Podcasts about canada citizenship

On Episode 20 of Not Reserving Judgment, Josh tells us about some thugs who threatened him and how police initially refused to help, and Christine explains why the Federal Court seems to have gotten it wrong by upholding the refusal of a Chinese student's study visa over espionage concerns.Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:Woman dead after Thunder Bay police don't respond to domestic disturbance call: SIUVancouver police set to become highest-paid officers in Canada under tentative deal, union saysFederal Court expands definition of espionage in decision to bar Chinese student from CanadaIssue #119: January 7, 2024 of The Sunday Evening Administrative Review Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1753 (CanLII)Canadian Taxpayers Federation loses appeal of $6K fine over anti-carbon tax billboardsKelowna mayor and council disavow councillor's column opining on global and local politicsRon Cannan: My predictions for Kelowna, BC and the world in 2024Not Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.

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.

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.

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?

On this week's episode of Welcome Home, join our hosts as they sit down with Steven Meurrens, partner at Larlee and Rosenberg and host of the Borderlines podcast, for a fascinating review of the top Federal Court cases from 2021 and their implications on your day-to-day immigration practice. We begin with two cases that impact practitioners representing clients facing allegations of misrepresentation and criminal inadmissibility. ·Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021, FC 959 on flagpoling and misrepresentation by omission at ports of entry into Canada ·Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mason, 2021 FCA 156 on expanding the scope of S.34 of the IRPA As Canada's immigration backlog approaches 2 million applicants, Chantal, Cathryn, and Steven, review some new federal court cases dealing with mandamus applications during COVID-19. ·Almuhtadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 712 ·Aguirre v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 678 How do you talk about legal fees with your clients? In this episode's segment of “What I Wish I Knew,” Chantal and Cathryn discuss their best practices for law firm billing. They discuss the importance of being confident in your worthwhile maintaining trust in lawyer-client relationships. Special Guest: Steven Meurrens is a senior partner of the Larlee and Rosenberg Immigration Law Firm in Vancouver and host of the Borderlines podcast. Explicit content rating due to coarse language.

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.

Chantal and Cathryn welcome immigration lawyer, Adrienne Smith as they discuss the evolution of family class sponsorship in Canadian immigration law. What constitutes a family under Canada's immigration law? Learn about the current barriers to family reunification and how they impact the rights of minorities, such as the LGBTQ2+ community. They examine recent developments from the Federal Court and the growing role of technology in immigration decision-making. Our guest sheds light on her best practices for asking your clients the tough questions to verify authenticity of relationships and the importance of moving beyond the checklist requirements during the immigration process. On this episode's segment of “What I Wish I Knew,” Chantal discusses the importance of self-confidence and taking advantages of opportunities while Cathryn discloses her secrets to effective leadership and making tough decisions. Other topics include: AP v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 906. Social media and authenticating relationships. Effective support letters and sponsorship applications. Partner disagreements as proof of a genuine relationship. Building trust and relationships with colleagues. Special Guest: Adrienne Smith a founding partner of the Battista Smith Migration Law Group and the co-author of Family Class Sponsorship in Canadian Immigration Law. Adrienne is an expert in immigration law, policy, advocacy, with specialization in medical inadmissibility and LGBTQ2+ immigration issues. Explicit content rating due to coarse language.

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.

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.

Today we have a newly released decision, and the podcast's first Immigration decision! We bring you AP v Canada, where a Federal Court judge found that couples in a mixed orientation relationship could still qualify as being in a conjugal relationship for the purposes of immigration. Before Karly takes you through the decision, Z and K chat immigration, inferences, and legal bright line rules. Legal Listening - Where Audio Obiter is Our Thing! Link to decision: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc906/2020fc906.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQANIjIwMjAgRkMgOTA2IgAAAAAB&resultIndex=1 Check us out at legallistening.com, look for us on CanLii connects, find us on twitter @legallistening or email us at legallistening@gmail.com While you're here, check out our team! Julie Lundy: https://www.julielundyart.com/ Rad & Kel: https://www.radandkell.com/ Remember we're always looking for guest readers to come on the podcast. Have a decision you love? Want to see it recorded? Reach out!

Meet Skyler, a former refugee claimant who made a claim for protection in Canada because she feared for her life as a lesbian in the United States Army. In this conversation, we talk about what it feels like to go through the refugee determination system at the Immigration and Refugee Board, and the Federal Court of Canada. For more information about her case, you can read Smith v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1194.

Vavilov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)is a 2019 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada outlined a new framework for the standard of review in Canadian administrative law.

Jamie Chai Yun Liew is a law professor at University of Ottawa and an immigration lawyer. She acted for the Canadian Council for Refugees as intervener before the Supreme Court of Canada in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration). Jamie, Peter, Deanna and Steven discusses humanitarian & compassionate considerations in Canadian immigration law, including the Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Baker and Kanthasamy. We also discussed Regulation 117(9)(d), which excludes unexamined family members from future sponsorship, and the recently announced pilot to mitigate the impact of this exclusion.

Marshall Rothstein served as a Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from 2006 - 2015. He previously was a Judge on the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal. Garth Barriere is a criminal defence attorney in Vancouver. He was counsel in Khosa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration, a major Supreme Court of Canada immigration decision in which Justice Rothstein wrote a concurring opinion. In this episode Justice Rothstein provides tips for written and oral advocacy. While the focus is on appellate litigation, anyone interesting in strengthening their advocacy skills will benefit from what he has to say. We also discuss the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Khosa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), and its impact on administrative law in Canada. It is a frank conversation.

www.CanadianImmigrationPodcast.com Are you currently outside of Canada needing to extend an expiring PR Card? Are you concerned about the very real possibility of losing your Canadian PR status? If you answered yes to either of these questions, this Episode of the Canadian Immigration Podcast is for you. In this episode, Canadian immigration lawyer, Robert Leong joined me to examine this topic in detail. He shared some great insight on why complying with IRCC's periodic request to apply for a Permanent Resident Travel Document, can create some unexpected and harsh consequences. This is one you will not want to miss! [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadianimmigrationpodcast/CIP_S2_E12.mp3" social="true" social_twitter="true" social_facebook="true" social_gplus="true" social_linkedin="true" ] It was great to have Robert join me again to discuss another great Canadian immigration topic. To learn more about Robert and how he got into immigration in the first place, check out the interview I did with him in Season 1 Episode 31 where we talked about challenges with the LMIA advertising requirements. In this Episode, Robert builds on the previous interview I did with Canadian immigration lawyer Chantal Desloges in Season 2 Episode 3 on "Retaining Permanent Resident Status". Robert shares some extremely valuable insight on the dangers of following a visa officer's instructions to apply for a Permanent Resident Travel Document to return to Canada when an application has already been submitted to extend an expired PR Card.......listen in to learn what Robert has to say! In this Episode we covered the following specific topics: Overview of PR residency obligations Exemptions to the 2 in 5 rule PR Card processing delays Why you should be concerned when IRCC tells you to apply for a PRTD Tips for extending your PR Card if living outside of Canada [Tweet "Tips for Extending your PR Card when outside Canada"] Additional Resources: The best way to reach Robert: E-mail: info@canadavisalaw.com Phone Number: (604) 875-9338 Robert's law firm: Lowe and Company: http://www.canadavisalaw.com/ OP 10 Section 5.1 (Old Manual): www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op10-eng.pdf Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1471: http://bit.ly/2wVUHH8 Listen to Mark Holthe's Canadian Immigration Podcast [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadianimmigrationpodcast/CIP_S2_E12.mp3" social="true" social_twitter="true" social_facebook="true" social_gplus="true" social_linkedin="true" ] Topics for our Next Podcast [reminder]If you have a suggestion for topics we could cover in the Podcast, please drop me a line. If you know of anyone that would be interested in coming on the Podcast as a guest, please send them my way. share on facebook, share on twitter, share on LinkedIn[/reminder] Binge on all of our Canadian Immigration Podcast Episodes! If you want to listen to more episodes, you will find all the episodes here. Subscribe to the Canadian Immigration Podcast If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe. If you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a brief review. That would help tremendously in getting the word out and raising the visibility of the show. Share the Love

www.CanadianImmigrationPodcast.com Are you currently outside of Canada needing to extend an expiring PR Card? Are you concerned about the very real possibility of losing your Canadian PR status? If you answered yes to either of these questions, this Episode of the Canadian Immigration Podcast is for you. In this episode, Canadian immigration lawyer, Robert Leong joined me to examine this topic in detail. He shared some great insight on why complying with IRCC's periodic request to apply for a Permanent Resident Travel Document, can create some unexpected and harsh consequences. This is one you will not want to miss! [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadianimmigrationpodcast/CIP_S2_E12.mp3" social="true" social_twitter="true" social_facebook="true" social_gplus="true" social_linkedin="true" ] It was great to have Robert join me again to discuss another great Canadian immigration topic. To learn more about Robert and how he got into immigration in the first place, check out the interview I did with him in Season 1 Episode 31 where we talked about challenges with the LMIA advertising requirements. In this Episode, Robert builds on the previous interview I did with Canadian immigration lawyer Chantal Desloges in Season 2 Episode 3 on "Retaining Permanent Resident Status". Robert shares some extremely valuable insight on the dangers of following a visa officer's instructions to apply for a Permanent Resident Travel Document to return to Canada when an application has already been submitted to extend an expired PR Card.......listen in to learn what Robert has to say! In this Episode we covered the following specific topics: Overview of PR residency obligations Exemptions to the 2 in 5 rule PR Card processing delays Why you should be concerned when IRCC tells you to apply for a PRTD Tips for extending your PR Card if living outside of Canada [Tweet "Tips for Extending your PR Card when outside Canada"] Additional Resources: The best way to reach Robert: E-mail: info@canadavisalaw.com Phone Number: (604) 875-9338 Robert's law firm: Lowe and Company: http://www.canadavisalaw.com/ OP 10 Section 5.1 (Old Manual): www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op10-eng.pdf Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1471: http://bit.ly/2wVUHH8 Listen to Mark Holthe's Canadian Immigration Podcast [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadianimmigrationpodcast/CIP_S2_E12.mp3" social="true" social_twitter="true" social_facebook="true" social_gplus="true" social_linkedin="true" ] Topics for our Next Podcast [reminder]If you have a suggestion for topics we could cover in the Podcast, please drop me a line. If you know of anyone that would be interested in coming on the Podcast as a guest, please send them my way. share on facebook, share on twitter, share on LinkedIn[/reminder] Binge on all of our Canadian Immigration Podcast Episodes! If you want to listen to more episodes, you will find all the episodes here. Subscribe to the Canadian Immigration Podcast If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe. If you enjoyed the show, please rate it on iTunes and write a brief review. That would help tremendously in getting the word out and raising the visibility of the show. Share the Love

In the 2nd episode of Borderlines, Jennifer Bond joined Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss refugee resettlement and ensuring that legislation is Charter compliant. Jennifer Bond is a professor at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law, and is also a Special Advisor to Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship. Jennifer sat on the founding national executive of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) and is founder and current co-director of the University of Ottawa’s Refugee Assistance Project (UORAP), a multi-year, national initiative aimed at mitigating and researching the access to justice implications of Canada’s new refugee legislation. She is also the Faculty Coordinator of the University of Ottawa’s Refugee Hub, supervisor of the Refugee Law Research Team (RLRT), and a member of the Public Law Group. 00:26 - 21:31- We discuss international refugee resettlement law. Specific topics include whether countries are obligated to resettle refugees, Canada's commitment to resettle 25,000 Syrian refugees, and the role private sponsorship programs in the global refugee resettlement effort. Jennifer also explained the security screening that Canada undertakes when it resettles refugees, and how this security process compares to Canada's other immigration streams. Finally, we asked Jennifer for her take on what we discussed last week, which is in the wake of the BREXIT vote, the asylum crisis in Europe, the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the United States, and now the coup in Turkey, whether Canada can continue to buck global trends and remain a nation that loudly announces its intentions to continue to welcome a record number of immigrants and refugees. 21:31 - 35:50 - We discuss Jennifer's 2014 paper titled "Failure to Report: The Manifestly Unconstitutional Nature of the Human Smugglers Act," as well as the ongoing case involving the whistleblower Edgar Schmidt, who sued the Department of Justice for allegedly failing to report to Parliament whether new laws might be so inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms they would trigger constitutional challenges. 35:50 - 39:47 - Peter and I discuss the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration's current exploration of Immigration Measures for the Protection of Vulnerable Groups. I pose the question of how history will judge us if, in the interests of not being seen to favour one group of refugee claimants over others, that group faces a similar result to the Jewish people during World War 2. 39:47 - 42:50 - Peter Edelmann and I discuss the recent misrepresentation decision in Lamsen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration). There, the Federal Court affirmed that a visa application must be considered in its totality and that applications cannot be compartmentalized, particularly when making a finding of misrepresentation carries such serious consequences. 42:50 - 46:20 - The Government of Canada is currently proposing changes to NEXUS eligibility and what will lead to the cancellation of a NEXUS card. After providing an overview of the changes, we discuss how Canadians may soon be privileged travellers domestically within the United States. 46:20 - 49:30 - We wrap up by discussing the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., and what it means for the ongoing standard of review debate.

In this introductory episode the three of us discuss recent developments in Canadian immigration law, as well as some recent news items and a specific case. 00:30 – 8:39 – We discuss how immigration policy in general has changed under the Liberal government, with a specific emphasis on the Liberal’s repealing the portions of Bill C-24 which revoked the Canadian citizenship of certain individuals convicted of certain offences related to national security. 8:39 – 19:03 – The conversation shifts to Donald Trump, BREXIT, and whether Canada under the Liberal government is bucking an international trend towards increased protectionism. 19:03 – 25:06 – In discussing immigration policy under the new Liberal government, we note that unlike under the Conservatives, where Jason Kenney seemed to be directly or indirectly responsible for all government departments related to immigration law, the Liberals are providing autonomy to the Ministers of each Ministry, and what impact that this may have. 25:06 – 38:50 – Peter Edelmann leads off a discussion on Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s current consultations regarding immigration levels planning in Canada. The discussion becomes a very philosophical one about whether centralised planning is necessary, what Canada’s population should be, and how Canada attempts to meticulously control permanent resident numbers while at the same time does not have an overall plan for how many temporary residents are admitted. 38:50 – 41:25 – Steven Meurrens provides a case summary of Sendwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 216. In this decision the Federal Court greatly broadened the ability of Canadian permanent residents and citizens to sponsor their relatives. Canadian immigration law provides that a relative of a sponsor, regardless of age, can be sponsored by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, if that sponsor does not have a spouse, a common-law partner, a conjugal partner, a child, a mother or father, a relative who is a child of that mother or father, a relative who is a child of a child of that mother or father, a mother or father of that mother or father or a relative who is a child of the mother or father of that mother or father. Traditionally IRCC interpreted this as requiring that the Canadian sponsor not have a living spouse, child, parent, grandparent, etc. However, the Federal Court clarified that this is too stringent, and instead stated that the law only requires that the Canadian sponsor not have a sponsorable child, parent, grandparent, etc. The distinction will likely be important for Canadians who either do not meet the income requirements for the parents and grandparents program, or whose parents may be medically inadmissible. 41:25 – 53:16 – Deanna Okun-Nachoff comments on how John McCallum, Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, recently committed to “getting rid of silly rules.” She discusses some of the rules that she finds silly, including the Temporary Resident Permits issued to victims of human trafficking, and numerous quirks of Express Entry.