Simon Wallace, a PhD Student at Osgoode Hall Law School and refugee lawyer, in his paper published in Queen's Law Journal titled “Police Authority is Necessary”: The Canadian Origins of the Legal Powers to Detain and Deport, 1893 – 1902. The paper can be found here - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4497377 Mr. Wallace joins us today to discuss the origins of Canadian deportation law and its initial targeting of Romanian Jewish refugees.

Raj Sharma is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. In Borderlines Podcast Episode 69 we discussed his case Mohammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1, in which the Federal Court quashed an Immigration Appeal Division decision, stating that the IAD did not properly give enough weight to the unique contributions that Ms. Mohammad made as a health care worker during COVID-19, and the debt that was owed to her. The IAD disagreed with the Federal Court, and Raj Sharma sought judicial review again. The case, and today's episode, provides an insight into how redetermination works, and the degree of deference that visa officers and the IAD need to show the Federal Court.

Laura Best is an immigration lawyer practicing in Toronto. We discuss refugee resettlement and Canada's housing crisis, as well as whether Canada's housing shortage is impacting support for immigration.

There has been an increase in security screening in Canadian visa applications for residents of several countries. Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 885 is the first Federal Court of Canada decision to discuss mandamus in the study permit context. Mandamus applications are actions to the Federal Court of Canada to compel IRCC to conclude the processing of a delayed application.

This episode is a historical deep dive on Order in Council PC 1911-1324, an Order in Council from 1911 which stated that for a period of one year black people would not be permitted to immigrate in Canada because the Canadian government deemed them unsuitable to Canada's climate.

Will Tao is a Canadian immigration and the founder of Heron Law Office. During this episode we discuss what got Will into immigration law, why he started his own firm, how he balances client files, advocacy and family life, whether he will take paternity leave after his second child is born, whether he thinks it is possible to take lengthy sabbaticals, his approach to practice and his general apporach to the practice of law.

This episode is a joint recording of Borderlines and Ask Kubeir, a popular YouTube channel about Canadian immigration news and updates, hosted by Kubeir Kamal, a regulated immigration consultant in Toronto. We discuss how obtaining Canadian permanent residence is becomming more difficult for several groups, including recent international graduates, as well as how some immigrants feel let down by the high cost of living and the inability to get their credentials recognized.

Jandu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1787, was a decision where the Federal Court quashed several visa refusals and misrepresentation findings for truck drivers. The case raised several interesting issues, including the roles of Service Canada and IRCC in assessing genuineness, and what documentation visa officers can reasonably expect work permit applicants to provide. Rafeena Rashid and Jelena Urosevic were counsel for the refused truck drivers. 3:00 The facts of Janndu 11:00 Conflicts when representing employers and employees. 13:00 The lack of communication between Service Canada and IRCC when it comes to work permit applications. 20:00 Assessing genuineness. 23:00 Unreasonable documentation requests. 28:00 Lessons from the case for future work permit applications. 37:00 The distinction between a lack of genuineness and a finding of misrepresentation. 54:00 What is the line between misrepresentation and lack of genuineness?

Sean Rehaag is an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, the Director of the Centre for Refugee Studies and the Director of the Refugee Law Laboratory. Today we discuss his use of GPT to conduct legal research, artificial intelligence and decision making, differential results in Federal Court and Immigration and Refugee Board decisions, and how to identify if differential outcomes are actually a problem or significant. 2:00 Using GPT to conduct research. 14:00 Issues with unreported decisions or decisions lacking precedential value. Do all decisions need to have precedential value given that it results in inconsistent jurisprudence? 19:00 AI making decisions vs. AI helping to write decisions. 22:00 Bias in decision making in LGBT claims around physical appearance. 28:00 AI leading to uniformity in decision making. 38:00 The receptiveness of the Federal Court to research into judicial decision making. 42:00 Forum shopping as a result of judicial research. 46:00 Should AI play a role in helping judges write decisions. 52:00 Baker as an example of transparency in decision making. 54:00 Is it possible to tell if AI is starting to render unintended decisions? 1:05 Trauma in refugee decision making. 1:14 How do you decide if differential results are problematic? For example, asylum claims for lesbians are higher than gay which is also higher than bi. Is this a problem?

Raj Sharma is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. He can be found on Twitter at @immlawyercanada Topics: 1:30 - Addressing divergent case law 15:30 - Globe and Mail story about waiving TRV eligibility requirements to clear backlogs 23:00 - Chat GTP replacing lawyers and visa officers 31:00 - Processing delays 36:00 - Mandamus 42:00 - Open work permits for spouses of Canadians 56:00 - C-10 work permits and Express Entry 57:00 - A world in which GCMS notes are provided instead of refusal letters 1:00 - Is the practice of immigration law getting less fun?

Tamara Mosher Kuczer is the Founder & Principal Lawyer of Lighthouse Immigration Law Professional Corporation. She can be found on Twitter @ttrrmk. 5:00 How would you summarize 2022 for Canadian immigration? 13:23 Favorite development in Canadian immigration law 25:00 Least favorite development in Canadian immigration 39:15 Favorite Federal Court decision 52:00 What should people watch the most in 2023 56:00 What might happen this year that people might not be expecting? 1:04 What will happen with the Self-Employed Class and Start-Up Visa Program? 1:09 Will Express Entry take under 6 months again and will there be a draw in the Parent & Grandparent Program? 1:12 Predictions for citizenship and abolishing PR Cards.

The Secure Air Travel Act provides the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness with authority to establish a list of individuals that the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect could be a threat to aviation or national security or intends to travel by air for the purpose of terrorism. Sadaf Kashfi, works for Edelmann & Co. She advises clients on complex issues concerning U.S. and Canadian immigration, criminal law, and during the COVID-19 pandemic developed a successful practice representing individuals accused of quarantine act violations. Her e-mail is sadaf@edelmann.ca The second, Eric Purtzi, is Associate Counsel at Fowler & Block, a criminal defense law firm. He has appeared at the Supreme Court of Canada 7 times. He is also a past guest on Borderlines, having appeared on episode 9 to discuss the constitutionality of retrospective laws. His e-mail is epurtzki@fowlerbloklaw.ca How does the Secure Air Travel Act work? Who reviews naming on the Secure Air Travel Act? What is the threshold to be added to the list for possibly committing a crime in the air? Does the government have to publish how many people are on the list? How does someone learn that they are on the SATA list? What are the participatory rights for people to get off the SATA? How does the appeal or Federal Court process work? Could someone be put on SATA for refusing to wear a mask?

Prasanna Balasundaram is the Director of Downtown Legal Services. He represented the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers as interveners in the Supreme Court of Canada case Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, which dealt with when delays can amount to an abuse of process. 2:00 Why did CARL intervene in this case? 6:00 Recalibrating abuse of process. 10:00 Possible remedies for abuse of process. 17:00 What is an abuse of process claim? 20:00 What is the Blencoe test? 25:00 Is a remedy under an abuse of process claim cash? 28:00 How can lawyers, stakeholders, and CARL collaborate on systemic issues? 31:00 Why does __ think that the Supreme Court did not address CARL's argument about removal in the decision? 39:00 How does one choose test litigation cases?

Pantea Jafari is lead counsel at Jafari Law, which she opened in 2012. In 2022 Pantea won a successful group litigation for over 100 Iranian applicants whose applications were refused under the Self-Employed Class. Pantea successfully argued that the Canadian government unfarily changed the standards for these applicants after they had applied. We discuss the Self-Employed Class, the doctrine of legitimate expectations, breaches of procedural fairness, changing visa offices and how group litigation works.

Three former counsel at the Department of Justice discuss what practicing at the DOJ is like vs. private practice. Jennifer Dagsvik worked as Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice from 2007 – 2017, and now is a Lecturer at Immigration and Refugee Law at the Bora Laskin Faculty of Law in Thunder Bay, and also a Director at the Newcomer Legal Clinic there. Nalini Reddy worked as a Lawyer at the Department of Justice from 1999 to 2017. She is currently an Associate at Gindin Segal Law in Winnipeg. Rafeena Rashid worked as a Lawyer at the Department of Justice in the Immigration Division from 2010 to 2016. She is a Partner and Co-founder of Rashid Urosevic LLP, where she practices immigration law full-time. - Why they joined and eventually left DOJ - What they liked most about DOJ and what they liked less - The DOJ interview process - When a DOJ lawyer's personal opinion about a case is different from their client's. - Things it would be helpful for private practice to know about DOJ. - Things it would be helpful for DOJ to understand about private practice. - The training at DOJ. - Ways private bar counsel interact with DOJ. - Challenges being a female lawyer. - Are DOJ and private practice on an equal playing field? - How hard is it to transition from DOJ to private practice? - Work life balance and families

Peter Scarrow practiced Canadian immigration law from 1981 - 1991, opening the Taiwanese representative office for a prominent Vancouver law firm. We discuss what practicing high net worth immigration from Taiwan and China was like in the 1980s and early 1990s, ghost consultant fraud, tax avoidance, and being a private banker vs. immigration lawyer (Peter did both).

David Thomas practiced immigration law from 1987 - 2014, when he was appointed Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. During his career he developed a large investor clientele from South Korea, ran to be a Member of Parliament, and started a charity that delivered vitamins to North Korea. 3:00 - The start of Dave's career practicing immigration law both at a large firm and then starting his own firm. 6:00 - Practicing immigration law in the 1990s. 13:00 - Do immigration lawyers travel less than they do now, reduced communication with IRCC and other changes in the practice. 18:00 - Things learned about the bureaucracy as the head of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal 32:00 - Running for federal office 36:00 - Would David recommend immigration law? Is it becoming less fun? 44:00 - Starting a charity that delivered vitamins to North Korea. 51:00 - Comparing practicing immigration to the human rights tribunal. 1:02 - What the future holds.

A discussion of misrepresentation, including its application, consequences, the innocent mistake defense, failing to disclose past visa refusals, the difference between insufficient evidence and misrepresentation, and going after low hanging fruit.

Kyle Seeback is the Member of Parliament for Dufferin - Caledon. He is the author of Bill C-242, the Reuniting Families Act. Bill C-242 would allow a parent or grandparent who applies for a temporary resident visa as a visitor to purchase private health insurance outside Canada and to stay in Canada for a period of five years. On June 7, 2022, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announced that it would enact these measures through public policy. The changes will come into force on July 4, 2022.

David Langlands is a recently retired 37-year officer of the Canada Border Services Agency. He worked at land, sea, air and even mail points of entry. We discuss his career, interacting with refugee claimants and people fleeing dire circumstances, compassion, how he once found a zip-log bag labeled Antrhax in someone's suitcase, whether all CBSA interactions with applicants should be recorded, and more.

A discussion about the Federal Court of Canada decision in Mohammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1, how being a COVID-19 front-line worker is considered in the H&C context, mandamus, tips for litigators, and how to prioritize FSW applications vs. CEC Raj Sharma is a Partner at Stewart Sharma Harsanyi in Calgary.

Mikal Skuterud is a professor of economics at the University of Waterloo. The paper on TR-to-PR transition rates can be found here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/36280001202200100002. The paper on outmigration can be found here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2012340-eng.htm 3:00 - Does Canada economically need high immigration levels because of low-birth rights? 6:00 Is it short sighted from an economic perspective to focus on labour market needs and the wishes of people to have their parents live with them? 9:00 Is there a way to measure whether economic immigrants are increasing or decreasing GDP per capita? 19:00 What role should immigration play in resolving short-term labour shortages? 32:00 What would be the economic consequence if all foreign workers became permanent residents? 42:00 Is there data to support the notion that international students perform better economically in Canada? 53:00 How does the concept of utility play into macroeconomic planning in the context of immigration? 60:00 The economic integration of immigrants. 67:00 How should the CRS be re-weighted? 1:18:00 Is Canada becoming too reliant on immigrants propping up housing to support the Canadian economy?

A discussion about Canada's low approval rates for study permit, work permit and temporary resident visa applications for people from Africa. The IRCC Anti-Racism Employee Focus Groups Final Report referenced in this episode can be found here - https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/pwgsc-tpsgc/por-ef/immigration_refugees/2021/122-20-e/POR_122-20-Final_Report_EN.pdf

A discussion of the law of self defense in Canada, including the 2021 Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Khill. We also comparisons to the Kyle Rittenhouse case in the United States and Canadian immigration implications involving the law of self defense.

We took to Twitter to get listener questions for our first Ask Me Anything episode. 1) Will a gay refugee be deported if her sexuality changes? 2) Does Deanna have any insight or information into what is going on with caregiver applications? 3)Why are local visa offices not processing already approved express entry applications? 4)How do you think realistically IRCC should change their workflow and file processing? 5)Do we need to mention previous visa rejections in spousal sponsorship applications? 6)Why can spouses from visa exempt countries easily reunited with their loves ones in Canada while those who need visas cannot? 7)Why is there a particular hatred towards outland spousal apps? 8)What do you think about the IRCC's local 3.5 workers to every 1 Canadian employed at the VO's? Is this appropriate? 9) Why does artificial intelligence refuse so many applications? 10)Why is the IRCC so secretive?

Aditya Mohan is the founder of Robometrics, a company at the forefront of the intersection of artificial intelligence and human emotions like empahty. We discuss the increasing use of artificial intelligence in Canadian immigration legislation, its benefits, and ways to increase transparency and oversight. 3:00 - What is artificial intelligence? 8:00 - What are deep learning systems? 14:00 - How does the use of artificial intelligence intersect with the rule of law? 21:00 - How do machines learn? 24:00 - Benefits of machine learning and immigration. 27:00 - Ways to improve transparency. 41:00 - Artificial intelligence providing reasons for refusals.

A discussion about the increasing use of artificial intelligence to decide immigration applications. Mario Bellissimo is a Canadian immigration lawyer in Toronto, and the former past Chair of the Canadian Bar Association's National Immigration Law Section. 4:00 How imprecise wording in the forms can result in misrepresentation findings where immigration becomes a game of gotcha. 10:30 How the laws of procedural fairness and discretion will need to be re-written as a result of the implementation of artificial intelligence and predicative learning in immigration systems. 13:30 How using AI to triage applications is itself a form of automated decision making and why is there a lack of transparency about this? 19:25 The history of the introduction of AI at IRCC. 28:20 What is Chinook and ? 36:00 How processing delays can lead to applications being denied simply because they are moot. 39:00 How does one learn what AI is being used or whether a decision was made by AI? 44:45 If AI flags a file as being problematic does that create a proxy decision wherein a visa officer will want to affirm the AI. 55:00 Is it possible that AI will lead to a better immigration system as the AI will be able to thoroughly scan applications that humans have to skim given the limited number of decision makers and the large number of applications. 1:03 AI as counsel 1:13 The future. When AI analyzes the social media of a representative when assessing their client's application.

Carl Brault worked for almost twenty years at the Canada Border Services Agency. His roles included Border Services Officer, Intelligence Analyst and Inland Enforcement Officer. He currently provides consultation services to authorized immigration representatives and can be reached at cb-advisingservices@outlook.com. 3:00 Working as a summer student as a Border Services Officer. 6:30 September 11, 2011 9:50 What kind of training does a CBSA officer receive before they start working at the border? 18:10 Working as a CBSA Intelligence Analyst 21:30 Working as an Inland Enforcement Officer 25:00 Is CBSA understaffed or overstaffed? 28:30 Level of autonomy officers have in deferral requests. 38:30 What should lawyers or individuals do when making deferral of removal requests? 42:30 The ability of CBSA to make positive decisions by not acting. 48:30 What is the difference in culture across different offices? 51:15 What are examples of where counsel harms their clients cause at CBSA? 54:00 Do CBSA officers care about how lawyers are dressed? 56:30 Has the attitude towards removals at CBSA regarding removals gotten more rigid? 1:05:00 Do CBSA officers want more discretion when it comes to removals

Sarah Runyon is a criminal defense lawyer on Vancouver Island. 3:00 What is sexual assault? 5:30 Is all sex between an employer and employee deemed to be non consensual? 6:00 Why was sexual assault separated from general assault? Is rape a distinct offence from sexual assault? Are there degrees of sexual assault? 7:30 If someone is at a nightclub and they start dancing with another person without their consent does that fit the definition of sexual assault? 15:00 Evidentiary issues. 16:30 Often the criminal defense bar wants judges to have a wide discretion in terms of what they can consider. Is this the same in the case of sexual assault? 21:00 Does the maxim “it is better that five guilty people go free than one innocent person go to jail.” Is the legal system moving away from this in sexual assault? 27:00 Is a restorative justice approach better than the current criminal justice system? 28:45 Can sexual assault be verbal? 33:00 Is revenge porn sexual assault? 34:00 Is there a statutory limitation on sexual assault? 35:00 Is being drunk a defense to sexual assault? 44:00 If someone is drunk are they capable of consent? 48:30 How does one determine whether the complainant was intoxicated? 51:00 How does one show an honest but reasonable belief as to consent? 1:03 How does the “beyond a reasonable doubt” onus work in sexual assault cases that are “he-said she said”. 1:10 Trial by jury or judge.

A discussion of the 2021 immigration platforms of the Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Greens, Bloc Quebecois and the People's Party of Canada. Chantal Desloges is the Founder and Senior Partner of Desloges Law Group.

Cristina Guida is a senior associate lawyer with Green and Spiegel LLP in Toronto. We discuss authorization to work in Canada without a work permit, including business visitors, students, perfroming artists, maintained status, the global skills strategy and other categories. We also discuss what Canada's immigration department continues to be "work."

Marina Sedai is an immigration lawyer and the past National Chair of the Canadian Bar Association Immigration Section, a role that she served in from 2018 – 2019, and is also a past provincial char of the CBABC Immigration Law Section. We discuss various myths about Canadian immigration law, including: * Refugees get more financial help than pensioners. & Foreign nationals immigrate and then bring their whole extended family over. *If including your spouse or common-law partner on your permanent resident application is inconvenient or unhelpful to your immigration process then you can exclude them and later sponsor them. * Volunteering isn't work. * If my kid is born in Canada then my H&C application is guaranteed to succeed.

We discuss how mandamus applications work. Adrienne Smith is a Partner at Battista Smith Migration Law Group. 2:00 Does filing mandamus applications annoy Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada? 5:30 Has there been a change in the frequency with which mandamus applications are considered? 13:30 During COVID-19 is there a difference in filing a mandamus application between online and paper applications? 18:00 What is a mandamus application? 26:00 What is the legal test for a mandamus application? 49:00 During COVID-19 when a visa office is largely closed would you still file a mandamus demand letter? 55:00 Missed opportunities during COVID-19.

We discuss issues involving the deportation of long term permanent residents for criminality. 5:45 - What are the grounds for deporting a permanent resident for criminality? 13:00 - How does the appeal process work? 17:00 - What are the factors in deportation. 19:00 - An overview of the history of the law involving the deportation of permanent residents. 26:00 - What is the probability of success for a permanent resident in avoiding deportation once proceedings start? 36:00 - Stays of removal 41:00 - Strategies and tips for responding to procedural fairness letters involving removal. Michael Greene, Q.C. is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. He served as the National Chair of the Canadian Bar Association's Citizenship & Immigration Section in 2000-2001. He is representing Jaskirat Singh Sidhu in his immigration and deportation matters.

Hilary Evans Cameron is an Assistant Professor at Ryerson Law. Prior to become a faculty member, Hilary represented refugee claimants for a decade. She is the author of Refugee Law’s Fact-finding Crisis: Truth, Risk, and the Wrong Mistake. Her paper on risk salience in refugee decisions that we discuss can be found here. She is also the creator of www.meetgary.ca, a website which provides guidance to both decision makers and asylum claimants on the implicit biases and thought processes that can influence decision makers. She provides training to the Immigration and Refugee Board on this topic. 3:00 The two strong pulls in the law of how a decision maker should make a decision in a refugee hearing that impacts risk salience. 7:00 Can a decision maker ever be truly neutral? 11:00 Does the fact that the refugee process starts with a removal order “set things up” for strict scrutiny? Plus how politicians can influence error preference. 18:30 Refugee acceptance rates have increased recently. Is this a result of new decision makers or the same decision makers applying different maxims. Can someone’s risk salience approach change over time? 22:00 The non legal things that can influence decision makers. 26:30 Studies on accuracy in credibility and how risk salience follows. 30:00 Should decision makers make their biases explicit? 36:30 What is the fear that people have of refugee claimants? 43:01 The illusion of transparency. “The idea that truth will shine through.” 44:30 The myth that a memory is like a video recording. 46:00 The myth that a refugee claimant will never take unnecessary risks. 47:15 The myth of once a liar always a liar. 48:80 The maxim of the perfect applicant. 52:00 The maxim of “our expectations were clear.” 1:01 The inconsistency between standards in refugee law and trauma theory. 1:04 Hillary’s working with the IRB 1:15 Have any IRB members told Hillary that who the representative is can impact how they view the claim? 1:21 When should you admit a past lie?

Dennis McCrea was the founder of McCrea Immigration Law. He started practicing immigration law in 1974, and was one of the original members of Vancouver's immigration bar. In this episode we discuss how to build an immigration practice, how the practice of immigration law has evolved, avoiding burnout and more. 3:00 How lawyers use to interact with visa officers. 6:00 The formation of the immigration bar. 11:30 Thoughts on whether it is possible to have both a corporate immigration practice and a refugee or enforcement practice. 15:30 Did the practice of immigration law become more or less fun over time? 18:00 What kept Dennis motivated when it came to practicing immigration law? 22:30 What type of cases did Dennis enjoy the most? 26:00 What are some tools that lawyers can use to prevent burnout? 41:00 Did the practice of immigration law vary depending on which political party were in power? 42:00 How to retire. 45:00 How can junior lawyers who are trying to build a practice have time for hobbies? 48:00 How Steven and Deanna got into immigration. 58:00 Growing a firm. 1:03:00 Should you article at an immigration law firm. 1:06:00 Being too specialized. 1:13:00 What percent of Dennis’s practice was immigration processing, firm management and enforcement? 1:16:30 Thoughts on consultants. 1:19:00 Are decisions getting better or worse? Are boilerplate refusals becoming more or less common?

Joshua Sohn practiced immigration law for over 25 years. He is a past president of the Canadian Bar Association’s Immigration section. He worked both as a sole practicioner, at a small firm and at a big 4 accounting firm. We discuss Joshua’s career, what made him go to law school, whether he took immigration courses in law school, how he started in refugee law, differences between working as a solo practicioner, small firm and eventually at a big 4 accounting firm, and then back to a small firm, differences working in a downtown core vs suburb, and managing the stress of practicing immigration law and running a business. There are a lot of nuggets in here for aspiring lawyers and current practicioners. 2:00 Quitting social media after retirement. 9:00 Law school 14:00 Articles 17:30 Are there any courses or law schools that are best to help someone start a career in immigration? 19:30 Starting a career in refugee law. 22:30 Is it possible to make a viable practice just doing refugee law? 29:00 The law firm as training ground. 32:00 Practicing as a sole practitioner vs at a large firm. 35:30 Does it make sense for someone to do just immigration law or should people getting into the field specialize in another area as well? 37:00 Practicing immigration law in Vancouver vs. Surrey 41:00 Compassion vs. running a business 42:00 How IRCC’s current processes create new pressures on immigration solicitors. 49:00 The Big 4 accounting firms and immigration. 53:00 Mentorship and volunteerism. 1:01 Tips to tell a co-worker who leaves half-drunk coffee cups around. 1:03 Self-care for lawyers.

A discussion of the philosophy behind economic immigration, how Canada ranks economic immigrants, Ministerial Instructions and listener Q&A. Ashal Kaushal is an Assistant Professor at the University of British Columbia's Allard School of Law, where she teaches, amongst other courses, Immigration Law. 6:00 An introduction to Canada’s points system, how Express Entry changed it and Ministerial Instructions. 14:30 The three models of economic immigration. The Human Capital Model, the Demand-Driven Model and the Neo-Corporatist Model 22:00 How the same job offer can be worth different points depending on the immigration program. 28:30 Is it possible to qualify the value of a prospective economic immigrant through their job? 32:00 Why are the points what they are? Why would a job offer go from 600 to 200 / 50, for example? How did the change from Conservative to Liberal government change? 37:30 A ranking system based on wage. 44:00 Ministerial Instructions Listener Questions 55:30 How long will Express Entry last before they bring in a whole new system? 1:00 Should there be country caps on economic immigration? Will India remain the top source country of immigrants? 1:06 What, if anything, should be done about how the federal and provincial governments have economic immigration programs that target the same “high skilled” people? 1:16 Should Canada bring back the Immigrant Investor Program? 1:24 If you could make one change to Express Entry or economic immigration what would it be?

A discussion of when someone can be inadmissible to Canada for having committed a crime which doesn’t lead to a conviction. Cases referenced are Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 141 and Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 59 Sania (Ahmed) Chaudhry was counsel in Garcia. She is currently Legal Counsel (Professional Conduct Proceedings) at Real Estate Council of Alberta. 2:00 Introduction and an overview of Garcia v. Canada. 15:00 The purpose of Canada’s inadmissibility provisions. 17:10 What is the standard of proof for determining that someone committed a crime where there is no conviciton? 19:45 A review of Enforcement Manual 2 30:30 Determining equivalency and issues with inadmissibility findings where there is no conviction. 39:30 Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 46:00 Living in a society where the State makes everything a crime.

A discussion of s. 34(1)(f) of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which provides that a foreign national or permanent resident is inadmissible for being the member of an organization that has committed terrorism. Topics include how terrorism, organization and membership are defined, the Proud Boys, QAnon and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. 5:45 What is terrorism under Canadian immigration legislation? 9:45 What is an organization? 15:30 What does it mean to be a “member?” 19:00 The Bangladesh Nationalist Party 29:00 Would Nelson Mandela be encompassed? 30:45 Should only organizations that are officially designated by the government render someone inadmissible? 39:39 The Ministerial relief process. 47:35 Jose Figuerora 53:45 Could someone being a QAnon adherent make them inadmissible to Canada? 1:00 Does the designation of the Proud Boys broaden what could result in inadmissibility due to terrorism? 1:03 Could the leader of a party calling for an insurrection lead to all members of that organization being inadmissible for being a member of an organization which has committed terrorism? 1:05 What about antifa? The Republican Party? 1:13 Would it be misrepresentation to not declare one’s being a QAnon adherent in the IMM5669?

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 3 was a landmark Supreme Court of Canada which affirmed the use of the Ribic factors in the H&C assessment. We discuss these factors and how they are used in immigration appeals. 1:00 How the assessment of Humanitarian & Compassionate considerations has become somewhat nebulus. 4:00 A case study of Chieu v. Canada 10:00 What is an example of a negative country condition in someone’s country of citizenship? 13:00 The decision and principles in Chieu. 15:00 The Federal Court of Canada in Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 927, which seems to limit Chieu. 16:00 The Ribic factors and the types of immigration appeals. 20:00 How much weight each factor should get. 25:00 Stories about our appeals. 32:00 The remorse factor and flexibility. 45:00 The counter arguments to considering country of citizenship conditions. 50:00 Consents on appeal.

A discussion about responding to procedural fairness letters with digressions on possible bias against people from Punjab, unreasonable documentation requests, tunnel vision amongst visa officers, how if an officer goes out looking for misrepresentation in an application they will probably find it, aggressively banning people from Canada as a deterrance policy, IRCC misleading Parliament about whether it bounces applications for incompleteness and more. Raj Sharma is a Partner at Stewart Sharma Harsanyi in Calgary. 2:30 When does IRCC have to send a procedural fairness letter vs. being able to refuse an application without one? 15:00 Specific issues with the Canadian visa offices in New Delhi and Chandigarh. 21:00 Racialized assessments of visa applications. 23:00 Why hunting for misrep can lead to misrep findings. 25:00 Misrepresentation as a deterrence policy. 35:00 Is there a specific focus on Punjabs? 44:00 Can you tell if someone is lying as soon as you meet them at the start of an interview? 46:00 Preet Bharara on investigations 50:00 When IRCC believes that a job is fake because no employer would wait as long as IRCC’s processing times to fill a position. 1:00 Procedural fairness letters in the citizenship revocation process. 1:06 Litigation as a way to achieve policy reform. 1:15 Procedural fairness and the bouncing of applications.

This episode is about the concept of a universal basic income and how it would work in Canada. We are joined by Sheila Regehr and Sameer Nurmohamed of Basic Income Canada Network. We discuss which type of immigrants (permanent residents, workers, students, asylum claimants, people without status) etc. would be eligible, whether a basic income would impact other public funding for services like legal aid, whether it would cause inflation, and more. 5:30 What are different models of universal basic income? 9:00 How is the amount of basic income calculated? 10:45 What was the Ontario pilot project? 12:45 In practice is there a difference between an income guarantee model and a flat-payment model? 14:30 Do wealthy people get the same payment and benefit under a universal basic income? 15:30 How would a universal basic income be funded? 23:45 Would a universal basic income replace other services like legal aid? 28:25 A review of Motion 46 - GUARANTEED LIVABLE BASIC INCOME 30:35 Would international students, foreign workers, permanent residents, asylum claimants, people without status, etc. be eligible to receive a universal basic income? 42:00 What would the labour market interaction be with a universal basic income in terms of its impact on wages? 45:00 Would immigrants abuse a universal basic income system? 47:30 How have the impacts of the CERB impacted peoples’ perspectives on how a universal basic income would work? 56:00 Would a guaranteed basic income cause inflation or people gauging marginalized individuals? 1:03 Where can people learn more?

Sergio Marchi was Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration from 1993-1995. 3:00 – Does someone keep the Minister title their whole life? 4:50 – What was the political consensus regarding Canadian immigration at the end of the 1980s? How did the Reform Party impact things? 8:00 – The mix of immigrants between economic, family and humanitarian immigrants. 11:15 – What dictates whether IRCC meets its level targets? 14:30 – The Brian Mulroney government was considering moving immigration under Public Safety. Under Sergio Marchi it instead became it’s on Ministry. What prompted this? 17:30 – Canadian attitudes to refugee resettlements and misconceptions. 20:45 – Sources of resistance to refugee resettlement. Resettled refugees vs asylum seekers. 23:00 – Changes that Minister Marchi made to the refugee determination process. 25:00 – What was Minister Marchi’s approach to intervening on specific cases? When would Minister Marchi help Members of Parliament on constituent files? Did it matter which political party the MP was from? 32:00 – The impact of a police officer who was shot by an illegal immigrant on deportation policy. 36:00 – Whether the Canada Border Services Agency should be under the immigration umbrella. 37:30 – What Minister Marchi considers to be his main accomplishments and the implementation of the right of landing fee. 45:00 – Minister Marchi’s push to remove the Queen from the citizenship oath.

Syed Farhan Ali shares his Canadian immigration story. During the time that his spousal sponsorship application was in process he was denied temporary entry to Canada, missed the birth of his first child and missed her first steps. He recently arrived in Canada after a three year application process. Chantal Dube is a Spokesperson for Spousal Sponsorship Advocates, a group with more than 5,000 members in Canada that argues for reforms to the family reunification process. 3:15 Said tells the story of his spousal sponsorship application. His application took 34 months to process. During the processing of his application Canada denied his visitor visa applications. He missed the birth of his children and their first steps, although he was able to reunite with his wife during brief trips to the United States, which did grant him a visitor visa. 21:00 We discuss the refusal of temporary resident visas for people with spousal sponsorship applications in process, people with frequent travel histories, people with American multiple entry visas, and judicial reviews. 25:00 How long a judicial review takes. 29:50 Assessing genuineness in a spousal sponsorship application, and the distinction between “low risk and high risk” in the checklists. 33:00 The strange quirk in the Family Class where people have to prove that their relationship is genuine but immigrants and foreign workers do not. The same is true for work permits, where the spouses of Canadians cannot apply for work permits from abroad, but the spouses of foreign workers can. 38:00 What are major issues that Sponsorship Advocates seeing? 39:45 What things can trigger genuineness concerns? 45:00 Processing times and approval rates. 55:00 Preventing abuse. 1:03 Is an overzealous hunt for marriage fraud in individual applications the solution to marriage fraud, or are there other measures that can be taken?

The Honourable Chris Alexander served as Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada from July 2013 to November 2015. He represented the riding of Ajax—Pickering in the House of Commons of Canada from 2011 to 2015. Prior to that spent 18 years in the Canadian Foreign Service, serving as Canada's first resident Ambassador to Afghnistan from 2003 - 2005. Subsequent to being an Member of Parliament he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Mr. Alexander presided over the launch of Express Entry, the termination of the Immigrant Investor Program and the introduction of the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which prohibited forced and underaged marriages. 5:09 – If there was one misconception about Canadian immigration law that Minister Alexander would like to change what would it be? 15:00 – Bill C-24 and the revocation of citizenship for dual nationals convicted of high crimes. 16:00 – Whether there was a strong anti-fraud and anti-exploitation mandate during Minister Alexander’s time as Minister. 22:00 – Combatting forced marriages. 23:00 – Preventing foreign worker abuse by sanctioning the employers who abuse them. 26:00 – The Barbaric Cultural Practices Act 36:45 – Ending the Immigrant Investor Program 41:45 – Entrepreneurial immigration and self-employed program. 49:00 – Points inflation in Express Entry and the increased demand for Canadian immigration. 52:30 – The launch of Express Entry 55:30 – Moving towards online applications 57:15 – What it was like following Jason Kenney as immigration minister, and the challenges posed, if any, by Jason Kenney retaining the multiculturism portfolio, as well the immigration minister sharing immigration responsibilities with HRDC and the Minister of Public Safety. 1:02 – The role the Prime Minister’s Office played with immigration. 1:05 – Mr. Alexander’s immigration platform when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada in which he called for an increase in immigration, and whether he pushed this view when he was Minister. 1:10 – The importance of Canadian immigration and populism. 1:15 – Open work permits on demand for people from visa exempt countries. 1:18 – The need for immigration to adapt to changing circumstances and system racism. 1:22 – When Minister Alexander would intervene on specific files. 1:25 – If Minister Alexander were giving advice to a future Minister of Immigration what would the advice be?

The Honourable John McCallum served as Canada's Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada from November 2015 to January 2017. A Member of Parliament from 2000 - 2017, he also served as Defence Minister under Jean Chrétien, and Veterans Affairs Minister, National Revenue Minister, Natural Resources Minister and as Chair of the Expenditure Review Committee under Paul Martin. As Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship in Justin Trudeau’s cabinet, Mr. McCallum led Canada's effort to welcome 25,000 Syrian refugees over a period of three months. He also increased the age of dependency from 18-22, repealed conditional permanent residency and reduced family class processing times. 5:00 – The resettlement of 40,000 refugees in Canada. 22:00 – The division of immigration repsonsibilities between IRCC, CBSA and ESDC. Should they be combined? 28:00 – What goes into reducing processing times. 33:00 – Abolishing conditional permanent residence. 39:00 – Mr. McCallum’s approach to being immigration critic towards the end of the Harper era. 42:30 – The Barbaric Cultural Practices Act and the Niqab ban. 44:00 – Caregivers 48:00 – Helping as Minister on individual files. 54:00 – What goes into levels planning?