Podcasts about refugee board

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. Kate's career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers' Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).Further Reading:Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen LabKate Robertson Chapters:00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the BillAdam Sadinsky Chapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsPart 1: Kate RobertsonNate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:01Kate, thanks for joining me.Kate Robertson00:01-00:01Thanks for having me.Nate Erskine-Smith00:02-00:15So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you're a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?Kate Robertson00:16-01:00Well, it's an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it's published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it's also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.Nate Erskine-Smith01:01-02:50That's a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it's called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it's 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we're enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You're not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we're making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You've, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you've written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada's potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we're having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we'll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.Kate Robertson02:51-06:15Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we're seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we're really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that's right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada's sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?Nate Erskine-Smith06:16-07:46Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they're masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he's a congressman. He's saying, identify yourself. What's your ID? What's your badge number? They're hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they're refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they're willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don't have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that's the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn't the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn't we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think thatKate Robertson07:47-09:54there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you're commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we're seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you'll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that's something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they'll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada's borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.Nate Erskine-Smith09:56-10:21And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you're just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don't love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by AmericanKate Robertson10:22-12:43officials. Well, you know, it's always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens' tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada's Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that's taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what's happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it's not going to go anywhere good. And that's a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they're proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that's actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it's possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we're literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.Nate Erskine-Smith12:44-13:29And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don't love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it's a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that's a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don't have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.Kate Robertson13:31-14:56You're right to raise that example. I raise it. It's a really important one. It's one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it's not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that's received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person's life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there's a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it's provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who's quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.Nate Erskine-Smith14:57-16:07And when it comes to the, what we're really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There's also, I got to go to the notes because it's so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it's a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn't fully appreciate this until going through that. And I'd be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you've already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn't fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there's... Until reading your paper, I didn't know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.Kate Robertson16:09-17:01That's right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it's also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that's really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper's government.Nate Erskine-Smith17:02-17:04He's come a long way.Kate Robertson17:07-18:12I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that's not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.Nate Erskine-Smith18:12-19:15So this is, I guess, one struggle. There's the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we're going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it's six pages when I print it out. And it doesn't make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn't make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn't make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn't make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it shouldKate Robertson19:15-19:57be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they're at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.Nate Erskine-Smith19:59-20:57What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we're going to, there's the objective of the bill, and then there's the details of the bill, and we're going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it's an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don't know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?Kate Robertson20:58-21:59Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it's obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it's clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparencyNate Erskine-Smith22:00-22:05about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If thisKate Robertson22:05-24:57is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it's a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i'm able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it's hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we're at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada's oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we've also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it's had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it's had with private sector companies who've been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it's finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It's not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that's been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in theseNate Erskine-Smith24:57-27:07concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you've written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there's another open letter you've signed that's called for the withdrawal of C2, but it's led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who's also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there's really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It's a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.Kate Robertson27:07-28:13Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it's becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it's wrongful arrests, whether it's discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it's not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.Nate Erskine-Smith28:14-28:16I'm sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.Kate Robertson28:16-29:05The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they're being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn't even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it's something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.Nate Erskine-Smith29:05-29:58Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don't do both, then we're not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It's a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?Kate Robertson30:00-30:56I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we're at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don't come out of the air. They're ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we're proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.Nate Erskine-Smith30:57-31:44And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they're recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It's an important piece of legislation. And if it's not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.Kate Robertson31:46-32:02I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:06but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.Part 2: Adam SadinskyChapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsNate Erskine-Smith33:33-33:35Adam, thanks for joining me.Adam Sadinsky33:35-33:36Thanks for having me, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith33:36-33:57We've had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they'll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You've got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?Adam Sadinsky33:57-35:31I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that's one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn't meet the government's goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.Nate Erskine-Smith35:31-35:57Let's talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don't, and I don't wanna pick on international students, but we've seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they've said, well, if someone's been here for a year and they didn't claim right away, they didn't come here to claim asylum. Because they would've claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what's the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.Adam Sadinsky35:57-38:33The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn't initially claim and it didn't initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there's legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would've been safe going back home they didn't have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren't afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.So that's one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn't need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there's a well-established pathway. You'll have a study permit, you'll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it's enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn't go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they're looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I'm gay and I'm from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I'll be tortured. Maybe since they've been in Canada, that person in that example, they've been in a relationship, they've been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn't that person claim refugee protection through regular means?Nate Erskine-Smith38:33-39:06Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they're a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country's falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they've been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?Adam Sadinsky39:06-39:10It's even worse than that, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith39:09-39:10Oh, great.Adam Sadinsky39:10-39:47In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here's who else would be someone comes when they're five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don't need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.Nate Erskine-Smith39:44-39:45Two hours and you're outta luck.Adam Sadinsky39:45-39:47They go back to the USNate Erskine-Smith39:47-39:47Oh man.Adam Sadinsky39:47-40:09They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn't be caught by this bill.Nate Erskine-Smith40:09-40:34Say those are the facts as they are, that's one category. There's another category where I've come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don't really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they've got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claimsAdam Sadinsky40:34-42:46We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You'll not hear from me, you'll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you're saying, oh, let's, let's deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there's a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn't prepared properly.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-42:46Yeah, we see it too. That's a good point.Adam Sadinsky42:46-42:46How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board's backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that's not because the board is super generous. It's because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there's no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn't deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-43:30Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they've been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They're oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They're certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There's, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they've gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn't you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you're approved.Adam Sadinsky43:30-44:20Yeah, I'd add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.Adam Sadinsky44:20-45:05The refugee system is built on Canada's international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that's the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.Nate Erskine-Smith45:05-46:18Yeah, I can't put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they're not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they've been here partly because the process took so long, they've been here for over five years. If you've been here for over five years and you're contributing and you're a member of the community, and now we're gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you're contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I'm sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don't continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don't even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You've been contributing here for six years anyway.Adam Sadinsky46:18-46:33But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what's called a pre-removal risk assessment.Nate Erskine-Smith46:31-46:33They're still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.Adam Sadinsky46:33-46:55They're still gonna have a process, and they're still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we've reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,Nate Erskine-Smith46:53-46:55And we've increased the backlog in the process.Adam Sadinsky46:55-48:25Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I'm sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I'm waiting for my spouse to come and it's taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn't seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that's why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they're appealing with a pro. With this other system, it's different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.Nate Erskine-Smith48:19-48:25You're gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal courtAdam Sadinsky48:25-48:39Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.Nate Erskine-Smith48:39-48:41It's just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.Adam Sadinsky48:41-48:52The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There's no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.Nate Erskine-Smith48:52-49:37In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I've got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don't like. The government could cancel the student's permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?Adam Sadinsky49:37-50:46The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you're reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don't particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that's within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we're gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they're not taking back people being deported. It's hugely problematic. It's a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.Nate Erskine-Smith50:46-51:07And, obviously that's a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today's political climate. But, it's not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?Adam Sadinsky51:07-51:43I just wanna touch, and I'm sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women's shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who's undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I'm not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.Nate Erskine-Smith51:43-52:22That's all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I'm gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it's constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument's gonna be withdrawn, you'll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you've got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I'll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.Adam Sadinsky52:22-52:24Absolutely. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

A new episode of Roqe focused on the plight of recent Iranian immigrants in Canada after a decision by the federal government to roll back its immigration policies that invited millions of newcomers in the last three years. Temporary residents, like international students and work permit holders, are now being told there's no room for them anymore - and this will directly affect many Iranian newcomers. We convene a panel with respected Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant Mehran Aminian and Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant and member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Houshang Lotfi, joining Jian in the Roqe Studio. Plus, Jian kicks off the show with an essay entitled, “Is the Trudeau Government betraying Iranian immigrants?”

Section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) provides foreign nationals who hold a permanent resident visa with the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) against a decision to make a removal order against them made under s. 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing. In March 2018, the appellant, Dorinela Pepa, came to Canada while in possession of a permanent resident visa as an accompanying dependent child of her father. However, before she came to Canada, Ms. Pepa married. On her arrival in Canada, she advised the point of entry officer of her marriage. Because of the change in her circumstances, Ms. Pepa was admitted for further examination and was not landed. The further examination occurred in the next month, followed by two reports under s. 44 of the IRPA. An admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division (“ID”) of the Immigration and Refugee Board commenced in September 2018. Her visa had expired earlier that month. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ID issued an exclusion order against her. She appealed the decision to the IAD, but the IAD concluded that she had no right to appeal under s. 63(2) because, when the removal order was issued, her visa had expired and so was no longer valid. Ms. Pepa's application to the Federal Court and appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal were dismissed, with those courts concluding that the IAD's decision was reasonable. Argued Date 2024-12-04 Keywords Administrative law — Boards and Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeal Division – Permanent resident visa expiring after its holder arrived in Canada without being landed but before removal order issued — Visa holder appealing to Immigration Appeal Division — Immigration Appeal Division interpreting statutory provision at issue as not conferring it jurisdiction — Application for judicial review to Federal Court and appeal to Federal Court of Appeal dismissed on basis that interpretation by Immigration Appeal Division was reasonable — What is the appropriate standard of review to the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division regarding the statutory right of appeal under statutory provision at issue? — Whether the Immigration Appeal Division erred in construing statutory provision at issue by determining that the appellant lost her right of appeal because the validity date of her permanent resident visa had passed prior to the issuance of the exclusion order — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 63(2). Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The Immigration and Refugee Board has ordered the deportation of one woman accused of spying on behalf of China. Plus, almost 2,000 families have been compensated by the Vaccine Injury Support Program, totalling over $11 million in payouts. And racial segregation at pools is back and it's being piloted by the University of Waterloo, where it has dedicated swim times for “black folx.” Tune into The Daily Brief with Cosmin Dzsurdzsa and Noah Jarvis! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Since being called to the Bar in 1992, Hart Kaminker has earned a reputation amongst clients and colleagues as a highly-skilled, compassionate and trusted lawyer. He has extensive experience in all facets of Immigration and Citizenship law with focused knowledge in litigation, the processing of permanent and temporary applications, and reviewing decisions of Immigration tribunals and international visa officers. Hart has represented clients before the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and all levels of the Immigration and Refugee Board including the Refugee Protection Division, the Refugee Appeal Division and the Immigration Appeal Division. His expertise also encompasses a wide range of real estate transactions including purchase and sale of properties, refinancing, and commercial subdivisions. Hart is often called upon to speak at events for the Canadian Bar Association and other community organizations in the Greater Toronto Area. He has also served on the Board of Governors at Beth Tikvah Synagogue and the UJA Israel Engagement Committee. Hart is a member on the OBA executive committee. Connect with Jon Dwoskin: Twitter: @jdwoskin Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.dwoskin Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thejondwoskinexperience/ Website: https://jondwoskin.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jondwoskin/ Email: jon@jondwoskin.com Get Jon's Book: The Think Big Movement: Grow your business big. Very Big!   Connect with Hart Kaminker : Website: https://www.kaminkerlaw.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/KaminkerLaw LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hart-kaminker-4143b631/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Kaminkerlaw

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?

Since being called to the Bar in 1992, Hart Kaminker has earned a reputation amongst clients and colleagues as a highly-skilled, compassionate and trusted lawyer. He has extensive experience in all facets of Immigration and Citizenship law with focused knowledge in litigation, the processing of permanent and temporary applications, and reviewing decisions of Immigration tribunals and international visa officers. Hart has represented clients before the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and all levels of the Immigration and Refugee Board including the Refugee Protection Division, the Refugee Appeal Division and the Immigration Appeal Division. His expertise also encompasses a wide range of real estate transactions including purchase and sale of properties, refinancing, and commercial subdivisions. Hart is often called upon to speak at events for the Canadian Bar Association and other community organizations in the Greater Toronto Area. He has also served on the Board of Governors at Beth Tikvah Synagogue and the UJA Israel Engagement Committee. Hart is a member on the OBA executive committee. Connect with Jon Dwoskin: Twitter: @jdwoskin Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.dwoskin Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thejondwoskinexperience/ Website: https://jondwoskin.com/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jondwoskin/ Email: jon@jondwoskin.com Get Jon's Book: The Think Big Movement: Grow your business big. Very Big!   Connect with Hart Kaminker : Website: https://www.kaminkerlaw.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/KaminkerLaw LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hart-kaminker-4143b631/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Kaminkerlaw

An individual can only make ONE refugee claim per lifetime. Every year, thousands of individuals flee to Canada and exercise their one and only opportunity to make a refugee claim. Many of these refugee claims are from individuals escaping domestic violence with their children.   In this episode, Chantal and Cathryn sit down with immigration and refugee lawyer Cheryl Robinson to discuss the intersection of refugee law and family law. How can you identify a refugee claim with an issue of exclusion and what are the next steps? Cheryl sheds light on her experience managing these claims and preparing clients for these specialized cases. Learn about trauma-informed lawyering, severed claims, cross examination, evidence application at the RPD, unsolicited evidence, language barriers, and more in the context of refugee claims with exclusion issues.   Given the emotional toll and high-risk nature of refugee law, how can practitioners define and maintain professional boundaries with clients? In this segment of “Tales from the Trenches,” Chantal and Cathryn share moments from their careers where a lack of boundaries impeded their professional abilities and offer advice on drawing these lines appropriately.   View the Immigration and Refugee Board's 2022 revision of Chairperson's Guideline 4 at https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/policies/Pages/GuideDir04.aspx   Special Guest: Cheryl Robinson is a staff lawyer with the Refugee Law Office of Legal Aid Ontario, specializing in immigration and refugee law. She has argued before all levels of the IRB and the Federal Court and was lead counsel on the FCA case Huruglica v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Kerry Cundal has served as a teacher, lawyer and tribunal member at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. She has also served federally as a Director to the Immigration Minister. Cundal was a Director and owner of a real estate investment company, J & J Ventures for 10 years. She and her husband, Dr. Cory Cundal live in the community of Marda Loop in Calgary, Alberta. They have two adult children and two dogs. Cundal's community service includes volunteering with pro bono legal clinics, Ask Her, Calgary Immigrant Women's Association, Calgary Reads, Calgary Workers Resource Centre, and the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, to name a few. Cundal is now seeking to serve provincially as your next Alberta Party MLA for Calgary-Elbow. *************************************************** Follow the Cross Border Interview Podcast: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crossborderpodcast/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/CrossBorderPod Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/CrossBorderInterviews Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI2i25ZVKTO84oUsLyO4jig Website: https://www.crossborderinterviews.ca/ Back the Show: https://www.patreon.com/CrossBoderInterviewPodcast The Cross Border Interview Podcast was Produced and Edited by Miranda, Brown & Associates Inc © 2022

Feminist Question Time with speakers from UK, Canada, Bangladesh, Brazil Women's Declaration International (WDI) Feminist Question Time is our weekly online webinars. It is attended by a global feminist and activist audience of between 200-300. The main focus is how gender ideology is harming the rights of women and girls. You can see recordings of previous panels on our YouTube Channel. WDI is the leading  global organisation defending women's sex-based rights against the threats posed by gender identity ideology. There is more information on the website womensdeclaration.com where you will find our Declaration on Women's Sex-based rights, which has been signed by more 30,000 people from 157 countries and is supported by 418 organisations. This week's speakers: Sue England - UK - Why have legal cases become so important in the fight? What went wrong with democracy? - Court cases/tribunales in the UK as part of the movement, the Dentons document, the undemocratic strategy of the trans lobby and how to fight it. how to fight in employment tribunals, employment, labor, union issues in the UK using one's legal system to fight for women's sex-based rights Maria Jannat - Bangladesh - Disaster affected poor women - How the women affected by the disaster in the village live a miserable life. Bio: Maria Jannat (Mousumi), Programme Excutive, Garib Unnayan Sangstha (GUS), Email: ripongus38@gmail.com, Website: www.gus.org.bd, Facebook Id: Garib Unnayan Sangstha. Nina From Canada Eh - Canada - I do not want to say the word hope, eh. - that the oppression that caused rights to be protected for women, visibility minorities, disabled persons and indigenous - the Employment Equity Groups, along with Gay and Lesbian Court won rights to Military Service, Marriage Equality, Housing, Education/Workplace protections - which were needed as a result of heterosexual male oppression on the meanings of those words, which trans are removing the meanings of under a self id guise - that co-opts those oppressions, not for a hand up to equality rights, but for a leg over. That following the Harper Government removal of equality from women and defunding women's non-profits across canada, that Vancouver City defunded vancouver rape relief, and then required all women's nonprofits to include men. At the Vancouver Women's health Collective, I learned in 2022 that 50 years of work was shredded. And I have advised the City of Vancouver and the Province of British Columbia that they will have to arrest me for disagreeing with men. And as I am a former federal government employee, I explained from my former workplace position responsibility; across police forms, and across government delivery of programs, the degree of harm trans is to women's rights and to gay and lesbian rights. That at RCMP, I was the forms designer who updated the Attending a Domestic and worksafe BC claim forms for victims of violence and victims of sexual violence. I am currently awaiting a supreme court of canada file number as a claimant, and depending on what I say to elaborate, I will have a supreme court file number and a lawyer assigned to me as a defendant, owing to The Harper Government's additional law silencing the civil service above the government security act. Bio: Nina has had a decade long Federal Human Rights Commission Complaint which was re-heard at the Federal Court of Canada in March 2021 .Her government career began in 1998, across seven federal government departments: Revenue Canada, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Indian and Northern Affairs, Industry Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, Industry Canada, Service Canada and Transport Canada, as a result of that last department,. Nina is current awaiting a file number for the Supreme Court of Canada. Andreia Nobre - Brazil - Motherhood in a patriarchal system - I am going to talk about my books on motherhood, radical feminism, the main issues mothers face in patriarchy and how gender ideology harms mothers rights

Mr. Chhina was placed in immigration detention pending deportation from Canada. The Immigration and Review Board held 12 reviews of his detention and each time ordered continued detention. After 10 months, Mr. Chhina applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that his detention was lengthy and indeterminate, therefore illegal. He invoked his right under s. 10(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have the validity of his detention determined and to be released if the detention was not lawful, under s. 7 of the Charter to life, liberty and security of the person and not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and under s. 9 of the Charter not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta declined to exercise jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus application. The Court of Appeal Appeal allowed an appeal and remitted the applicaiton to the Court of Queen's Bench for a rehearing on its merits. Argued Date 2018-11-14 Keywords Courts - Jurisdiction, Habeas corpus, Immigration, Procedure - Courts - Jurisdiction - Habeas corpus - Immigration - Immigration and Refugee Board reviews respondent's immigration detention and orders continued detention - Respondent applies to Court of Queen's Bench for writ of habeas corpus - Whether courts should decline habeas corpus jurisdiction in immigration matters - Whether reviews of immigration detention decisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, are more limited and less favourable than reviews by way of habeas corpus - Whether reviews of immigration detention decisions for Charter compliance can only occur on habeas corpus applications - Whether reviews of immigration detention decisions do not require expertise in immigration matters?. Notes (Alberta) (Civil) (By Leave) Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

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?

What this episode is about? In this episode I connected with Robert Leong, and we talked about many challenges faced by newcomers in Canada. One of the biggest challenges is credential recognition and continuing to pursue your career in Canada. Many immigrants feel that their options are quite limited until they recognize their credentials and meet all other requirements necessary to find a job. This includes having relevant work experience in Canadian market and becoming fully integrated into the workforce. Robert shared his own personal experience with immigrating to Canada, and shared the challenges he had to go through while trying to find his niche. We also talked about whether immigration is a good choice for everyone and what it takes to become truly successful in a new country. Listen to this episode if you are thinking about immigrating to Canada or you just recently landed. We share many insights and you may find a lot of inspiration that will help you through the hard times. About today's guest of the Canadian Immigration Podcast Robert Y.C. Leong Canadian Immigration Lawyer Robert read law in England, and after being called to the Bar, returned to his native Singapore where he practised as an Advocate & Solicitor for about 15 years. After immigrating to Canada, he was called to the Bar in B.C., and now practises exclusively in citizenship and immigration law. Apart from handling all types of temporary and permanent resident applications, Robert has also assisted clients in immigration enforcement cases, and has appeared before various Divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal. Besides English, he is fluent in Mandarin and Cantonese, and has appeared in various radio and TV programs discussing immigration issues of the day. Robert has volunteers at pro bono legal clinics, speaks on immigration law at public libraries, and also sits on the board of a charity that helps to transform the lives of people with addiction. He's also presented at various immigration law seminars for lawyers and for immigration consultants. You can reach out to Robert via: Website: www.CanadaVisaLaw.com About the host of the Canadian Immigration Podcast Mark Holthe is a Canadian Immigration Lawyer based in Lethbridge, Alberta. He has started his legal career with a large national law firm in Calgary where he initiated the business immigration practice at the firm. Since those early days, he has had the opportunity to work in a wide variety of law firm configurations before finally realizing that the best place for him was within the confines of an immigration boutique firm of his own making. As a Canadian immigration lawyer, Mark has particular experience in assisting clients with all aspects of Canadian immigration law. He assists large national and multinational companies in navigating the complex world of Canadian immigration and provides strategic immigration advice to international and domestic companies seeking to recruit and retain foreign skilled and semi-skilled personnel. Mark also assists temporary foreign workers with their transition to permanent resident status in Canada and over the past few years, he has taken great satisfaction in helping individuals and families with their various immigration related needs. Mark finds no greater satisfaction than helping to facilitate the reunification of families. While attending law school, Mark worked as an Immigration officer for Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the Alberta/Montana border. While completing his final year of law school, he worked as a pro bono student to the Canada Border Services Agency Hearings Officers representing the minister before the Immigration Appeal Division in Calgary, Alberta. As a result of his prior experience as an immigration officer, Mark has been able to enhance the services he offers to his cross-border and overseas clients. Since that time, he has continued to work hard fostering positive relationships with the various immigration related government departments and has focused a significant portion of his practice on cross-border matters. About the Sponsor of the Canadian Immigration Podcast This episode sponsored by Canadian Immigration Institute, a platform designed to help people navigate Canadian immigration on their own. On this platform, I offer Do-It-Yourself (DIY) video courses guiding you through the process of submitting your immigration application without a need to hire a lawyer. These video courses not only allow people to better understand Canadian immigration but also earn me sufficient revenue to continue pushing out great free content on Canadian immigration. Visit Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com Listen to the Canadian Immigration Podcast on Spotify and iTunes Canadian Immigration Podcast is being broadcasted on our iTunes and Spotify channels. If you have enjoyed this podcast and think someone else would, too, please subscribe and share this episode! Subscribe to our various social media channels If you want to connect with me or retain Holthe Immigration Law to assist you with immigration to Canada feel free to book a consultation on our official website: www.holthelaw.com Additionally, consider subscribing to our social media channels to stay up to date with the news on Canadian Immigration: Canadian Immigration Institute Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgvm03Tm2e-ndNkWhiiQUlA Canadian Immigration Institute Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CanadianImmigrationInstitute Express Entry Law Private Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CanadianImmigrationInstitute Holthe Immigration Law LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/holthe-business-immigration-law Holthe Immigration Law Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/holthe.immigration.law/ Holthe Immigration Law Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/HoltheLaw

What this episode is about? In this episode I connected with Robert Leong, and we talked about many challenges faced by newcomers in Canada. One of the biggest challenges is credential recognition and continuing to pursue your career in Canada. Many immigrants feel that their options are quite limited until they recognize their credentials and meet all other requirements necessary to find a job. This includes having relevant work experience in Canadian market and becoming fully integrated into the workforce.  Robert shared his own personal experience with immigrating to Canada, and shared the challenges he had to go through while trying to find his niche. We also talked about whether immigration is a good choice for everyone and what it takes to become truly successful in a new country.  Listen to this episode if you are thinking about immigrating to Canada or you just recently landed. We share many insights and you may find a lot of inspiration that will help you through the hard times.  About today’s guest of the Canadian Immigration Podcast Robert Y.C. Leong Canadian Immigration Lawyer Robert read law in England, and after being called to the Bar, returned to his native Singapore where he practised as an Advocate & Solicitor for about 15 years. After immigrating to Canada, he was called to the Bar in B.C., and now practises exclusively in citizenship and immigration law. Apart from handling all types of temporary and permanent resident applications, Robert has also assisted clients in immigration enforcement cases, and has appeared before various Divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal. Besides English, he is fluent in Mandarin and Cantonese, and has appeared in various radio and TV programs discussing immigration issues of the day. Robert has volunteers at pro bono legal clinics, speaks on immigration law at public libraries, and also sits on the board of a charity that helps to transform the lives of people with addiction. He’s also presented at various immigration law seminars for lawyers and for immigration consultants. You can reach out to Robert via: Website: www.CanadaVisaLaw.com   About the host of the Canadian Immigration Podcast Mark Holthe is a Canadian Immigration Lawyer based in Lethbridge, Alberta. He has started his legal career with a large national law firm in Calgary where he initiated the business immigration practice at the firm. Since those early days, he has had the opportunity to work in a wide variety of law firm configurations before finally realizing that the best place for him was within the confines of an immigration boutique firm of his own making. As a Canadian immigration lawyer, Mark has particular experience in assisting clients with all aspects of Canadian immigration law. He assists large national and multinational companies in navigating the complex world of Canadian immigration and provides strategic immigration advice to international and domestic companies seeking to recruit and retain foreign skilled and semi-skilled personnel. Mark also assists temporary foreign workers with their transition to permanent resident status in Canada and over the past few years, he has taken great satisfaction in helping individuals and families with their various immigration related needs. Mark finds no greater satisfaction than helping to facilitate the reunification of families. While attending law school, Mark worked as an Immigration officer for Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the Alberta/Montana border. While completing his final year of law school, he worked as a pro bono student to the Canada Border Services Agency Hearings Officers representing the minister before the Immigration Appeal Division in Calgary, Alberta. As a result of his prior experience as an immigration officer, Mark has been able to enhance the services he offers to his cross-border and overseas clients. Since that time, he has continued to work hard fostering positive relationships with the various immigration related government departments and has focused a significant portion of his practice on cross-border matters. About the Sponsor of the Canadian Immigration Podcast This episode sponsored by Canadian Immigration Institute, a platform designed to help people navigate Canadian immigration on their own. On this platform, I offer Do-It-Yourself (DIY) video courses guiding you through the process of submitting your immigration application without a need to hire a lawyer. These video courses not only allow people to better understand Canadian immigration but also earn me sufficient revenue to continue pushing out great free content on Canadian immigration. Visit Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com Listen to the Canadian Immigration Podcast on Spotify and iTunes Canadian Immigration Podcast is being broadcasted on our iTunes and Spotify channels. If you have enjoyed this podcast and think someone else would, too, please subscribe and share this episode! Subscribe to our various social media channels If you want to connect with me or retain Holthe Immigration Law to assist you with immigration to Canada feel free to book a consultation on our official website: www.holthelaw.com Additionally, consider subscribing to our social media channels to stay up to date with the news on Canadian Immigration: Canadian Immigration Institute Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgvm03Tm2e-ndNkWhiiQUlA Canadian Immigration Institute Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CanadianImmigrationInstitute Express Entry Law Private Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CanadianImmigrationInstitute Holthe Immigration Law LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/holthe-business-immigration-law Holthe Immigration Law Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/holthe.immigration.law/ Holthe Immigration Law Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/HoltheLaw

Kelicia Letlow-Peroune, the founder of KYL Law Firm, is a native of Guyana and was called to the bar in Ontario Canada. Kelicia represents clients before the Federal Court of Canada, as well as the Immigration Tribunals within the Immigration and Refugee Board. She has extensive knowledge of the Canadian immigration system, having successfully challenged humanitarian and compassionate application refusals, denial of refugee claims and detention orders, to name a few. Kelicia’s specialized skill set also includes assisting families with complex, emotionally challenging family law cases, which include custody/access and child protection matters. Over the years, she has assisted clients from over twenty countries, some of which include the Philippines, India, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Nigeria, The Central African Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, and the United States of America. Prior to starting her own law practice, Kelicia worked and volunteered with community, nongovernmental, and international organizations and she is passionate about social justice. She is a member of the Law Society of Ontario, the Women’s Law Association of Ontario, and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. If you have questions about Immigration or Family Law or want to connect with Kelicia, reach out to her on Instagram or Facebook at kyllawfirm. Further information about KYL Law Firm is available at https://kyllaw.com

NSRLP has begun working with several administrative tribunals to assist them in adapting their systems and skills to the volume of self-represented litigants they see each year. Today’s podcast features leaders at two federal Tribunals who are committed to improving meaningful access for self-reps, who make up 35-70% of litigants appearing at their tribunals. Suzanne Gilbert is Deputy Chairperson of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Suzanne was previously a Chair at the Ontario Social Justice Tribunal, working with the Child and Family Services Review Board and Custody Review Board. Paul Aterman is the Chair of the Social Security Tribunal, which hears appeals from decisions on the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan, and the Old Age Security Act. Paul is a lawyer with extensive administrative justice experience in human rights, immigration and refugee matters and workers' compensation. He is also a member of the Measurement Working Group of Access to Justice BC, a network of justice sector organizations and individuals dedicated to improving access to justice. In other news: Guest Other News Correspondent Ali Tejani brings us the following stories: BC’s Access to Justice Week took place January 24th to 30th, with productive conversations, interesting guest lectures, and a statement by BC’s Attorney General, David Eby, who was a guest on this podcast in 2019; Nova Scotia has launched a Task Force to improve A2J after COVID-19 – they will explore more ways to use technology to improve access to justice, increase efficiencies, and create better outcomes; former SCC Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has written another interesting piece, “Access to Justice: Fragility and resilience: Lessons of 2020 and 2021 potential”; and finally, NSRLP is looking for looking for current or former SRLs across Canada for a public input project with the Social Security Tribunal of Canada – participants will be eligible to receive a gift card for their time. If interested, please email representingyourself@gmail.com. For related links and more on this episode visit our website: https://representingyourselfcanada.com/justice-as-a-service/ Jumping Off the Ivory Tower is produced and hosted by Julie Macfarlane and Dayna Cornwall; production and editing by Brauntë Petric; Other News produced and hosted by Ali Tejani, with assistance from Katie Pfaff; promotion by Moya McAlister and the NSRLP team.

What this episode is about? We all know that love knows no boundaries. However, in reality there are a lot of obstacles international couples may need to go around if they want to stay together and not being separated by the border. In this episode I invite Alicia Backman-Beharry, an amazing Canadian Immigration Lawyer who joined Holthe Immigration Law in August of 2020, to discuss spousal sponsorship applications. We talk about the differences between Inside and Outside Canada Sponsorships, benefits and drawbacks of each type of the application, as well as reasons why your Spouse or Common-Law Partner Class or Family Class application can be refused. COVID-19 and the travel restriction also had a significant impact on the processing of the Spousal Sponsorship applications. Alicia and I discussed how this global pandemic impacted applicants and how IRCC takes a ruthless approach of refusing applications for frivolous mistakes, in attempt to keep the processing time down. I definitely recommend that you listen to this episode carefully, because even slightest mistake can crush your plans of sponsoring your loved ones. Also, take a note of tips we provide that can help you make sure your application is not refused: 1. Examine and follow your Documents Checklist with forensic level of details 2. Provide sufficient proof of genuineness of your relationships 3. Provide an explanation along with your application if any of the documents or questions do not apply to your situation. 4. Make sure you have added your signatures and validated your forms 5. Ensure your photos meet the requirements. If you want to learn more about the difference between Spouse or Common-Law Partner Class and Family Class applications Alicia Backman-Beharry prepared a wonderful blogpost that covers everything you need to know about these two applications. Check the blog post here: https://www.holthelaw.com/spousal-sponsorship-canada/ About today's guest of the Canadian Immigration Podcast Alicia Backman-Beharry has practiced as an immigration lawyer for 17 years. She was called to the Alberta bar in 2003 and was an associate with a medium sized firm and a boutique immigration law firm. Alicia went out on her own as a sole practitioner 8 years ago. She works with corporations, individuals and other lawyers to solve difficult immigration legal issues. Prior to joining the Holthe Immigration Law team, she also contributed as a part-time program lawyer at a non-profit poverty law clinic. She finds it rewarding to help individuals and companies through the complex world of Canadian Immigration law. Having taught courses on temporary and permanent residence, Alicia is able to see how various pieces of the immigration puzzle fit together, and can provide advice so that people understand which application to pursue and why. During her career as Immigration Lawyer Alicia Backman-Beharry has assisted with a wide range of business immigration matters, including applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments, work permits, Intra-company transfers, and Employer Compliance Reviews. She also has extensive experience with Permanent Residence applications including Express Entry, Provincial Nominee Program, Humanitarian and Compassionate, and family class sponsorships. While working with the poverty law clinic, she routinely helped people with inadmissibility issues, refugee matters, restoration applications, and temporary residence permits. She has appeared before various Courts and Tribunals, including Federal Court, Provincial Court, the Court of Queen's Bench, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Immigration Division, and the Immigration Appeal Division. Volunteering has always been a big part of how Alicia spends her time. She enjoyed 9 years on the Board of a large immigrant serving settlement organization, including serving as Secretary, Vice-Chair, Chair and Past-Chair of the Board and is a past Chair of the Immigration and Citizenship Law Alberta South Section of the Canadian Bar Association. You can book a consultation with Alicia Backman-Beharry on our Holthe Immigration Law website: www.holthelaw.com/consultation About the host of the Canadian Immigration Podcast Mark Holthe is a Canadian Immigration Lawyer based in Lethbridge, Alberta. He has started his legal career with a large national law firm in Calgary where he initiated the business immigration practice at the firm. Since those early days, he has had the opportunity to work in a wide variety of law firm configurations before finally realizing that the best place for him was within the confines of an immigration boutique firm of his own making. As a Canadian immigration lawyer, Mark has particular experience in assisting clients with all aspects of Canadian immigration law. He assists large national and multinational companies in navigating the complex world of Canadian immigration and provides strategic immigration advice to international and domestic companies seeking to recruit and retain foreign skilled and semi-skilled personnel. Mark also assists temporary foreign workers with their transition to permanent resident status in Canada and over the past few years, he has taken great satisfaction in helping individuals and families with their various immigration related needs. Mark finds no greater satisfaction than helping to facilitate the reunification of families. While attending law school, Mark worked as an Immigration officer for Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the Alberta/Montana border. While completing his final year of law school, he worked as a pro bono student to the Canada Border Services Agency Hearings Officers representing the minister before the Immigration Appeal Division in Calgary, Alberta. As a result of his prior experience as an immigration officer, Mark has been able to enhance the services he offers to his cross-border and overseas clients. Since that time, he has continued to work hard fostering positive relationships with the various immigration related government departments and has focused a significant portion of his practice on cross-border matters. About the Sponsor of the Canadian Immigration Podcast This episode sponsored by Canadian Immigration Institute, a platform designed to help people navigate Canadian immigration on their own. On this platform, I offer Do-It-Yourself (DIY) video courses guiding you through the process of submitting your immigration application without a need to hire a lawyer. These video courses not only allow people to better understand Canadian immigration but also earn me sufficient revenue to continue pushing out great free content on Canadian immigration. Visit Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com Listen to the Canadian Immigration Podcast on Spotify and iTunes Canadian Immigration Podcast is being broadcasted on our iTunes and Spotify channels. If you have enjoyed this podcast and think someone else would, too, please subscribe and share this episode! Subscribe to our various social media channels If you want to connect with me or retain Holthe Immigration Law to assist you with immigration to Canada feel free to book a consultation on our official website: www.holthelaw.com Additionally, consider subscribing to our social media channels to stay up to date with the news on Canadian Immigration: Canadian Immigration Institute Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgvm03Tm2e-ndNkWhiiQUlA Canadian Immigration Institute Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CanadianImmigrationInstitute Express Entry Law Private Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CanadianImmigrationInstitute Holthe Immigration Law LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/holthe-business-immigration-law Holthe Immigration Law Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/holthe.immigration.law/ Holthe Immigration Law Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/HoltheLaw

What this episode is about? We all know that love knows no boundaries. However, in reality there are a lot of obstacles international couples may need to go around if they want to stay together and not being separated by the border. In this episode I invite Alicia Backman-Beharry, an amazing Canadian Immigration Lawyer who joined Holthe Immigration Law in August of 2020, to discuss spousal sponsorship applications. We talk about the differences between Inside and Outside Canada Sponsorships, benefits and drawbacks of each type of the application, as well as reasons why your Spouse or Common-Law Partner Class or Family Class application can be refused.  COVID-19 and the travel restriction also had a significant impact on the processing of the Spousal Sponsorship applications. Alicia and I discussed how this global pandemic impacted applicants and how IRCC takes a ruthless approach of refusing applications for frivolous mistakes, in attempt to keep the processing time down. I definitely recommend that you listen to this episode carefully, because even slightest mistake can crush your plans of sponsoring your loved ones. Also, take a note of tips we provide that can help you make sure your application is not refused: 1. Examine and follow your Documents Checklist with forensic level of details 2. Provide sufficient proof of genuineness of your relationships 3. Provide an explanation along with your application if any of the documents or questions do not apply to your situation. 4. Make sure you have added your signatures and validated your forms 5. Ensure your photos meet the requirements. If you want to learn more about the difference between Spouse or Common-Law Partner Class and Family Class applications Alicia Backman-Beharry prepared a wonderful blogpost that covers everything you need to know about these two applications. Check the blog post here: https://www.holthelaw.com/spousal-sponsorship-canada/ About today’s guest of the Canadian Immigration Podcast Alicia Backman-Beharry has practiced as an immigration lawyer for 17 years. She was called to the Alberta bar in 2003 and was an associate with a medium sized firm and a boutique immigration law firm. Alicia went out on her own as a sole practitioner 8 years ago. She works with corporations, individuals and other lawyers to solve difficult immigration legal issues. Prior to joining the Holthe Immigration Law team, she also contributed as a part-time program lawyer at a non-profit poverty law clinic. She finds it rewarding to help individuals and companies through the complex world of Canadian Immigration law. Having taught courses on temporary and permanent residence, Alicia is able to see how various pieces of the immigration puzzle fit together, and can provide advice so that people understand which application to pursue and why. During her career as Immigration Lawyer Alicia Backman-Beharry has assisted with a wide range of business immigration matters, including applications for Labour Market Impact Assessments, work permits, Intra-company transfers, and Employer Compliance Reviews. She also has extensive experience with Permanent Residence applications including Express Entry, Provincial Nominee Program, Humanitarian and Compassionate, and family class sponsorships. While working with the poverty law clinic, she routinely helped people with inadmissibility issues, refugee matters, restoration applications, and temporary residence permits. She has appeared before various Courts and Tribunals, including Federal Court, Provincial Court, the Court of Queen’s Bench, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Immigration Division, and the Immigration Appeal Division. Volunteering has always been a big part of how Alicia spends her time. She enjoyed 9 years on the Board of a large immigrant serving settlement organization, including serving as Secretary, Vice-Chair, Chair and Past-Chair of the Board and is a past Chair of the Immigration and Citizenship Law Alberta South Section of the Canadian Bar Association. You can book a consultation with Alicia Backman-Beharry on our Holthe Immigration Law website: www.holthelaw.com/consultation About the host of the Canadian Immigration Podcast Mark Holthe is a Canadian Immigration Lawyer based in Lethbridge, Alberta. He has started his legal career with a large national law firm in Calgary where he initiated the business immigration practice at the firm. Since those early days, he has had the opportunity to work in a wide variety of law firm configurations before finally realizing that the best place for him was within the confines of an immigration boutique firm of his own making. As a Canadian immigration lawyer, Mark has particular experience in assisting clients with all aspects of Canadian immigration law. He assists large national and multinational companies in navigating the complex world of Canadian immigration and provides strategic immigration advice to international and domestic companies seeking to recruit and retain foreign skilled and semi-skilled personnel. Mark also assists temporary foreign workers with their transition to permanent resident status in Canada and over the past few years, he has taken great satisfaction in helping individuals and families with their various immigration related needs. Mark finds no greater satisfaction than helping to facilitate the reunification of families. While attending law school, Mark worked as an Immigration officer for Citizenship and Immigration Canada on the Alberta/Montana border. While completing his final year of law school, he worked as a pro bono student to the Canada Border Services Agency Hearings Officers representing the minister before the Immigration Appeal Division in Calgary, Alberta. As a result of his prior experience as an immigration officer, Mark has been able to enhance the services he offers to his cross-border and overseas clients. Since that time, he has continued to work hard fostering positive relationships with the various immigration related government departments and has focused a significant portion of his practice on cross-border matters. About the Sponsor of the Canadian Immigration Podcast This episode sponsored by Canadian Immigration Institute, a platform designed to help people navigate Canadian immigration on their own. On this platform, I offer Do-It-Yourself (DIY) video courses guiding you through the process of submitting your immigration application without a need to hire a lawyer. These video courses not only allow people to better understand Canadian immigration but also earn me sufficient revenue to continue pushing out great free content on Canadian immigration. Visit Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com Listen to the Canadian Immigration Podcast on Spotify and iTunes Canadian Immigration Podcast is being broadcasted on our iTunes and Spotify channels. If you have enjoyed this podcast and think someone else would, too, please subscribe and share this episode! Subscribe to our various social media channels If you want to connect with me or retain Holthe Immigration Law to assist you with immigration to Canada feel free to book a consultation on our official website: www.holthelaw.com Additionally, consider subscribing to our social media channels to stay up to date with the news on Canadian Immigration: Canadian Immigration Institute Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgvm03Tm2e-ndNkWhiiQUlA Canadian Immigration Institute Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CanadianImmigrationInstitute Express Entry Law Private Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CanadianImmigrationInstitute Holthe Immigration Law LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/holthe-business-immigration-law Holthe Immigration Law Instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/holthe.immigration.law/ Holthe Immigration Law Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/HoltheLaw

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.

During this episode Canadian Immigration Lawyers Mark Holthe and Arghavan Gerami get into discussion on whether the approaches taken by the CBSA during COVID-19 go in line with the principles of the Open Government, transparency and rule of law. Lack of responsiveness to the dialogue between CBSA and law practitioners and public played important role in formulating the view that people were left on their own in figuring out the details of the legal basis upon which the officers make their decisions at the border. In a pandemic people need more transparency and clarity on new policies and procedures that the Government implements. However, as discussed during this episode many attempts to bring clarify and request any information that would allow people to be aware of new changes in cross-border travel were left unanswered. The host and guest of this episode also address the issue of lack of communication from the Government in interpreting what is considered to be “non-essential” purpose. All these factors directly affected many refugee claimants and people attempting to cross the border, but eventually turned away because of the “optional/non-essential” nature of their travel. Arghavan Gerami Bio: Arghavan Gerami is the Founder and Senior Counsel at Gerami Law Professional Corporation (‘PC'), a full-service immigration law firm in Ottawa, Ontario. She completed her Juris Doctor and Master of Laws at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University and was called to the Ontario Bar in 2007. Ms. Gerami worked at the Ministry of Attorney General and the Department of Justice before transitioning to private practice in 2011. She also had the privilege of serving the Honourable Mr. Justice M. Evans at the Federal Court of Appeal. Since founding Gerami Law PC in 2011 Ms. Gerami has focused her practice on immigration and refugee litigation and represented numerous clients before the Federal and provincial Courts, as well as the various divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Ms. Gerami is an Executive Member on the Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association. In 2017 and 2018 Ms. Gerami also served on the Organizing Committee of the annual CBA Immigration Law Conference. She has been interviewed on national and local television, and quoted in national and local newspapers such as the Globe and Mail, National Post and the Ottawa Citizen. Ms. Gerami has also published numerous journal articles, presented at immigration and refugee law conferences and events across Canada, and provided guest lectures at the University of Ottawa. As a Supervising Principal to articling students, Ms. Gerami enjoys facilitating the career development of law students and young lawyers. She also enjoys travelling as a well as spending time with her two children, husband and Bambi (her dog). Show notes summary: [NOTE: Igor try to soft the information below and write up the show notes so that they are not quite as harsh] COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on immigration and the way immigration law is practiced in Canada. Pandemic revealed a whole set of challenges with transparency and in some instances, showed the unwillingness of the authorities to reveal the bases upon which the decisions by the CBSA are being made. Uncertainty, inconsistent application of the rule of law, and many other issues, exacerbated by COVID caused concern among immigration lawyers. At some point it seemed like CBSA has been conducting itself as if it's above the rule of law. Here are just some of the issues discussed and analyzed during the podcast: - Uncertainty with the Canada-US agreement, as CBSA was unwilling to disclose the details of the border agreement with the US. This approach was going contrary with the spirit of transparency and for long time prevented lawyers from learning the details of the Agreement; - refusing to disclose the manual on what constitutes essential purpose, that is being applied to make administrator decisions with very significant consequences; - a number of reports about inconsistent application of the rule of law, complicated by the continuous modification of policy, made it difficult for people to know and understand their rights; - some of the media reports of serious misconducts. Overall, recent events and experience of Canadian immigration lawyers raise concerns regarding the lack of accountability and transparency in actions of the immigration authorities. Without a doubt there is an understanding that the Government had to deal with unprecedented challenges, but there are also the expectations of respect, transparency, openness to dialogue and observance of the rule of law by the CBSA. People need to be able to trust decision makers, individuals in the positions of power and have the right to know details of the acts used to make decisions on the cases that affect them. This is particularly true in times when individuals are experiencing significant fear and anxiety due to a pandemic. Canadian Immigration Institute - Founded by Immigration Lawyer Mark Holthe Affiliate Program: Click on this link to become an affiliate of the Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com/become-an-affiliate OR, go to the Canadian Immigration Institute main page and scroll down to the very bottom and click on “Affiliate”. Earn 30% when someone purchases via your affiliate link [Tweet "Business Immigration programs are alive and well in Canada."] Listen to Mark Holthe's Canadian Immigration Podcast Topics for our Next Podcast [reminder]If you have a suggestion for topics we could cover in the Podcast, please drop me a line at mholthe@holthelaw.com. 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] 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

During this episode Canadian Immigration Lawyers Mark Holthe and Arghavan Gerami get into discussion on whether the approaches taken by the CBSA during COVID-19 go in line with the principles of the Open Government, transparency and rule of law. Lack of responsiveness to the dialogue between CBSA and law practitioners and public played important role in formulating the view that people were left on their own in figuring out the details of the legal basis upon which the officers make their decisions at the border. In a pandemic people need more transparency and clarity on new policies and procedures that the Government implements. However, as discussed during this episode many attempts to bring clarify and request any information that would allow people to be aware of new changes in cross-border travel were left unanswered. The host and guest of this episode also address the issue of lack of communication from the Government in interpreting what is considered to be “non-essential” purpose. All these factors directly affected many refugee claimants and people attempting to cross the border, but eventually turned away because of the “optional/non-essential” nature of their travel. Arghavan Gerami Bio: Arghavan Gerami is the Founder and Senior Counsel at Gerami Law Professional Corporation (‘PC’), a full-service immigration law firm in Ottawa, Ontario.  She completed her Juris Doctor and Master of Laws at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University and was called to the Ontario Bar in 2007. Ms. Gerami worked at the Ministry of Attorney General and the Department of Justice before transitioning to private practice in 2011. She also had the privilege of serving the Honourable Mr. Justice M. Evans at the Federal Court of Appeal. Since founding Gerami Law PC in 2011 Ms. Gerami has focused her practice on immigration and refugee litigation and represented numerous clients before the Federal and provincial Courts, as well as the various divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. Ms. Gerami is an Executive Member on the Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association.  In 2017 and 2018 Ms. Gerami also served on the Organizing Committee of the annual CBA Immigration Law Conference.  She has been interviewed on national and local television, and quoted in national and local newspapers such as the Globe and Mail, National Post and the Ottawa Citizen.  Ms. Gerami has also published numerous journal articles, presented at immigration and refugee law conferences and events across Canada, and provided guest lectures at the University of Ottawa.  As a Supervising Principal to articling students, Ms. Gerami enjoys facilitating the career development of law students and young lawyers. She also enjoys travelling as a well as spending time with her two children, husband and Bambi (her dog). Show notes summary: [NOTE: Igor try to soft the information below and write up the show notes so that they are not quite as harsh] COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on immigration and the way immigration law is practiced in Canada. Pandemic revealed a whole set of challenges with transparency and in some instances, showed the unwillingness of the authorities to reveal the bases upon which the decisions by the CBSA are being made. Uncertainty, inconsistent application of the rule of law, and many other issues, exacerbated by COVID caused concern among immigration lawyers. At some point it seemed like CBSA has been conducting itself as if it’s above the rule of law. Here are just some of the issues discussed and analyzed during the podcast:  - Uncertainty with the Canada-US agreement, as CBSA was unwilling to disclose the details of the border agreement with the US. This approach was going contrary with the spirit of transparency and for long time prevented lawyers from learning the details of the Agreement; - refusing to disclose the manual on what constitutes essential purpose, that is being applied to make administrator decisions with very significant consequences; - a number of reports about inconsistent application of the rule of law, complicated by the continuous modification of policy, made it difficult for people to know and understand their rights; - some of the media reports of serious misconducts. Overall, recent events and experience of Canadian immigration lawyers raise concerns regarding the lack of accountability and transparency in actions of the immigration authorities.  Without a doubt there is an understanding that the Government had to deal with unprecedented challenges, but there are also the expectations of respect, transparency, openness to dialogue and observance of the rule of law by the CBSA. People need to be able to trust decision makers, individuals in the positions of power and have the right to know details of the acts used to make decisions on the cases that affect them. This is particularly true in times when individuals are experiencing significant fear and anxiety due to a pandemic.  Canadian Immigration Institute - Founded by Immigration Lawyer Mark Holthe  Affiliate Program: Click on this link to become an affiliate of the Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com/become-an-affiliate OR,  go to the Canadian Immigration Institute main page and scroll down to the very bottom and click on “Affiliate”. Earn 30% when someone purchases via your affiliate link [Tweet "Business Immigration programs are alive and well in Canada."]   Listen to Mark Holthe's Canadian Immigration Podcast Topics for our Next Podcast [reminder]If you have a suggestion for topics we could cover in the Podcast, please drop me a line at mholthe@holthelaw.com. 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] 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

With over 700,000 international students in Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has been struggling with what to do with them all. Many of these students are wondering if they have a future in Canada over the long term. In this episode Canadian Immigration Lawyer Will Tao joins me talk about some of the challenges students experience when studying in Canada and some essential tips to avoiding the most common pitfalls. I was super happy to have Will Tao join me again after an almost four year absence on my Podcast. The last time he joined me, he was just cutting his teeth in the world of immigration law. However, he has worked hard to establish himself as a thought leader in our industry and someone who truly practices immigration law the right way. Will Tao (pronouns: he/him) is a Canadian Immigration and Refugee Lawyer at Edelmann and Co., who lives and works on the traditional, unceded territories of the Coast Salish – sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), sel̓íl̓witulh (Tsleil-Waututh), and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) nations. Will provides legal services in all areas of Canadian immigration and refugee law with a focus on complex applications, overcoming refusals, inadmissibility matters, appeals, and judicial reviews. Will regularly appeals before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada. His focus is on international students, families, and temporary foreign workers. Will also provides strategic advice and consultation to government, media, educational institutions, and businesses on immigration/refugee, decolonization, and race equity related issues. He is the founder and creator of Vancouver Immigration Blog, where he hopes to make immigration and refugee law more accessible to the general public. He is a second-generation Canadian, product of immigrants, and finds his personal motivation in the sacrifices of his parents and the resilience of Indigenous ancestors to this land. In this episode Will and I discussed the plight of international students in Canada and pulled back the curtain on what is really happening in the background of immigration processing. Will took some time to share his thoughts on the challenges international students face in Canada and offered a few solutions to some of the most common pitfalls. Sponsor: None of this would be possible if it were not for my Canadian Immigration Institute. My DIY courses earn me sufficient revenue to continue pushing out great free content on Canadian Immigration. Canadian Immigration Institute - Founded by Immigration Lawyer Mark Holthe Affiliate Program: Click on this link to become an affiliate of the Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com/become-an-affiliate OR, go to the Canadian Immigration Institute main page and scroll down to the very bottom and click on “Affiliate”. Earn 30% when someone purchases via your affiliate link [Tweet "What's up with international students in Canada?"] Additional Resources: Will Tao's firm: https://edelmann.ca/ Will's Blog: http://vancouverimmigrationblog.com Topics for our Next Podcast [reminder]If you have a suggestion for topics we could cover in the Podcast, please drop me a line at mholthe@holthelaw.com. 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] 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

With over 700,000 international students in Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has been struggling with what to do with them all. Many of these students are wondering if they have a future in Canada over the long term. In this episode Canadian Immigration Lawyer Will Tao joins me talk about some of the challenges students experience when studying in Canada and some essential tips to avoiding the most common pitfalls. I was super happy to have Will Tao join me again after an almost four year absence on my Podcast. The last time he joined me, he was just cutting his teeth in the world of immigration law. However, he has worked hard to establish himself as a thought leader in our industry and someone who truly practices immigration law the right way. Will Tao (pronouns: he/him) is a Canadian Immigration and Refugee Lawyer at Edelmann and Co., who lives and works on the traditional, unceded territories of the Coast Salish – sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), sel̓íl̓witulh (Tsleil-Waututh), and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) nations. Will provides legal services in all areas of Canadian immigration and refugee law with a focus on complex applications, overcoming refusals, inadmissibility matters, appeals, and judicial reviews. Will regularly appeals before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada. His focus is on international students, families, and temporary foreign workers. Will also provides strategic advice and consultation to government, media, educational institutions, and businesses on immigration/refugee, decolonization, and race equity related issues. He is the founder and creator of Vancouver Immigration Blog, where he hopes to make immigration and refugee law more accessible to the general public. He is a second-generation Canadian, product of immigrants, and finds his personal motivation in the sacrifices of his parents and the resilience of Indigenous ancestors to this land. In this episode Will and I discussed the plight of international students in Canada and pulled back the curtain on what is really happening in the background of immigration processing. Will took some time to share his thoughts on the challenges international students face in Canada and offered a few solutions to some of the most common pitfalls. Sponsor: None of this would be possible if it were not for my Canadian Immigration Institute. My DIY courses earn me sufficient revenue to continue pushing out great free content on Canadian Immigration. Canadian Immigration Institute - Founded by Immigration Lawyer Mark Holthe  Affiliate Program: Click on this link to become an affiliate of the Canadian Immigration Institute: https://www.canadianimmigrationinstitute.com/become-an-affiliate OR,  go to the Canadian Immigration Institute main page and scroll down to the very bottom and click on “Affiliate”. Earn 30% when someone purchases via your affiliate link [Tweet "What's up with international students in Canada?"] Additional Resources: Will Tao's firm: https://edelmann.ca/ Will's Blog: http://vancouverimmigrationblog.com Topics for our Next Podcast [reminder]If you have a suggestion for topics we could cover in the Podcast, please drop me a line at mholthe@holthelaw.com. 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] 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

This week Bob speak with Alex Neve about his role as Secretary-General Amnesty International Canada. A position that he's held since January 2000. They discuss how Alex got his interest in the work of Amnesty International, the work they do, and his upcoming retirement from the role. This is a great conversation to gain a deeper understanding of the Amnesty International organization and its work.Alex has been a member of Amnesty International since the mid-1980s and has worked for the organization nationally and internationally in a number of different roles, including missions to Tanzania, Guinea, Mexico, Burundi, Chad, Colombia, Honduras, Zimbabwe, Côte d'Ivoire, South Africa, South Sudan, Bangladesh, and Ghana. In Toronto, he has been affiliated with the Centre for Refugee Studies at York University and has taught international human rights and refugee law at Osgoode Hall Law School. He regularly lectures, participates in conferences and speaks and writes in the national media on a range of human rights topics. Before taking on the role of secretary-general in January 2000, he served as a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Enjoying the show? Consider becoming a sponsor. More details can be found here:https://amazingagency.ca/c/raeThis episode is brought to you by Amazing Agency! A full-service digital marketing agency and podcast studio. https://www.amazingagency.ca/

A big announcement from the Fight to End Homelessness, how judges on the Immigration and Refugee Board are failing the most vulnerable, and London's plan to address housing instability. A big announcement from the Fight to End Homelessness with co-organizer Brett Lucier. How judges on the Immigration and Refugee Board are failing the most vulnerable with Global News investigative writer and researcher Brian Hill.  London's plan to address housing instability with homeless prevention manager Craig Cooper. 

Eating For Free is a bi-weekly gossip podcast reporting from the edge of the internet! We're a new wave of celebrity reporters at a time when pop culture is increasingly chaotic and media lacks the ability or moral direction to make sense of this capitalist nightmare! You can find us on our website, Twitter, and Instagram. For behind-the-scenes gossip and access, join our exclusive Facebook group: Girls & Gays (G.A.G.S.)!  Do you have a tip for us? Want to leave some feedback? Need to get any questions off your chest? Send us an email at eatingforfreepodcast@gmail.com! Joan Summers: Twitter, Instagram, Email. Matthew Lawson: Twitter, Instagram  Links: Sect vows to stop "evil tide sweeping mankind to catastrophe" South China Morning Post/April 26, 1999 The traditional Chinese dance troupe China doesn’t want you to see (Guardian) Facts about the So-called "Shen Yun" Performance by the "Falun Gong" Chinese Embassy Key dates in emergence of China's banned Falungong movement (Cult Education) AFP/January 23, 2001 Teachings of Falun Gong  Is Falun Gong a cult? January, 2009, By Rick Ross China: Whether the self-immolations of 23 January 2001 in Tiananmen Square were a fabrication; if so, who is making the allegations and based on what evidence (2001 to November 2004) Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa "Falun Gong: homophobic mind control cult" San Francisco Sentinal - Letter to the Editor/January 27, 2006, By Samuel Luo Sect vows to stop "evil tide sweeping mankind to catastrophe" South China Morning Post/April 26, 1999 White House Reviews Incident Involving Epoch Times Photographer (Washington Post) A Chinese Battle on U.S. Soil (Cult Education Institute) Falun Gong (Cult Education Institute) Who is Li Hongzhi? (Cult Education Institute) Interview with Li Hongzhi (Cult Education Institute) Group Says 2,000 Arrested in China (Cult Education Institute) Endgame for the Falun Gong? (Cult Education Institute)  

Eating For Free is a bi-weekly gossip podcast reporting from the edge of the internet! We're a new wave of celebrity reporters at a time when pop culture is increasingly chaotic and media lacks the ability or moral direction to make sense of this capitalist nightmare! You can find us on our website, Twitter, and Instagram. For behind-the-scenes gossip and access, join our exclusive Facebook group: Girls & Gays (G.A.G.S.)!  Do you have a tip for us? Want to leave some feedback? Need to get any questions off your chest? Send us an email at eatingforfreepodcast@gmail.com! Joan Summers: Twitter, Instagram, Email. Matthew Lawson: Twitter, Instagram Links: Sect vows to stop "evil tide sweeping mankind to catastrophe" South China Morning Post/April 26, 1999 The traditional Chinese dance troupe China doesn’t want you to see (Guardian) Facts about the So-called "Shen Yun" Performance by the "Falun Gong" Chinese Embassy Key dates in emergence of China's banned Falungong movement (Cult Education) AFP/January 23, 2001 Teachings of Falun Gong  Is Falun Gong a cult? January, 2009, By Rick Ross China: Whether the self-immolations of 23 January 2001 in Tiananmen Square were a fabrication; if so, who is making the allegations and based on what evidence (2001 to November 2004) Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa "Falun Gong: homophobic mind control cult" San Francisco Sentinal - Letter to the Editor/January 27, 2006, By Samuel Luo Sect vows to stop "evil tide sweeping mankind to catastrophe" South China Morning Post/April 26, 1999 White House Reviews Incident Involving Epoch Times Photographer (Washington Post) A Chinese Battle on U.S. Soil (Cult Education Institute) Falun Gong (Cult Education Institute) Who is Li Hongzhi? (Cult Education Institute) Interview with Li Hongzhi (Cult Education Institute) Group Says 2,000 Arrested in China (Cult Education Institute) Endgame for the Falun Gong? (Cult Education Institute)

With the increasing numbers of refugee claimants crossing into Canada via the US border, the topic of refugees has become extremely polarizing in our country. As we approach another election year, political divisiveness and rhetoric from all parties will continue to dominate the media. What we are left with is a lot of misinformation being spread that only exacerbates the confusion the average Canadian has regarding the refugee issue. In this episode Canadian immigration lawyer Hart Kaminker joined me to help shed some light on this topic and provide some great insight from a refugee lawyer perspective. Tune in to this episode and get rid of your pre-conceived ideas about refugees once and for all. Hart Kaminker has extensive experience in all facets of Immigration and Citizenship law with focused knowledge in litigation, the processing of permanent and temporary applications, and reviewing decisions of Immigration tribunals and international visa officers. Hart has represented clients before the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and all levels of the Immigration and Refugee Board including the Refugee Protection Division, the Refugee Appeal Division and the Immigration Appeal Division. Hart is often called upon to speak at events for the Canadian Bar Association and other community organizations in the Greater Toronto Area. He has also served on the Board of Governors at Beth Tikvah Synagogue and the UJA Israel Engagement Committee. In this episode Hart shared insight on the following topics related to Canadian refugee law: Current influx of refugees from the United States Safe Third Country Agreement Scheduling problems at the RPD Life working as a refugee lawyer [Tweet "Demystifying the refugee issue once and for all"] Additional Resources: How to Contact Hart Kaminker: hkaminker@kaminkerlaw.com Firm Website (Kaminker and Associates): https://www.kaminkerlaw.com/ IRB Statistics on irregular border crossers: https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/Irregular-border-crosser-statistics.aspx 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

With the increasing numbers of refugee claimants crossing into Canada via the US border, the topic of refugees has become extremely polarizing in our country. As we approach another election year, political divisiveness and rhetoric from all parties will continue to dominate the media. What we are left with is a lot of misinformation being spread that only exacerbates the confusion the average Canadian has regarding the refugee issue. In this episode Canadian immigration lawyer Hart Kaminker joined me to help shed some light on this topic and provide some great insight from a refugee lawyer perspective. Tune in to this episode and get rid of your pre-conceived ideas about refugees once and for all.   Hart Kaminker has extensive experience in all facets of Immigration and Citizenship law with focused knowledge in litigation, the processing of permanent and temporary applications, and reviewing decisions of Immigration tribunals and international visa officers. Hart has represented clients before the Federal Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and all levels of the Immigration and Refugee Board including the Refugee Protection Division, the Refugee Appeal Division and the Immigration Appeal Division. Hart is often called upon to speak at events for the Canadian Bar Association and other community organizations in the Greater Toronto Area. He has also served on the Board of Governors at Beth Tikvah Synagogue and the UJA Israel Engagement Committee. In this episode Hart shared insight on the following topics related to Canadian refugee law: Current influx of refugees from the United States Safe Third Country Agreement Scheduling problems at the RPD Life working as a refugee lawyer [Tweet "Demystifying the refugee issue once and for all"] Additional Resources: How to Contact Hart Kaminker: hkaminker@kaminkerlaw.com Firm Website (Kaminker and Associates): https://www.kaminkerlaw.com/ IRB Statistics on irregular border crossers: https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics/Pages/Irregular-border-crosser-statistics.aspx   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

Finding out that you, or a dependent family member, may be medically inadmissible to Canada can be one of the worst days of a foreign national's life. Just when the prospect of becoming a Canadian permanent resident is clearly in sight, you receive a fairness letter from IRCC that threatens to unravel everything you have worked so hard to achieve. In this episode of the Canadian Immigration Podcast, I was extremely fortunate to catch up to one of the country's foremost experts on medical inadmissibility, Mario Bellissimo. Mario has pretty much established himself as the go to immigration lawyer for any foreign national facing the terrifying reality of an IRCC procedural fairness letter related to medical inadmissibility. If you have just received a fairness letter from IRCC, do not do anything until you have first had a chance to listen to what Mario has to say. It could just mean the difference between realizing your dream of immigrating to Canada and being forever barred from ever becoming a permanent resident. [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadianimmigrationpodcast/CIP_S2_E8.mp3" social="true" social_twitter="true" social_facebook="true" social_gplus="true" social_linkedin="true" ] Mario Bellissimo is the founder of Bellissimo Law Group in Toronto, Ontario. He is a Certified Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Refugee Protection with a practice focused on litigation and immigration inadmissibility. He is truly the perfect choice to discuss this complex area of Canadian immigration law. Mario has appeared before all levels of immigration tribunals and courts including the Supreme Court of Canada. He is a Past Chair of the Canadian Bar Association National Immigration Law Section and serves on multiple stakeholder committees involving IRCC, the CBSA, Service Canada, the Federal Courts, the Department of Justice, the Immigration and Refugee Board and Continuing Legal Education. He has consistently been chosen by his peers as one of the Best Lawyers in Canada garnering Lawyer of the Year honours with “Best Lawyers” for 2016. This is the only purely peer reviewed guide to the legal profession. In this episode Mario shares with us his Top 5 considerations when responding to a fairness letter related to medical inadmissibility. the importance of requesting an extension of time to provide fuller and more comprehensive submissions and supporting evidence; the need to address the legal timeline within submissions and evidence; the consequences of failing to properly research and understand the interplay between Federal and Provincial delivery of health and social services and private versus public health coverage; applying the right legal test; knowing the case that must be met to succeed. [Tweet "What to do when faced with medical inadmissibility in Canada."] Additional Resources: The best way to reach Mario Bellissimo: info@bellissimolawgroup.com 1-877-787-8850 (toll free) 416-787-6505 (local) Mario's law firm - Bellissimo Law Group: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/ Medical Inadmissibility Page: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/medical-cases/ Latest Immigration Court Decisions: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/medical-refusals/ Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Inadmissibility Law, 2nd Edition: http://www.carswell.com/product-detail/canadian-citizenship-and-immigration-inadmissibility-law-2nd-edition/ Radio Interview: Mario D. Bellissimo Interviewed by John Oakley on AM640 (A foreign national who was denied Permanent Residence due to autism): http://bit.ly/2paVQYt Listen to Mark Holthe's Canadian Immigration Podcast [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadianimmigrationpodcast/CIP_S2_E8.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. Ask Mark an Immigration Question Periodically I answer listener questions on my podcast. If you have a question, comment, thought or concern, you can do so by clicking here. We'd love to hear from you. You can also leave me a voice message on the Ask an Immigration Question widget on the side bar of this website. 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

Finding out that you, or a dependent family member, may be medically inadmissible to Canada can be one of the worst days of a foreign national's life. Just when the prospect of becoming a Canadian permanent resident is clearly in sight, you receive a fairness letter from IRCC that threatens to unravel everything you have worked so hard to achieve.  In this episode of the Canadian Immigration Podcast, I was extremely fortunate to catch up to one of the country's foremost experts on medical inadmissibility, Mario Bellissimo. Mario has pretty much established himself as the go to immigration lawyer for any foreign national facing the terrifying reality of an IRCC procedural fairness letter related to medical inadmissibility. If you have just received a fairness letter from IRCC, do not do anything until you have first had a chance to listen to what Mario has to say. It could just mean the difference between realizing your dream of immigrating to Canada and being forever barred from ever becoming a permanent resident. [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadianimmigrationpodcast/CIP_S2_E8.mp3" social="true" social_twitter="true" social_facebook="true" social_gplus="true" social_linkedin="true" ] Mario Bellissimo is the founder of Bellissimo Law Group in Toronto, Ontario. He is a Certified Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Refugee Protection with a practice focused on litigation and immigration inadmissibility. He is truly the perfect choice to discuss this complex area of Canadian immigration law. Mario has appeared before all levels of immigration tribunals and courts including the Supreme Court of Canada. He is a Past Chair of the Canadian Bar Association National Immigration Law Section and serves on multiple stakeholder committees involving IRCC, the CBSA, Service Canada, the Federal Courts, the Department of Justice, the Immigration and Refugee Board and Continuing Legal Education. He has consistently been chosen by his peers as one of the Best Lawyers in Canada garnering Lawyer of the Year honours with “Best Lawyers” for 2016. This is the only purely peer reviewed guide to the legal profession. In this episode Mario shares with us his Top 5 considerations when responding to a fairness letter related to medical inadmissibility. the importance of requesting an extension of time to provide fuller and more comprehensive submissions and supporting evidence; the need to address the legal timeline within submissions and evidence; the consequences of failing to properly research and understand the interplay between Federal and Provincial delivery of health and social services and private versus public health coverage; applying the right legal test; knowing the case that must be met to succeed.   [Tweet "What to do when faced with medical inadmissibility in Canada."] Additional Resources: The best way to reach Mario Bellissimo: info@bellissimolawgroup.com 1-877-787-8850 (toll free) 416-787-6505 (local) Mario's law firm - Bellissimo Law Group: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/ Medical Inadmissibility Page: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/medical-cases/ Latest Immigration Court Decisions: https://www.bellissimolawgroup.com/medical-refusals/ Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Inadmissibility Law, 2nd Edition: http://www.carswell.com/product-detail/canadian-citizenship-and-immigration-inadmissibility-law-2nd-edition/ Radio Interview: Mario D. Bellissimo Interviewed by John Oakley on AM640 (A foreign national who was denied Permanent Residence due to autism): http://bit.ly/2paVQYt Listen to Mark Holthe's Canadian Immigration Podcast [smart_track_player url="http://traffic.libsyn.com/canadianimmigrationpodcast/CIP_S2_E8.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. Ask Mark an Immigration Question Periodically I answer listener questions on my podcast. If you have a question, comment, thought or concern, you can do so by clicking here. We’d love to hear from you. You can also leave me a voice message on the Ask an Immigration Question widget on the side bar of this website. 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  

Sharalyn Jordan is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. She works with with community agencies that support LGBTQ and refugee mental health as they develop and assess their counselling practices and programs. In this episode we discuss how to overcome systemic barriers in LGBTQ asylum claims. Much of this episode is dedicated to establishing how LGBTQ asylum claimants must prove their sexual identity during their refugee claim. How does someone from a country where being gay is illegal and who has been a closeted homosexual for their entire life prove that they are gay? What do Immigration and Refugee Board members expect? How can counsel assist? Finally, we discuss whether LGBTQ asylum claimants should even be required to prove their sexual orientation as part of their asylum claim.

CanadianImmigrationPodcast.com Mark Holthe: I'm here with my good friend and colleague, Raj Sharma. Raj, thanks for joining me. Raj Sharma: My pleasure. Mark Holthe: We're testing this out with our digital recorder here. I usually do these interviews via Skype call, but I've got high hopes that the audio is going to be great regardless. Thanks for putting up with me, Raj, and happy to have you with us. Today, Raj has agreed to come in and talk a little bit about criminal inadmissibility and some of the consequences that can flow when people get themselves into trouble here in Canada, but before we get into that I want to take a moment to share a little bit of background on Raj, and where he's come from professionally, and where he's at. Raj Sharma's a lawyer and founding partner of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, one of Western Canada's largest dedicated immigration law firms. He received his masters of law from Osgoode Hall and is a former refugee protection officer with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Now, I'll get to the question of how you got into immigration and I'm going to go out on a limb and think that that probably influenced it a little bit. Raj Sharma: That's right. Mark Holthe: With over a hundred reported decisions, Raj has indicated to me, he frequently appears before all divisions, as well as the Federal Court, the court of appeal, and has also appeared before every level of court in Alberta. Raj regularly speaks on immigration matters in the media, and he's been a panelist and speaker at the CBA National Immigration Conference in 2014 and '15. He also writes a lot on immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity. Recently he was the recipient of the Legal Aid of Alberta's Access to Justice award and has been recognized as well as one of Calgary's Top 40 Under 40. Raj is an extremely accomplished individual and I know that he won't plug himself, so I'll do that for him, but whenever I have a difficult case with respect to enforcement, or appeal work, or anything like that I send it to him and his firm. Once again, thanks for joining, Raj. Raj Sharma: Thanks, Mark. I'm East Indian, or as I like to describe ourselves as brown, so no matter how accomplished I am, obviously given that I'm not a doctor I'm probably a disappointment to my parents. Mark Holthe: Well, we'll have to get your parents on to come back and I'm almost positive with everything that you've done, at least within our industry and how you've distinguished yourself, that there wouldn't be a parent on this planet that wouldn't be proud of you. Enough of the feel good stuff, fill us in. How did you get into immigration? Raj Sharma: I never intended to get into immigration law. I did my JD at the University of Alberta. While I was there, I didn't take any immigration courses, immigration just wasn't even on my radar. I summered at a large law firm here in Calgary, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer. I didn't like the large law firm milieu so to speak. Then I spent some time with Dennis Edney, who's now the lawyer for Omar Khadr. Then I also clerked up the Alberta Court of Appeal and ended up doing my articles with the federal department of justice. I think I had at that point an understanding that I would be somewhat closer to a barrister or a litigator than I would be in terms a solicitor. There was one case that I handled and my mentor at that time at the federal Department of Justice was Glennys Bembridge, who is now a Federal Court justice with a different last name, but there was one case and it involved a family, they're doctors, and their son had autism. I was the articling student, so I had to put together the affidavit and supporting the officer's finding of medical inadmissibility. I found that really, really interesting, but I kept saying to my mentor at that why can't we just consent on this file, the family's really deserving, and ultimately I think that the family did get relief. After that, I'd met my wife at Winnipeg at a wedding ... Mark Holthe: I'm going to jump in. Raj Sharma: Yes. Mark Holthe: You said, "Why can't we just consent to this?" What was his response? Raj Sharma: It was a strange response. The response was just like, "Oh, we just have to ..." Mark Holthe: Carry it through. Raj Sharma: It was more like it was like, "Oh, the client instructions ..." I'm like, "What client? We're the government." I was explained that different departments are actually clients of the department of justice. I found that very odd because I don't think that's true. I think that a client/solicitor relationship doesn't encapsulate departments of government being clients of each other. I found that odd. In any way, I'd met my wife in Winnipeg at a wedding, my cousin's wedding. She was in Calgary, born and raised in Calgary, so I needed a way to get to Calgary somehow, so I was applying for jobs in Calgary and I got this called up to do this test or examination at the Immigration Refugee Board. I was offered this position to become a refugee protection officer. That's where in fact I met my partner, Bjorn Harsanyi, so we both started off as refugee protection officers, hearings officers in 2002. Mark Holthe: Obviously that makes a pretty nice background for sliding over to the other side. It gives you an opportunity at least having worked on the other side to get a better understanding of how the government operates, how the department operates, a little bit more inside to the minds of what goes through a decision maker on that side. I have to assume that that helped you as you moved over to the other side with your advocacy on behalf of clients. Raj Sharma: I think so and I think that, and again there's this tradition of this entrepreneurial tradition within my community, and of course my second and third languages also helped, there was a burgeoning South Asian community in Calgary at that time. Really, it was timing, and so Calgary's just really good to me. I'd moved to Calgary at about the right time and I went into private practice at about the right time, right before Calgary took off, so to speak. 2004 I started my practice, late 2004 I started my practice. At that time, just trying to take whatever you can get, so again, I wasn't really centered in immigration. Then there was this legal aid file, this three hour legal aid file for criminal inadmissibility. It involved a foreign national in Canada accused or there was an allegation of weapons, and gun smuggling, and weapons trafficking. At that point I thought, "Well, this is a foregone conclusion." I looked at the IRPA and I said, "Well, this is just, there's no way out here," but my partner at that time pushed me a little bit and so I looked at it, I looked at it again. I put in far more hours than the three hours allotted to me, and low and behold I was able to succeed. I think that was the first time that I was in the media, that was the first time I was on TV or the newspapers, at least when it came to my legal practice. It was after that that my practice in immigration took off because it was after that that I joined Caron & Partners and then again after I left Caron & Partners there was another Vietnamese fellow, [another] fork in the road. There was another Vietnamese client, Jackie Tran, and that file I took on in 2009. Both of these cases probably had something to do with the direction of my practice. Mark Holthe: Yeah, that makes perfect sense because I think for most of us business immigration lawyers, I guess that's how I classify myself, when there's a sticky situation I get uncomfortable pretty quick. I have a tendency to try to take the path of easiest and least resistance with my clients. If there's push back from the government, I tend to try and say, "Do we need to refile? Do we need to rethink our strategy?" Sometimes it's faster to just accept the stupid decision that you get from an officer and then just try to satisfy whatever they want, and refile, and get it approved, but there's a number of situations where people get themselves into a corner where they really don't have a nice, easy solution other than taking the government on. Raj Sharma: I think .. it depends on what you're facing. Now, in your case you have to solve a sort of business problem. Prior to 2009, before Tran, I was actually doing hundreds of LMIA's, or LMO's that they were called at the time, so I was representing major corporations, I was getting fat, I was just doing pure solicitor work, and I think again timing came to my rescue because once I got into the Tran file, which necessitated three different Federal Court applications, [emergency] stay application, IAD, ID, and right about that same time the economy in Calgary sort of collapsed, so to speak. If you're a one trick pony, that is you're only doing one aspect of immigration, you could be susceptible to that sort of change. I was very lucky in the sense of I did quite a bit of solicitor business work, but given that strong litigation year we were able to just basically switch our practices over to a litigation aspect. In business [immigration], you're tasked with making sure that the business runs smoothly. Where it's an individual facing loss of status, it's a zero sum game. In business there may be not, it's not a zero sum game, but in someone facing removal or deportation to a country that they haven't been in since they were a kid, it's a zero sum game which is you win or you lose, so at that point you start bringing out all the arrows in your quiver and you're doing whatever you can for your client because it is, for them to some degree, it's life or death in the sense of it's a death of a relationship, it's a death of your relationship to Canada, and it's a death of your status in this country. Mark Holthe: Let's shift to the topic at hand. I think a lot of our listeners, this isn't something that they're very familiar with because I think genuinely people try to avoid committing crimes in Canada and getting themselves removed. Raj Sharma: Right, and we know for a fact that immigrants or first generation Canadians have a lower crime rate than native born Canadians, so you're absolutely right. Most of your listeners and our clients, most of them, the vast majority enjoy a lower criminal rate or criminality than Canadians would. Mark Holthe: Yes, absolutely. As those that are listening in here, as I introduced when I started the podcast here, the interview with Raj Sharma, I indicated that we're going to be talking a little bit about criminal inadmissibility, so Raj, can you give us a little bit of an introduction? When we talk about criminal inadmissibility, how does that play into this world of immigration? Raj Sharma: Immigration is about, and notwithstanding whatever we hear these days from Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, there are no such thing as truly open borders. A country will always dictate who enters and who remains, so there was a case that went to the supreme court of Canada involving a woman actually -- most of the cases I deal with actually do involve men -- but Medovarski involved a woman and Medovarski reaffirmed that concept that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain inside of Canada. When we look at criminality, the threshold for removing non-citizens from Canada is spelled out in intricate detail in the Immigration Refugee Protection Act and there is a bifurcation, i.e., it's somewhat harder to remove permanent residents from Canada and quite a bit easier to remove foreign nationals from Canada. When we talk about foreign nationals, we're talking about students and those here on work permits or those that are visitors in Canada. When we talk about permanent residence, obviously those are individuals that have applied for permanent residency, they're not citizens yet, and so we have a paradigm, a very detailed framework that deals with non-citizens that get in trouble with the law. Mark Holthe: When we talk about getting in trouble with the law, does the Immigration Act or the government, do they view certain crimes more seriously than others? How is that distinction set up? Raj Sharma: No, and maybe they should. That would have been a proper starting point. Maybe you should have been involved in this sort of legislation of these laws, but unfortunately the distinction of the severity of a crime is based on the maximum term of imprisonment or the actual incarceral or term that's imposed. When we talk about prison or incarceral term, we're including conditional sentences or sentences to be served in the community, so the distinction is not between the type of offense, someone that's convicted of a white collar offense such as fraud could face removal just as easily or perhaps more easily than someone accused or charged with simple assault. Mark Holthe: Even if an offense, let's say it's a hybrid offense, so it could proceed summarily or via indictment, the person that is sentenced to ten years imprisonment for that offense versus someone that's sentenced to six months under the eyes of the lovely immigration authorities, it's irrelevant. Raj Sharma: That's right, and it also doesn't take into account your length of time in Canada, so you could be a permanent resident and you could be here since you were two or three, and you could be [here] thirty years, and you could have an issue. Of course, this is the fragility of the human condition, we all make mistakes, so it doesn't take into account the length of time that you're in Canada…, nor does it take into account the nature of the offense, whether it's violent or whether it's non-violent. It's a blunt instrument unfortunately, Section 36 in particularly. Mark Holthe: If you have an individual that's committed a crime in Canada it's pretty clear we know what the offense is, we know what the conviction was, there's not a lot of debate about it, but what happens if someone wants to enter Canada or comes to Canada and has a conviction that occurred over seas or in another country, how does Canada treat those? Raj Sharma: Those things get complicated really quickly because different countries have different legal systems and different countries have different standards in terms of the ... You could have a situation [if] you're from China. Now, China has a 99.9% conviction rate. Mark Holthe: Wow, maybe I won't ask too many questions as to how that justice system plays out for those people accused, but ... Raj Sharma: I mean, so when we start making equivalent, or making offenses, or acts that individuals have done outside of Canada, and we have to somehow try and make them equivalent to offenses in Canada, those things get tricky really, really quickly. That's one subset of what we do.[But] I just keep getting reminded, even this morning, had a client applied on the Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program, skilled individual, excellent English, everything's fantastic, no criminal record whatsoever, applied on the ANP, got the nomination, applied for the PR forms to [CPC] Sydney. We got the passport request two days ago, three days ago, problem. Last week after a birthday party or someone's party, one in the morning, [he's] charged with impaired driving. Those are the sort of simple, understandable criminality because I think some politicians paint criminals as this broad brush, but criminals are no different than [you or I], it's just there's one incorrect decision. I think impaired driving is like that, this is impaired driving, could result in no jail time whatsoever, probably will result in a fine if he ever gets convicted, and a driving suspension. Won't spend a day in jail, but that's a hybrid offense and that [a conviction] makes him [as a foreign national] inadmissible. That's where I feel a lot of sympathy because you're seeing literally in front of you the end of a dream and you're seeing a person that for all other purposes would be an ideal addition to Canada's multicultural fabric. It's not really the media, it's not my cases that hit the news or the front pages that really give a proper idea of my practice. It really is those guys that are within an inch of permanent residency and we wouldn't consider them to be criminals, but of course they've made a grievous and horrendous error by drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car. Mark Holthe: Let's carry that through, I think that would be interesting. An individual who is in that type of a situation, this happens to them. What can they expect? Raj Sharma: Number one, if they come to me my first response to them, and there may be some sort of false hope, or some sort of strange fever dream that they're existing under, or they may get some sort of strange advice from someone, or a friend, or a cousin, and there may be a suggestion as to just somehow let it ride out and CIC may not figure this out. My first advice to them is that if they want my assistance, that we will be disclosing the charge and the encounter with the police immediately. That's the first thing that should happen and once they agree to these sort of terms, then we can start figuring out a solution. Now, the solution of course, and I kind of outlined that earlier today in my speech here, which is now start looking into conviction options or post conviction options. These conviction options, number one, beat out the charge in trial, because the system is binary, because it's a zero sum game, we can't now ... I think criminal lawyers and immigration lawyers that dabble in criminal law, there's no options now. You actually have to go and try to beat this out, you got to find, even if your client is factually guilty, you got to find a way to make him legally not guilty because if he's not guilty, that doesn't lead to any criminal consequences. If it's an offense, a domestic violence type of situation, and a peace bond is in the offering, take a peace bond. A peace bond doesn't have any criminal consequences either. There may be possibilities for some offenses for absolute or conditional discharges, take it, take it. That bird in the hand, we can safeguard that immigration at that point. In terms of a DUI, we're really looking to these curative discharges now and that's one option as well. Mark Holthe: Maybe you can explain what that is. What is a curative discharge? Raj Sharma: Curative discharge involves a process by which there is a guilt or there is factual guilt and there's again…. A curative discharge we've used where there's indication of alcoholism [as a] medical condition. If we can establish that, then the judge may see fit to grant a curative discharge. If that happens, then there is no criminal record that could waylay an immigration application or application for permanent residence. That's not to say, by the way, that that won't lead to other issues, i.e., you may still need a waiver to get into the US, but the curative discharge is something that we explore for impaired driving, and conditional, and absolute where ever possible [for other offences]. Now, bear in mind there's a whole host of offenses that result in mandatory minimum sentences and so we can't do any number of these things for those types of offenses, but those are some of the arrows in our quiver in terms of post conviction. Where ever possible, if you are facing a charge, either you're a permanent resident or a foreign national, try to get immigration lawyer involved alongside your criminal lawyer. There may be options to get positive sentencing remarks or positive remarks that are spoken into the record. Those transcripts can come in handy. If you are convicted, if you are sentenced, it's important that the client demonstrate remorse, and rehabilitation, engage in programming, and try to turn that life around. If we can demonstrate that, there are some options, which is that that initiating document to establish criminal inadmissibility, the Section 44 report, there is a scope for the officer not to write that report. Again, when I started down this journey I didn't realize the scope of discretion that's in the act. There is significant discretion. An officer may choose not to write a report against a permanent resident or foreign national and that may be the first, and maybe the last, real line of defense for a lot of these individuals. We've seen that happen, we've seen permanent residents, I've represented permanent residents, young guys, a technical armed robbery, four years plus sentence ... Mark Holthe: A technical armed robbery. Raj Sharma: A technical armed robbery... Mark Holthe: I love this terminology, technical versus a real, is there any distinction there? Raj Sharma: Let me tell you and you tell me whether that terminology or that splitting of hairs is appropriate. A guy got fired from a job at a liquor store, was angry, young guy, and decides to rob the liquor store as some sort of payback, buys a gun that is not operational, just this old, rusted out gun. There's no bullets in it, it's inoperable. Goes into the store, people see the gun, so they flee, so he goes to the cashier, he tries to open the cash box, is unable to do so, and runs out without stealing anything. Misfortune added to his idiocy, there's an off duty police officer who immediately arrests him outside the liquor store, so this guy goes through this process and his criminal lawyer after wasting tens of thousands of dollars of his money, pleads him guilty to an offense that includes a mandatory minimum sentence. At that point, and I met the judge actually afterwards and the judge said, "Hey, I wonder why that lawyer did that because if the lawyer challenged that on a charter ground of cruel and unusual punishment, that that mandatory minimum sentence in this case offends the Charter, I would have granted it to him." This lawyer tells this guy and his family, "That's it, game over, you will be deported," but of course that's not actually the end of it. [So] I do stand by my characterization of that as a technical armed robbery because this guy, he's more of an idiot than he was a criminal. This family went through a lot, this family, his sister in fact, who lived with was married, [her] husband had some mental issues, and she was attacked actually. The police attended and in fact that man was actually brought down by the CPS, so the family went through a lot. We put all this together, put the sentencing transcripts in, the judge, they got a really compassionate judge who said a lot of things into that record. [The client] was out on bail for four years, and upgraded himself, and it really was an ill advised decision. Ultimately, we had an understanding officer. She ended up interviewing him over the telephone, I think, at the Remand institution, and [she ultimately] decided not to write the report. Mark Holthe: I guess that's the beauty of this is the discretion that's laced into the immigration process. Raj Sharma: They won't lightly do it, but if you've got the goods .. it can be done. We had another case, we had another individual originally from Hong Kong, came over as a kid, got into some gambling issues, and then got into selling drugs to pay off some of those debts. Served his time, was a model prisoner, and his entire family was here, we set out everything. In this case we asked the Report not to be written, it was written. We challenged the Report at the Federal Court, we received approval or leave on one, it went back, and ultimately a Minister's Delegate decided to issue a warning letter. That's drug trafficking [involving a “hard” drug] and that was again significant, so these things can be done for the right individual. You will have people that have turned their lives around and you can see, you can tell. There's no faking this because it's a year's long journey. If you've got it, you've got it, and thankfully our officers, what I've seen is that we have fair individuals, open minded individuals, and that's not to say that I haven't lost on something that I think I should have won, I have, but even that decision, at least that individual had an open mind. I think our [CBSA/CIC] officers by and large are open minded individuals. Again, this may be the last line of defense for a lot of these individuals because there may not be an appeal to the ID anymore because the atrociously entitled Fast Removal of Foreign Criminals Act has amended the IRPA, so permanent residents that have been sentenced to more than six months, including conditional sentences, don't have an appeal to the IAD anymore. Whatever they've got, they've got to address that Section 44 report, that procedural fairness process, maybe Federal Court, maybe a TRP, maybe an H&C, a humanitarian and compassion application, but without that IAD backup, options are limited. Mark Holthe: That's really interesting because like I said, from my perspective, someone who does not do a lot of that type of work, very little in fact, I see walls, absolute walls sometimes for people that I can't see past, whereas individuals such as yourself who have a little bit of a broader perspective, and have actually gone and looked behind the wall have realized that sometimes there's ways through. The message that I got, especially, and just to clarify for the listeners, Raj and I are just meeting at the Canadian Bar Association Office here in Calgary after Raj gave a presentation [to the CBA Immigration Subsection] on this similar topic. One of the messages that came through loud and clear is that maybe people give up too easy, especially counsel, us. I put us under the bus in many circumstances because sometimes we're just too willing to roll over. We need to take a serious look at what the possibilities, are and not be afraid to question and challenge an allegation that's being made against our clients. Even in circumstances where based on a clear reading of the law there's a certain outcome that's supposed to flow doesn't necessarily mean there isn't discretion to go around that and that there isn't some compassion laced into the system. Raj Sharma: I learned this relatively recently. I went to visit my eighty-five, ninety years old grandmother in Edmonton. I didn't learn until much later -- my grandfather died, so my grandmother came over with my youngest uncle to Canada to her children here. None of us kids actually knew that our uncle was actually her sister's son. Her sister had died, so she had taken my uncle in. I guess his dad wasn't interested in caring for him, so I learned this later that Uncle is not actually our uncle, he's actually my mom's cousin. …I knew that there was some immigration issues that he was going through early on when he came, so my grandmother explained it to me, because there was no adoption papers and because my grandmother I think is incapable of lying, she's very straight out that we have no adoption papers, but he has nowhere else to be other than with me. They battled for like three or four years to try and get my uncle to be here. Ultimately CIC indicated, "Well, he can't be here, there's no adoption papers, we have no consent from his guardian, or his biological father, or whatever the case may be." We're from this small mining town in BC and the family was helped by an immigration lawyer out of Vancouver. Ultimately my uncle got what was then called a minister's permit, which is now we call a TRP, a temporary resident permit. When I learned that I was, "Well, I guess that's what I do." So I [do] think people minimize or perhaps don't understand the scope of discretion that's available. There are roadblocks, there's hurdles, [but] there's very few problems without an absolute solution. That being said, if you are unmitigated, incorrigible criminal, no officer's going to give you the benefit of whatever doubt there may be, but there are these avenues that can be pursued and there is a sort of system. You got to work through that system, work with the criminal lawyers, put your client in the best possible light, take advantage of any little nook, cranny, any little shaft of light, and you might be able to widen that crack a little bit for your client to step through, but yes, very few things are foregone conclusions and it's our job as counsel to put the best possible foot forward for the client. Again, in my twelve years of practicing immigration law there's very few actual incorrigible [criminals]. I said this before … that hard cases make bad law and outliers shouldn't make the world a harder place for the vast majority of people that simply want to come to Canada and give their families a better life. These outliers don't reflect the vast majority of cases that we deal with. The vast majority of cases we deal with are human fragility, human error, understandable mistakes. Mark Holthe: You mentioned this concept of a TRP, a temporary resident permit, which is now the new version of a Minister's Permit. Raj Sharma: That's right. Mark Holthe: In some circumstances, individuals will have appeal rights when there is criminality involved and they're facing some harsh consequences, they have appeal rights and other times they don't. You had talked a little bit about the discretion that an officer has to write that report to refer it or not. Can you maybe clarify that just a little bit for counsel who maybe have individuals that are at the stage where the consequences could be pretty nasty? Maybe there is no appeal right and you indicated that sometimes an officer does have some discretion whether or not to write it. Raj Sharma: That's right. That Section 44 report, so let's say there's a conviction in Canada. Establishing that would be pretty straightforward, pretty easy. What counsel can do is respond to a procedural fairness letter, say, "Please don't write the Section 44 report and here's why," and these are going to be [modeled on] the typical Section 25 type of application or submission, so time in Canada, establishment in Canada, those ties here, the family ties here, hardship, or adverse conditions, or challenges upon return, children that are affected by the decision, the circumstances leading to the events, any indicia of remorse, rehabilitation, insight. All those should be placed squarely before the officer and you say to the officer, "Don't write this report, please. The guy's been here for a long time, this is a singular mistake, the criminal record is limited or none other than this lapse in judgment." If the officer writes the report, its then has to be referred under Section 44 sub 2 by a Minister's Delegate. If it's referred, for a permanent resident that means it goes to the immigration division. If it's criminality or serious criminality in Canada, that's Section 44 sub 2, that becomes a removal order for a foreign national. Again, there's less options for foreign nationals here. If it's referred to the immigration division, not much you can do if it's a conviction in Canada. The ID is not going to look beyond the certificate of conviction. If it's a conviction outside of Canada or an allegation that some offense has occurred outside of Canada, that would be equivalent to serious offenses inside of Canada. Then the immigration proceeding becomes a substantive proceeding. That's when it takes on some degree of significance. You are then going to start talking about foreign legal laws, standard of proof, burden of proof, and at that point you probably should be retaining a foreign legal expert. It gets complicated really quickly at that point. After a removal order is issued, post removal order options are limited. A TRP can overcome or allow you to remain in Canada notwithstanding a removal order. An H&C can do the same. One option might be to get a TRP pending record suspension for a conviction inside Canada, for example, if there's eligibility. Mark Holthe: If an officer chooses to write the report when you've made your submissions, can you challenge that part before it gets to the immigration division? Raj Sharma: Yes, you can challenge both the writing of a Report to the Federal Court and the referral of the report to the Federal Court. You probably won't do that if the person concerned is a permanent resident and has an appeal right to the IAD, there's no sense in that, but if you don't have that appeal, you're left with these limited options, so you're going to buy some more time. By going to the Federal Court either you buy some more time, it goes back, a different officer might come to a different conclusion, or you simply might need time for record suspension. Mark Holthe: Just buying the time, interesting. Raj Sharma: Might be one because you need strategic depth, so strategic depth is usually time, more time in Canada gives you more options. Mark Holthe: Define strategic depth for those who are not following. What are you talking about when you use that terminology? Raj Sharma: Strategic depth I was thinking more in terms of war. If you've got a country like Russia and you want to invade Russia, and Napoleon and Hitler both tried that. One of the problems is that Russia has a lot of depth, so you can invade, and invade, and keep invading, and the Russians will have time to mount a response. You can contrast that with, for example, Pakistan, which is thin wasted [country] geographically speaking, there's not a lot of strategic depth there. If we were to apply that terminology to immigration in Canada, then I would say strategic depth would be time. A lot of time, we don't have time, and so give me some time, give me enough time and I can do quite a bit. You need time to marshal resources, to file Federal Court obligations, to file TRP applications, to file H&C applications, to maybe get a rehabilitation application in, so time is our strategic depth and most of the time we don't have it. Mark Holthe: Yes, that is abundantly clear within our practice. I really appreciate that overview and the insight, it was awesome. Let's talk about some practice tips maybe. If counsel finds themselves in these types of positions dealing with an issue, a potential criminal inadmissibility, what are some of the things that go through your mind right away that you'd give in terms of advice, things that people want to make sure they do every single time, or little tips or strategies? You've already indicated here that you want to try to buy as much time as you can, that's obviously really important, but are there any specific things or pieces of advice that we haven't maybe talked about yet that you'd like to share with the listeners? Raj Sharma: I think definitely take a look at the IRCC or CIC policy manuals, Enforcement Manual 5, Enforcement Manual 6, take a look at the loose leaf publication by Mario Bellissimo and Genova, Immigration and Admissibility, they've got a handbook as well. You need to get an understanding of the facts and understand the law in a relatively quick fashion. Once you understand the context that you're in, so if the context is a permanent resident, and there's an offense, and you're looking at the loss of appeal rights, and you've got a procedural fairness letter, and the sentence has been served, what I would do immediately is probably do ATIP requests, access to information requests, and I would try to get and reconstruct the client's immigration history as much as possible. That's probably the first thing I would do is do an ATIP request. I would do FOIP requests for the correctional service documents, the institution documents, and see what's been going on over there and try to get access to those parole documents, take a look at their recidivism rankings. I would probably get the sentencing transcripts right away, I would get any pre-sentence reports that were filed or that were before the sentencing judge right away. After I looked at that I would see if I could update that pre-sentence report by a qualified forensic expert and reassess recidivism. Then I would probably put together these substantive submissions. Again, relying on maybe the IRB, IAD, Removal Order Appeals publication. Having regard to the sort of H&C factors and Ribic and Chieu factors. I would put all that together and get it into that officer probably as soon as possible. That's probably what I would do and that's probably what anyone should probably do with a PR facing removal where there's been a length of sentence greater than six months. If it was less than six months, then obviously maybe I'd just keep my powder dry to some degree, I'd still put in something, but I'd probably just keep my powder dry for the IAD. Mark Holthe: It's pretty much they're going to send it that way and choose not to make a decision at that stage. Raj Sharma: I would think as an officer, this is not in the manuals at all, but ... Mark Holthe: This is what we want, Raj, yes. Raj Sharma: As an officer, and I used to be an officer, but as an officer if I saw that a PR had a right of appeal, then really I would probably give short shrift to any sort of request for exercising my discretion at the 44 stage. I'd be like, "Look, let me just do my job, let me write this 44 report, and refer it, and let them make whatever submissions he needs to the IAD." I think the relationship to discretion and the loss of appeal rights is inverse, so if there's an appeal right, then I would narrow my own discretion. Then if there's no appeal rights, then I would probably take and expand my scope of discretion within, of course, the ambit of the law. Mark Holthe: That's awesome and it makes perfect sense. Officers, despite how some people feel, are human beings. When they feel like someone is trying to screw the system over, they're probably not going to give you a lot of help, but if they feel people are genuine and they've made a mistake, and there's a whole host of ... Raj Sharma: The system, maybe the system has been narrowed against, for example, any further request for relief. I think that they'll substantively consider. Mark Holthe: That's awesome. I really appreciate everything that you've shared here. Raj Sharma: Any time. Mark Holthe: This is fantastic. Now, as always when I have guests on, people are going to listen to this and they're going to say, "Hey, I've got a friend," or, "I know someone who's in this exact situation," and their counsel that they have right now is telling them that they might as well start singing 'Happy Trails,' and packing their bags, and they're saying to themselves, "There must be something else that I can do." They're going to listen to this and they're going to say, "Raj Sharma, how do I get a hold of this guy?" How do people track you down? What's the best way of getting in contact with you and engaging your services? Raj Sharma: For sure, Mark. Anyone can email us at info@sshlaw.ca, that's info@sshlaw.ca, number is 403-705-3398. I think we have a toll free number, but I'm not sure what it is. Mark Holthe: You can go to the website, right, too. Raj Sharma: Yes, you can definitely reach us and we'd be happy to help. It's something that we've developed for the last seven, eight years or so. Mark Holthe: Awesome, thanks a lot. I appreciate your time. Take care. Raj Sharma: Thanks a lot, Mark.

CanadianImmigrationPodcast.com Mark Holthe: I'm here with my good friend and colleague, Raj Sharma. Raj, thanks for joining me. Raj Sharma: My pleasure. Mark Holthe: We're testing this out with our digital recorder here. I usually do these interviews via Skype call, but I've got high hopes that the audio is going to be great regardless. Thanks for putting up with me, Raj, and happy to have you with us. Today, Raj has agreed to come in and talk a little bit about criminal inadmissibility and some of the consequences that can flow when people get themselves into trouble here in Canada, but before we get into that I want to take a moment to share a little bit of background on Raj, and where he's come from professionally, and where he's at. Raj Sharma's a lawyer and founding partner of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi, one of Western Canada's largest dedicated immigration law firms. He received his masters of law from Osgoode Hall and is a former refugee protection officer with the Immigration and Refugee Board. Now, I'll get to the question of how you got into immigration and I'm going to go out on a limb and think that that probably influenced it a little bit. Raj Sharma: That's right. Mark Holthe:  With over a hundred reported decisions, Raj has indicated to me, he frequently appears before all divisions, as well as the Federal Court, the court of appeal, and has also appeared before every level of court in Alberta. Raj regularly speaks on immigration matters in the media, and he's been a panelist and speaker at the CBA National Immigration Conference in 2014 and '15. He also writes a lot on immigration, multiculturalism, and diversity. Recently he was the recipient of the Legal Aid of Alberta's Access to Justice award and has been recognized as well as one of Calgary's Top 40 Under 40. Raj is an extremely accomplished individual and I know that he won't plug himself, so I'll do that for him, but whenever I have a difficult case with respect to enforcement, or appeal work, or anything like that I send it to him and his firm. Once again, thanks for joining, Raj. Raj Sharma:  Thanks, Mark. I'm East Indian, or as I like to describe ourselves as brown, so no matter how accomplished I am, obviously given that I'm not a doctor I'm probably a disappointment to my parents. Mark Holthe: Well, we'll have to get your parents on to come back and I'm almost positive with everything that you've done, at least within our industry and how you've distinguished yourself, that there wouldn't be a parent on this planet that wouldn't be proud of you. Enough of the feel good stuff, fill us in. How did you get into immigration? Raj Sharma: I never intended to get into immigration law. I did my JD at the University of Alberta. While I was there, I didn't take any immigration courses, immigration just wasn't even on my radar. I summered at a large law firm here in Calgary, Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer. I didn't like the large law firm milieu so to speak. Then I spent some time with Dennis Edney, who's now the lawyer for Omar Khadr. Then I also clerked up the Alberta Court of Appeal and ended up doing my articles with the federal department of justice. I think I had at that point an understanding that I would be somewhat closer to a barrister or a litigator than I would be in terms a solicitor. There was one case that I handled and my mentor at that time at the federal Department of Justice was Glennys Bembridge, who is now a Federal Court justice with a different last name, but there was one case and it involved a family, they're doctors, and their son had autism. I was the articling student, so I had to put together the affidavit and supporting the officer's finding of medical inadmissibility. I found that really, really interesting, but I kept saying to my mentor at that why can't we just consent on this file, the family's really deserving, and ultimately I think that the family did get relief. After that, I'd met my wife at Winnipeg at a wedding ... Mark Holthe:  I'm going to jump in. Raj Sharma:  Yes. Mark Holthe: You said, "Why can't we just consent to this?" What was his response? Raj Sharma: It was a strange response. The response was just like, "Oh, we just have to ..." Mark Holthe: Carry it through. Raj Sharma: It was more like it was like, "Oh, the client instructions ..." I'm like, "What client? We're the government." I was explained that different departments are actually clients of the department of justice. I found that very odd because I don't think that's true. I think that a client/solicitor relationship doesn't encapsulate departments of government being clients of each other. I found that odd. In any way, I'd met my wife in Winnipeg at a wedding, my cousin's wedding. She was in Calgary, born and raised in Calgary, so I needed a way to get to Calgary somehow, so I was applying for jobs in Calgary and I got this called up to do this test or examination at the Immigration Refugee Board. I was offered this position to become a refugee protection officer. That's where in fact I met my partner, Bjorn Harsanyi, so we both started off as refugee protection officers, hearings officers in 2002. Mark Holthe:  Obviously that makes a pretty nice background for sliding over to the other side. It gives you an opportunity at least having worked on the other side to get a better understanding of how the government operates, how the department operates, a little bit more inside to the minds of what goes through a decision maker on that side. I have to assume that that helped you as you moved over to the other side with your advocacy on behalf of clients. Raj Sharma:  I think so and I think that, and again there's this tradition of this entrepreneurial tradition within my community, and of course my second and third languages also helped, there was a burgeoning South Asian community in Calgary at that time. Really, it was timing, and so Calgary's just really good to me. I'd moved to Calgary at about the right time and I went into private practice at about the right time, right before Calgary took off, so to speak. 2004 I started my practice, late 2004 I started my practice. At that time, just trying to take whatever you can get, so again, I wasn't really centered in immigration. Then there was this legal aid file, this three hour legal aid file for criminal inadmissibility. It involved a foreign national in Canada accused or there was an allegation of weapons, and gun smuggling, and weapons trafficking. At that point I thought, "Well, this is a foregone conclusion." I looked at the IRPA and I said, "Well, this is just, there's no way out here," but my partner at that time pushed me a little bit and so I looked at it, I looked at it again. I put in far more hours than the three hours allotted to me, and low and behold I was able to succeed. I think that was the first time that I was in the media, that was the first time I was on TV or the newspapers, at least when it came to my legal practice. It was after that that my practice in immigration took off because it was after that that I joined Caron & Partners and then again after I left Caron & Partners there was another Vietnamese fellow, [another] fork in the road. There was another Vietnamese client, Jackie Tran, and that file I took on in 2009. Both of these cases probably had something to do with the direction of my practice. Mark Holthe:  Yeah, that makes perfect sense because I think for most of us business immigration lawyers, I guess that's how I classify myself, when there's a sticky situation I get uncomfortable pretty quick. I have a tendency to try to take the path of easiest and least resistance with my clients. If there's push back from the government, I tend to try and say, "Do we need to refile? Do we need to rethink our strategy?" Sometimes it's faster to just accept the stupid decision that you get from an officer and then just try to satisfy whatever they want, and refile, and get it approved, but there's a number of situations where people get themselves into a corner where they really don't have a nice, easy solution other than taking the government on. Raj Sharma:   I think .. it depends on what you're facing. Now, in your case you have to solve a sort of business problem. Prior to 2009, before Tran, I was actually doing hundreds of LMIA's, or LMO's that they were called at the time, so I was representing major corporations, I was getting fat, I was just doing pure solicitor work, and I think again timing came to my rescue because once I got into the Tran file, which necessitated three different Federal Court applications, [emergency] stay application, IAD, ID, and right about that same time the economy in Calgary sort of collapsed, so to speak. If you're a one trick pony, that is you're only doing one aspect of immigration, you could be susceptible to that sort of change. I was very lucky in the sense of I did quite a bit of solicitor business work, but given that strong litigation year we were able to just basically switch our practices over to a litigation aspect. In business [immigration], you're tasked with making sure that the business runs smoothly. Where it's an individual facing loss of status, it's a zero sum game. In business there may be not, it's not a zero sum game, but in someone facing removal or deportation to a country that they haven't been in since they were a kid, it's a zero sum game which is you win or you lose, so at that point you start bringing out all the arrows in your quiver and you're doing whatever you can for your client because it is, for them to some degree, it's life or death in the sense of it's a death of a relationship, it's a death of your relationship to Canada, and it's a death of your status in this country. Mark Holthe:  Let's shift to the topic at hand. I think a lot of our listeners, this isn't something that they're very familiar with because I think genuinely people try to avoid committing crimes in Canada and getting themselves removed. Raj Sharma:    Right, and we know for a fact that immigrants or first generation Canadians have a lower crime rate than native born Canadians, so you're absolutely right. Most of your listeners and our clients, most of them, the vast majority enjoy a lower criminal rate or criminality than Canadians would. Mark Holthe:  Yes, absolutely. As those that are listening in here, as I introduced when I started the podcast here, the interview with Raj Sharma, I indicated that we're going to be talking a little bit about criminal inadmissibility, so Raj, can you give us a little bit of an introduction? When we talk about criminal inadmissibility, how does that play into this world of immigration? Raj Sharma:  Immigration is about, and notwithstanding whatever we hear these days from Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton, there are no such thing as truly open borders. A country will always dictate who enters and who remains, so there was a case that went to the supreme court of Canada involving a woman actually -- most of the cases I deal with actually do involve men -- but Medovarski involved a woman and Medovarski reaffirmed that concept that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain inside of Canada. When we look at criminality, the threshold for removing non-citizens from Canada is spelled out in intricate detail in the Immigration Refugee Protection Act and there is a bifurcation, i.e., it's somewhat harder to remove permanent residents from Canada and quite a bit easier to remove foreign nationals from Canada. When we talk about foreign nationals, we're talking about students and those here on work permits or those that are visitors in Canada. When we talk about permanent residence, obviously those are individuals that have applied for permanent residency, they're not citizens yet, and so we have a paradigm, a very detailed framework that deals with non-citizens that get in trouble with the law. Mark Holthe:  When we talk about getting in trouble with the law, does the Immigration Act or the government, do they view certain crimes more seriously than others? How is that distinction set up? Raj Sharma: No, and maybe they should. That would have been a proper starting point. Maybe you should have been involved in this sort of legislation of these laws, but unfortunately the distinction of the severity of a crime is based on the maximum term of imprisonment or the actual incarceral or term that's imposed. When we talk about prison or incarceral term, we're including conditional sentences or sentences to be served in the community, so the distinction is not between the type of offense, someone that's convicted of a white collar offense such as fraud could face removal just as easily or perhaps more easily than someone accused or charged with simple assault. Mark Holthe: Even if an offense, let's say it's a hybrid offense, so it could proceed summarily or via indictment, the person that is sentenced to ten years imprisonment for that offense versus someone that's sentenced to six months under the eyes of the lovely immigration authorities, it's irrelevant. Raj Sharma: That's right, and it also doesn't take into account your length of time in Canada, so you could be a permanent resident and you could be here since you were two or three, and you could be [here] thirty years, and you could have an issue. Of course, this is the fragility of the human condition, we all make mistakes, so it doesn't take into account the length of time that you're in Canada…, nor does it take into account the nature of the offense, whether it's violent or whether it's non-violent. It's a blunt instrument unfortunately, Section 36 in particularly. Mark Holthe: If you have an individual that's committed a crime in Canada it's pretty clear we know what the offense is, we know what the conviction was, there's not a lot of debate about it, but what happens if someone wants to enter Canada or comes to Canada and has a conviction that occurred over seas or in another country, how does Canada treat those? Raj Sharma:  Those things get complicated really quickly because different countries have different legal systems and different countries have different standards in terms of the ... You could have a situation [if] you're from China. Now, China has a 99.9% conviction rate. Mark Holthe:  Wow, maybe I won't ask too many questions as to how that justice system plays out for those people accused, but ... Raj Sharma:  I mean, so when we start making equivalent, or making offenses, or acts that individuals have done outside of Canada, and we have to somehow try and make them equivalent to offenses in Canada, those things get tricky really, really quickly. That's one subset of what we do.[But] I just keep getting reminded, even this morning, had a client applied on the Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program, skilled individual, excellent English, everything's fantastic, no criminal record whatsoever, applied on the ANP, got the nomination, applied for the PR forms to [CPC] Sydney. We got the passport request two days ago, three days ago, problem. Last week after a birthday party or someone's party, one in the morning, [he’s] charged with impaired driving. Those are the sort of simple, understandable criminality because I think some politicians paint criminals as this broad brush, but criminals are no different than [you or I], it's just there's one incorrect decision. I think impaired driving is like that, this is impaired driving, could result in no jail time whatsoever, probably will result in a fine if he ever gets convicted, and a driving suspension. Won't spend a day in jail, but that's a hybrid offense and that [a conviction] makes him [as a foreign national] inadmissible. That's where I feel a lot of sympathy because you're seeing literally in front of you the end of a dream and you're seeing a person that for all other purposes would be an ideal addition to Canada's multicultural fabric. It's not really the media, it's not my cases that hit the news or the front pages that really give a proper idea of my practice. It really is those guys that are within an inch of permanent residency and we wouldn't consider them to be criminals, but of course they've made a grievous and horrendous error by drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car. Mark Holthe:   Let's carry that through, I think that would be interesting. An individual who is in that type of a situation, this happens to them. What can they expect? Raj Sharma:  Number one, if they come to me my first response to them, and there may be some sort of false hope, or some sort of strange fever dream that they're existing under, or they may get some sort of strange advice from someone, or a friend, or a cousin, and there may be a suggestion as to just somehow let it ride out and CIC may not figure this out. My first advice to them is that if they want my assistance, that we will be disclosing the charge and the encounter with the police immediately. That's the first thing that should happen and once they agree to these sort of terms, then we can start figuring out a solution. Now, the solution of course, and I kind of outlined that earlier today in my speech here, which is now start looking into conviction options or post conviction options. These conviction options, number one, beat out the charge in trial, because the system is binary, because it's a zero sum game, we can't now ... I think criminal lawyers and immigration lawyers that dabble in criminal law, there's no options now. You actually have to go and try to beat this out, you got to find, even if your client is factually guilty, you got to find a way to make him legally not guilty because if he's not guilty, that doesn't lead to any criminal consequences. If it's an offense, a domestic violence type of situation, and a peace bond is in the offering, take a peace bond. A peace bond doesn't have any criminal consequences either. There may be possibilities for some offenses for absolute or conditional discharges, take it, take it. That bird in the hand, we can safeguard that immigration at that point. In terms of a DUI, we're really looking to these curative discharges now and that's one option as well. Mark Holthe:  Maybe you can explain what that is. What is a curative discharge? Raj Sharma: Curative discharge involves a process by which there is a guilt or there is factual guilt and there's again…. A curative discharge we've used where there's indication of alcoholism [as a] medical condition. If we can establish that, then the judge may see fit to grant a curative discharge. If that happens, then there is no criminal record that could waylay an immigration application or application for permanent residence. That's not to say, by the way, that that won't lead to other issues, i.e., you may still need a waiver to get into the US, but the curative discharge is something that we explore for impaired driving, and conditional, and absolute where ever possible [for other offences]. Now, bear in mind there's a whole host of offenses that result in mandatory minimum sentences and so we can't do any number of these things for those types of offenses, but those are some of the arrows in our quiver in terms of post conviction. Where ever possible, if you are facing a charge, either you're a permanent resident or a foreign national, try to get immigration lawyer involved alongside your criminal lawyer. There may be options to get positive sentencing remarks or positive remarks that are spoken into the record. Those transcripts can come in handy. If you are convicted, if you are sentenced, it's important that the client demonstrate remorse, and rehabilitation, engage in programming, and try to turn that life around. If we can demonstrate that, there are some options, which is that that initiating document to establish criminal inadmissibility, the Section 44 report, there is a scope for the officer not to write that report. Again, when I started down this journey I didn't realize the scope of discretion that's in the act. There is significant discretion. An officer may choose not to write a report against a permanent resident or foreign national and that may be the first, and maybe the last, real line of defense for a lot of these individuals. We've seen that happen, we've seen permanent residents, I've represented permanent residents, young guys, a technical armed robbery, four years plus sentence ... Mark Holthe: A technical armed robbery. Raj Sharma: A technical armed robbery... Mark Holthe:  I love this terminology, technical versus a real, is there any distinction there? Raj Sharma:  Let me tell you and you tell me whether that terminology or that splitting of hairs is appropriate. A guy got fired from a job at a liquor store, was angry, young guy, and decides to rob the liquor store as some sort of payback, buys a gun that is not operational, just this old, rusted out gun. There's no bullets in it, it's inoperable. Goes into the store, people see the gun, so they flee, so he goes to the cashier, he tries to open the cash box, is unable to do so, and runs out without stealing anything. Misfortune added to his idiocy, there's an off duty police officer who immediately arrests him outside the liquor store, so this guy goes through this process and his criminal lawyer after wasting tens of thousands of dollars of his money, pleads him guilty to an offense that includes a mandatory minimum sentence. At that point, and I met the judge actually afterwards and the judge said, "Hey, I wonder why that lawyer did that because if the lawyer challenged that on a charter ground of cruel and unusual punishment, that that mandatory minimum sentence in this case offends the Charter, I would have granted it to him." This lawyer tells this guy and his family, "That's it, game over, you will be deported," but of course that's not actually the end of it. [So] I do stand by my characterization of that as a technical armed robbery because this guy, he's more of an idiot than he was a criminal. This family went through a lot, this family, his sister in fact, who lived with was married, [her] husband had some mental issues, and she was attacked actually. The police attended and in fact that man was actually brought down by the CPS, so the family went through a lot. We put all this together, put the sentencing transcripts in, the judge, they got a really compassionate judge who said a lot of things into that record. [The client] was out on bail for four years, and upgraded himself, and it really was an ill advised decision. Ultimately, we had an understanding officer. She ended up interviewing him over the telephone, I think, at the Remand institution, and [she ultimately] decided not to write the report. Mark Holthe:   I guess that's the beauty of this is the discretion that's laced into the immigration process. Raj Sharma:    They won't lightly do it, but if you've got the goods .. it can be done. We had another case, we had another individual originally from Hong Kong, came over as a kid, got into some gambling issues, and then got into selling drugs to pay off some of those debts. Served his time, was a model prisoner, and his entire family was here, we set out everything. In this case we asked the Report not to be written, it was written. We challenged the Report at the Federal Court, we received approval or leave on one, it went back, and ultimately a Minister’s Delegate decided to issue a warning letter. That's drug trafficking [involving a “hard” drug] and that was again significant, so these things can be done for the right individual. You will have people that have turned their lives around and you can see, you can tell. There's no faking this because it's a year's long journey. If you've got it, you've got it, and thankfully our officers, what I've seen is that we have fair individuals, open minded individuals, and that's not to say that I haven't lost on something that I think I should have won, I have, but even that decision, at least that individual had an open mind. I think our [CBSA/CIC] officers by and large are open minded individuals. Again, this may be the last line of defense for a lot of these individuals because there may not be an appeal to the ID anymore because the atrociously entitled Fast Removal of Foreign Criminals Act has amended the IRPA, so permanent residents that have been sentenced to more than six months, including conditional sentences, don't have an appeal to the IAD anymore. Whatever they've got, they've got to address that Section 44 report, that procedural fairness process, maybe Federal Court, maybe a TRP, maybe an H&C, a humanitarian and compassion application, but without that IAD backup, options are limited. Mark Holthe:   That's really interesting because like I said, from my perspective, someone who does not do a lot of that type of work, very little in fact, I see walls, absolute walls sometimes for people that I can't see past, whereas individuals such as yourself who have a little bit of a broader perspective, and have actually gone and looked behind the wall have realized that sometimes there's ways through. The message that I got, especially, and just to clarify for the listeners, Raj and I are just meeting at the Canadian Bar Association Office here in Calgary after Raj gave a presentation [to the CBA Immigration Subsection] on this similar topic. One of the messages that came through loud and clear is that maybe people give up too easy, especially counsel, us. I put us under the bus in many circumstances because sometimes we're just too willing to roll over. We need to take a serious look at what the possibilities, are and not be afraid to question and challenge an allegation that's being made against our clients. Even in circumstances where based on a clear reading of the law there's a certain outcome that's supposed to flow doesn't necessarily mean there isn't discretion to go around that and that there isn't some compassion laced into the system. Raj Sharma:  I learned this relatively recently. I went to visit my eighty-five, ninety years old grandmother in Edmonton. I didn't learn until much later -- my grandfather died, so my grandmother came over with my youngest uncle to Canada to her children here. None of us kids actually knew that our uncle was actually her sister's son. Her sister had died, so she had taken my uncle in. I guess his dad wasn't interested in caring for him, so I learned this later that Uncle is not actually our uncle, he's actually my mom's cousin. …I knew that there was some immigration issues that he was going through early on when he came, so my grandmother explained it to me, because there was no adoption papers and because my grandmother I think is incapable of lying, she's very straight out that we have no adoption papers, but he has nowhere else to be other than with me. They battled for like three or four years to try and get my uncle to be here. Ultimately CIC indicated, "Well, he can't be here, there's no adoption papers, we have no consent from his guardian, or his biological father, or whatever the case may be." We're from this small mining town in BC and the family was helped by an immigration lawyer out of Vancouver. Ultimately my uncle got what was then called a minister's permit, which is now we call a TRP, a temporary resident permit. When I learned that I was, "Well, I guess that's what I do." So I [do] think people minimize or perhaps don't understand the scope of discretion that's available. There are roadblocks, there's hurdles, [but] there's very few problems without an absolute solution. That being said, if you are unmitigated, incorrigible criminal, no officer's going to give you the benefit of whatever doubt there may be, but there are these avenues that can be pursued and there is a sort of system. You got to work through that system, work with the criminal lawyers, put your client in the best possible light, take advantage of any little nook, cranny, any little shaft of light, and you might be able to widen that crack a little bit for your client to step through, but yes, very few things are foregone conclusions and it's our job as counsel to put the best possible foot forward for the client. Again, in my twelve years of practicing immigration law there's very few actual incorrigible [criminals]. I said this before … that hard cases make bad law and outliers shouldn't make the world a harder place for the vast majority of people that simply want to come to Canada and give their families a better life. These outliers don't reflect the vast majority of cases that we deal with. The vast majority of cases we deal with are human fragility, human error, understandable mistakes. Mark Holthe:   You mentioned this concept of a TRP, a temporary resident permit, which is now the new version of a Minister’s Permit. Raj Sharma:    That's right. Mark Holthe:    In some circumstances, individuals will have appeal rights when there is criminality involved and they're facing some harsh consequences, they have appeal rights and other times they don't. You had talked a little bit about the discretion that an officer has to write that report to refer it or not. Can you maybe clarify that just a little bit for counsel who maybe have individuals that are at the stage where the consequences could be pretty nasty? Maybe there is no appeal right and you indicated that sometimes an officer does have some discretion whether or not to write it. Raj Sharma:    That's right. That Section 44 report, so let's say there's a conviction in Canada. Establishing that would be pretty straightforward, pretty easy. What counsel can do is respond to a procedural fairness letter, say, "Please don't write the Section 44 report and here's why," and these are going to be [modeled on] the typical Section 25 type of application or submission, so time in Canada, establishment in Canada, those ties here, the family ties here, hardship, or adverse conditions, or challenges upon return, children that are affected by the decision, the circumstances leading to the events, any indicia of remorse, rehabilitation, insight. All those should be placed squarely before the officer and you say to the officer, "Don't write this report, please. The guy's been here for a long time, this is a singular mistake, the criminal record is limited or none other than this lapse in judgment." If the officer writes the report, its then has to be referred under Section 44 sub 2 by a Minister’s Delegate. If it's referred, for a permanent resident that means it goes to the immigration division. If it's criminality or serious criminality in Canada, that's Section 44 sub 2, that becomes a removal order for a foreign national. Again, there's less options for foreign nationals here. If it's referred to the immigration division, not much you can do if it's a conviction in Canada. The ID is not going to look beyond the certificate of conviction. If it's a conviction outside of Canada or an allegation that some offense has occurred outside of Canada, that would be equivalent to serious offenses inside of Canada. Then the immigration proceeding becomes a substantive proceeding. That's when it takes on some degree of significance. You are then going to start talking about foreign legal laws, standard of proof, burden of proof, and at that point you probably should be retaining a foreign legal expert. It gets complicated really quickly at that point. After a removal order is issued, post removal order options are limited. A TRP can overcome or allow you to remain in Canada notwithstanding a removal order. An H&C can do the same. One option might be to get a TRP pending record suspension for a conviction inside Canada, for example, if there's eligibility. Mark Holthe:  If an officer chooses to write the report when you've made your submissions, can you challenge that part before it gets to the immigration division? Raj Sharma:   Yes, you can challenge both the writing of a Report to the Federal Court and the referral of the report to the Federal Court. You probably won't do that if the person concerned is a permanent resident and has an appeal right to the IAD, there's no sense in that, but if you don't have that appeal, you're left with these limited options, so you're going to buy some more time. By going to the Federal Court either you buy some more time, it goes back, a different officer might come to a different conclusion, or you simply might need time for record suspension. Mark Holthe:    Just buying the time, interesting. Raj Sharma:    Might be one because you need strategic depth, so strategic depth is usually time, more time in Canada gives you more options. Mark Holthe:    Define strategic depth for those who are not following. What are you talking about when you use that terminology? Raj Sharma:  Strategic depth I was thinking more in terms of war. If you've got a country like Russia and you want to invade Russia, and Napoleon and Hitler both tried that. One of the problems is that Russia has a lot of depth, so you can invade, and invade, and keep invading, and the Russians will have time to mount a response. You can contrast that with, for example, Pakistan, which is thin wasted [country] geographically speaking, there's not a lot of strategic depth there. If we were to apply that terminology to immigration in Canada, then I would say strategic depth would be time. A lot of time, we don't have time, and so give me some time, give me enough time and I can do quite a bit. You need time to marshal resources, to file Federal Court obligations, to file TRP applications, to file H&C applications, to maybe get a rehabilitation application in, so time is our strategic depth and most of the time we don't have it. Mark Holthe:     Yes, that is abundantly clear within our practice. I really appreciate that overview and the insight, it was awesome. Let's talk about some practice tips maybe. If counsel finds themselves in these types of positions dealing with an issue, a potential criminal inadmissibility, what are some of the things that go through your mind right away that you'd give in terms of advice, things that people want to make sure they do every single time, or little tips or strategies? You've already indicated here that you want to try to buy as much time as you can, that's obviously really important, but are there any specific things or pieces of advice that we haven't maybe talked about yet that you'd like to share with the listeners? Raj Sharma:    I think definitely take a look at the IRCC or CIC policy manuals, Enforcement Manual 5, Enforcement Manual 6, take a look at the loose leaf publication by Mario Bellissimo and Genova, Immigration and Admissibility, they've got a handbook as well. You need to get an understanding of the facts and understand the law in a relatively quick fashion. Once you understand the context that you're in, so if the context is a permanent resident, and there's an offense, and you're looking at the loss of appeal rights, and you've got a procedural fairness letter, and the sentence has been served, what I would do immediately is probably do ATIP requests, access to information requests, and I would try to get and reconstruct the client's immigration history as much as possible. That's probably the first thing I would do is do an ATIP request. I would do FOIP requests for the correctional service documents, the institution documents, and see what's been going on over there and try to get access to those parole documents, take a look at their recidivism rankings. I would probably get the sentencing transcripts right away, I would get any pre-sentence reports that were filed or that were before the sentencing judge right away. After I looked at that I would see if I could update that pre-sentence report by a qualified forensic expert and reassess recidivism. Then I would probably put together these substantive submissions. Again, relying on maybe the IRB, IAD, Removal Order Appeals publication. Having regard to the sort of H&C factors and Ribic and Chieu factors. I would put all that together and get it into that officer probably as soon as possible.  That's probably what I would do and that's probably what anyone should probably do with a PR facing removal where there's been a length of sentence greater than six months. If it was less than six months, then obviously maybe I'd just keep my powder dry to some degree, I'd still put in something, but I'd probably just keep my powder dry for the IAD. Mark Holthe:  It's pretty much they're going to send it that way and choose not to make a decision at that stage. Raj Sharma:   I would think as an officer, this is not in the manuals at all, but ... Mark Holthe:  This is what we want, Raj, yes. Raj Sharma:     As an officer, and I used to be an officer, but as an officer if I saw that a PR had a right of appeal, then really I would probably give short shrift to any sort of request for exercising my discretion at the 44 stage. I'd be like, "Look, let me just do my job, let me write this 44 report, and refer it, and let them make whatever submissions he needs to the IAD." I think the relationship to discretion and the loss of appeal rights is inverse, so if there's an appeal right, then I would narrow my own discretion. Then if there's no appeal rights, then I would probably take and expand my scope of discretion within, of course, the ambit of the law. Mark Holthe: That's awesome and it makes perfect sense. Officers, despite how some people feel, are human beings. When they feel like someone is trying to screw the system over, they're probably not going to give you a lot of help, but if they feel people are genuine and they've made a mistake, and there's a whole host of ... Raj Sharma:  The system, maybe the system has been narrowed against, for example, any further request for relief. I think that they'll substantively consider. Mark Holthe:  That's awesome. I really appreciate everything that you've shared here. Raj Sharma:  Any time. Mark Holthe: This is fantastic. Now, as always when I have guests on, people are going to listen to this and they're going to say, "Hey, I've got a friend," or, "I know someone who's in this exact situation," and their counsel that they have right now is telling them that they might as well start singing 'Happy Trails,' and packing their bags, and they're saying to themselves, "There must be something else that I can do." They're going to listen to this and they're going to say, "Raj Sharma, how do I get a hold of this guy?" How do people track you down? What's the best way of getting in contact with you and engaging your services? Raj Sharma:   For sure, Mark. Anyone can email us at info@sshlaw.ca, that's info@sshlaw.ca, number is 403-705-3398. I think we have a toll free number, but I'm not sure what it is. Mark Holthe:  You can go to the website, right, too. Raj Sharma:  Yes, you can definitely reach us and we'd be happy to help. It's something that we've developed for the last seven, eight years or so. Mark Holthe:   Awesome, thanks a lot. I appreciate your time. Take care. Raj Sharma:    Thanks a lot, Mark.  

On the 8th podcast episode, Lobat Sadrehashemi joins Peter Edelmann, Deanna Okun-Nachoff and Steven Meurrens to discuss issues in Canada's citizenship revocation and refugee determination processes. The recent controversy around Maryam Monsef guides our discussion. Lobat Sadrehashemi is an Associate Counsel at Embarkation Law Corporation. She is also the Vice President of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers ("CARL"). There are sound quality issues at some points in this episode. We're still getting the hand of this equipment. CARL's reform proposals for Canada's inland refugee determination system and other aspects of the immigration system, which we recently submitted to the Ministers, their staff, IRCC, and the Immigration and Refugee Board can be found here. Lobat's paper on Refugee Reform and Access to Counsel in British Columbia can be found here.

CIP S1E28 | Steven Meurrens. http://wp.me/p6wMQg-nq Introduction: Welcome to Steven Meurrens. Well respected immigration lawyer practicing with the law firm of Larlee Rosenberg in Vancouver, British Columbia. The firm focuses on all areas of Canadian immigration law. Advising local and multinational corporations on the movement of key employees, and individuals and families who dream of building a future in Canada. Steven is a Partner in the firm with significant experience representing corporate and individual clients in obtaining visas and permits for many business-related purposes. In addition to his business immigration practice, Steven has extensive experience in family-based immigration matters AND a very active practice assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada and to those whom have had visa applications refused. He has appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court. Steven is the Chair of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia's Immigration Subsection. He is a published columnist, a regular panelist at immigration law conferences, and is the author of a very widely read blog on Canadian immigration law called Meurrens on Immigration which we will talk about in a little bit. QUESTION: How did you get into immigration? QUESTION: Can you tell us a little about your Blog? I am also delighted to hear that you are also wading into the wonderful world of Podcasting. QUESTION: Can you tell us a little bit about your Podcast? Focus on the legal side of immigration and delve into the wonderful world of administrative law in the context of Canadian immigration applications. . If you recall, one of Steven's specific focuses within his practice is assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada or to those who have had visa applications refused. Challenging an officer's decision is not always an easy thing. Sometimes, there are clear pathways with fairly well defined appeal mechanisms. However, in many cases, the only recourse is to seek redress through Federal Court. When challenging an officer's decision in Federal Court, administrative law principles are triggered. Today I have invited Steven to join me to help clear up, if possible this very confusion area of immigration law……..in essence this is really the core of what immigration “law” is all about. Why is it so dang hard to challenge an officer's decision? 1) The discretion that visa officers have when assessing applications, including: ∙ Immigration law is a subset of administrative law; ∙ Visa officers, port of entry officers, and even summer students are administrative tribunals; ∙ They have a wide range of discretion; and ∙ There is often not a right answer to a case. Rather, there is a range of possible answers. 2) Fettering discretion. ∙ That officers cannot fetter their discretion by relying on manuals as if they are law. ∙ The tension that this produces between courts who view visa officers essentially the same as they view the Immigration and Refugee Board vs. program officers who view themselves as implementing and administering departmental programs. 3) Standard of Review ∙ Questions of fact. ∙ Questions of law. ∙ My Gupta as an example. ∙ The Koo example of where there can be problems if officers have discretion in the interpretation of law. 4) Tran ∙ The FCA decision in Tran. ∙ A review of the problems with the Tran decision as identified by Paul Daly http://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2015/11/13/a-snapshot-of-whats-wrong-with-canadian-administrative-law-mpsep-v-tran-2015-fca-237/ ∙ Plug that I'll be back on when Tran is released. QUESTION: how can people reach you? Thanks for being on the Podcast Steven. Helpful Links: How you can reach Steven Meurrens: steven.meurrens@larlee.com Larlee Rosenberg: http://www.larlee.com/ Steven's Blog – “Meurrens on Immigration”: http://meurrensonimmigration.com/ Important Case Discussed in this Episode: MPSEP v. Tran (2015 FCA 237): http://bit.ly/2ajifyo One of Steven's Successful cases at the Federal Court: Gupta v. Canada (2015 FC 1086): http://bit.ly/2authy4

CIP S1E28 | Steven Meurrens. http://wp.me/p6wMQg-nq Introduction: Welcome to Steven Meurrens. Well respected immigration lawyer practicing with the law firm of Larlee Rosenberg in Vancouver, British Columbia. The firm focuses on all areas of Canadian immigration law. Advising local and multinational corporations on the movement of key employees, and individuals and families who dream of building a future in Canada. Steven is a Partner in the firm with significant experience representing corporate and individual clients in obtaining visas and permits for many business-related purposes. In addition to his business immigration practice, Steven has extensive experience in family-based immigration matters AND a very active practice assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada and to those whom have had visa applications refused. He has appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court. Steven is the Chair of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia’s Immigration Subsection. He is a published columnist, a regular panelist at immigration law conferences, and is the author of a very widely read blog on Canadian immigration law called Meurrens on Immigration which we will talk about in a little bit. QUESTION: How did you get into immigration? QUESTION: Can you tell us a little about your Blog? I am also delighted to hear that you are also wading into the wonderful world of Podcasting. QUESTION: Can you tell us a little bit about your Podcast? Focus on the legal side of immigration  and delve into the wonderful world of administrative law in the context of Canadian immigration applications. . If you recall, one of Steven’s specific focuses within his practice is assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada or to those who have had visa applications refused. Challenging an officer’s decision is not always an easy thing. Sometimes, there are clear pathways with fairly well defined appeal mechanisms. However, in many cases, the only recourse is to seek redress through Federal Court. When challenging an officer’s decision in Federal Court, administrative law principles are triggered.  Today I have invited Steven to join me to help clear up, if possible this very confusion area of immigration law……..in essence this is really the core of what immigration “law” is all about. Why is it so dang hard to challenge an officer’s decision? 1)      The discretion that visa officers have when assessing applications, including: ∙         Immigration law is a subset of administrative law; ∙         Visa officers, port of entry officers, and even summer students are administrative tribunals; ∙         They have a wide range of discretion; and ∙         There is often not a right answer to a case. Rather, there is a range of possible answers. 2)      Fettering discretion. ∙         That officers cannot fetter their discretion by relying on manuals as if they are law.   ∙         The tension that this produces between courts who view visa officers essentially the same as they view the Immigration and Refugee Board vs. program officers who view themselves as implementing and administering departmental programs. 3)      Standard of Review ∙         Questions of fact. ∙         Questions of law. ∙         My Gupta as an example. ∙         The Koo example of where there can be problems if officers have discretion in the interpretation of law.  4)      Tran ∙         The FCA decision in Tran. ∙         A review of the problems with the Tran decision as identified by Paul Daly http://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2015/11/13/a-snapshot-of-whats-wrong-with-canadian-administrative-law-mpsep-v-tran-2015-fca-237/ ∙         Plug that I’ll be back on when Tran is released. QUESTION: how can people reach you? Thanks for being on the Podcast Steven. Helpful Links: How you can reach Steven Meurrens: steven.meurrens@larlee.com Larlee Rosenberg: http://www.larlee.com/ Steven’s Blog – “Meurrens on Immigration”: http://meurrensonimmigration.com/ Important Case Discussed in this Episode: MPSEP v. Tran (2015 FCA 237): http://bit.ly/2ajifyo One of Steven’s Successful cases at the Federal Court: Gupta v. Canada (2015 FC 1086): http://bit.ly/2authy4

CIP S1 E25 – Alastair Clarke | MB PNP | Show Notes Alastair Clarke Immigration lawyer practicing in the Province of Manitoba located in the heart of Canada. Manitoba is clearly the second best province in Canada. I lived there with my wife and two kids while I was attending law school at the University Manitoba. My whole career got its start at Robson Hall. Welcome Alastair thanks for joining us. Why don't I start off by telling our listeners a little bit about you? Alastair was born and raised in Edmonton, Canada. He has worked and lived in more than 20 cities around the world including Winnipeg (current home), Toronto (Canada), Montreal (Canada), Kingston (Canada), Victoria (Canada), Vancouver (Canada), New York City (USA), Washington, DC (USA), Tokyo (Japan), Esmeraldas (Ecuador), Brussels (Belgium), Herstmonceux (UK) and Bordeaux (France). Alastair provides legal services in English, French, Spanish and Japanese. Alastair Clarke: Legal Experience Alastair began working with immigration issues as a student leader at the University of Victoria in 1996. For almost 20 years, Alastair has been active with immigrant communities. Alastair's current legal practice encompasses all areas of immigration and refugee law, including Manitoba Provincial Nominee (MPNP) applications [ which is the topic we will be covering today], family sponsorships, another temporary resident applications. In addition, Alastair has extensive experience conducting hearings and appeals at all levels of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and at the Federal Court of Canada including many sponsorship appeals, deportation appeals, misrepresentation appeals, and a whole host of others. Alastair and I have quite a few things in common. He was also a former Junior High School teacher before becoming a lawyer. Alastair's broad work experience helps his clients from every corner of the globe: Canadian Embassy (Washington, DC; 2002 – 2003); Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Costa Rica; 2003); Global Youth Action Network (New York City; 2003 – 2004); United Nations Millennium Development Goals Project (New York City; 2004); Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (Kingston, Ontario; 2007); Society of Professional and Graduate Students (Queen's University; 2007-2008) Ontario Bar Association Executive (Toronto, Ontario; 2007 – 2008); Briefly Speaking/ JUST Editorial Board (Toronto, Ontario; 2005 – 2012); Unison Health and Community Services Legal Aid clinic (Toronto, Ontario; 2009 – 2013) Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (Toronto, Ontario; 2012 – present); Manitoba Bar Association (Winnipeg, Manitoba; 2013 – present) Alastair's career in law focuses on social justice issues, professionalism and fighting to make sure people are treated fairly. After graduating from one of Canada's top law schools, Queen's University (Faculty of Law) in Kingston, Ontario, he articled at Green and Spiegel LLP, an immigration law boutique on Bay Street in Toronto, Ontario. From 2007 to the present, Alastair has provided more than 50 presentations, on a volunteer basis, to community groups, lawyers and paralegals. In particular, he trained Legal Clinic staff at their annual training retreats in 2009 and 2010, funded by Legal Aid Ontario. In 2012, Alastair joined the faculty at Seneca College in Toronto and taught Immigration and Refugee Law to post-graduate students. In Winnipeg, Alastair has provided guest lectures to law students at the University of Manitoba (Faculty of Law). How did you get into immigration? Topics covered in the Episode: What is the Manitoba PNP - General Overview Are there any options available for foreign nationals to immigrate directly to MB without having first worked in the Province? How can the PNP be used to transition foreign workers to PR status in Canada? Are there any options for low-skill workers or is the program just restricted to skilled workers? Where do you see the MB PNP headed for the future? Any upcoming changes or things the listeners should be aware of? Top 3 - 5 practical tips for submitting applications OR Top 3 - 5 most common errors people make when submitting their applications to the MB PNP. How can people reach you? Clarke Immigration Law: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/ Alastair's e-mail: clarke@apply2manitoba.ca Alastair's Blog: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/blog/ “Silly Rules” of Immigration Law: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/repost-silly-rules-immigration-law/ MPNP: From Temporary Status to PR Status: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/mpnp-temporary-status-pr-status/ MPNP: How to Apply …. and Tips: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/mpnp-how-to-apply/ Western Canada Line Dance Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyanG4BelGg Time Stamped Quick Reference Guide In order to help you jump to the areas of most interest to you, I have included below some time stamps for some of the significant topics covered in this episode. 3:57 – Who is Alastair Clarke? 11:28 – How he got into immigration. 16:30 – Overview of the Manitoba PNP. 18:37 – Are there any options available for foreign nationals to immigrate directly to MB without having first worked in the Province? 21:30 – How can the PNP be used to transition foreign workers to PR status in Canada? 26:52 – Are there any options for low-skill workers or is the program just restricted to skilled workers? 28:20 – Where do you see the MB PNP headed for the future? Any upcoming changes or things the listeners should be aware of? 39:06 – Top 3 practical tips for submitting applications OR Top 3 most common errors people make when submitting their applications to the MB PNP. 44:38 – How to contact Alastair Clarke.

CIP S1 E25 – Alastair Clarke | MB PNP | Show Notes Alastair Clarke Immigration lawyer practicing in the Province of Manitoba located in the heart of Canada. Manitoba is clearly the second best province in Canada. I lived there with my wife and two kids while I was attending law school at the University Manitoba.  My whole career got its start at Robson Hall. Welcome Alastair  thanks for joining us. Why don’t I start off by telling our listeners a little bit about you? Alastair was born and raised in Edmonton, Canada. He has worked and lived in more than 20 cities around the world including Winnipeg (current home), Toronto (Canada), Montreal (Canada), Kingston (Canada), Victoria (Canada), Vancouver (Canada), New York City (USA), Washington, DC (USA), Tokyo (Japan), Esmeraldas (Ecuador), Brussels (Belgium), Herstmonceux (UK) and Bordeaux (France). Alastair provides legal services in English, French, Spanish and Japanese. Alastair Clarke: Legal Experience Alastair began working with immigration issues as a student leader at the University of Victoria in 1996. For almost 20 years, Alastair has been active with immigrant communities. Alastair’s current legal practice encompasses all areas of immigration and refugee law, including Manitoba Provincial Nominee (MPNP) applications [ which is the topic we will be covering today], family sponsorships, another temporary resident applications. In addition, Alastair has extensive experience conducting hearings and appeals at all levels of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and at the Federal Court of Canada including many sponsorship appeals, deportation appeals, misrepresentation appeals, and a whole host of others. Alastair and I have quite a few things in common. He was also a former Junior High School teacher before becoming a lawyer. Alastair’s broad work experience helps his clients from every corner of the globe: Canadian Embassy (Washington, DC; 2002 – 2003); Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Costa Rica; 2003); Global Youth Action Network (New York City; 2003 – 2004); United Nations Millennium Development Goals Project (New York City; 2004); Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (Kingston, Ontario; 2007); Society of Professional and Graduate Students (Queen’s University; 2007-2008) Ontario Bar Association Executive (Toronto, Ontario; 2007 – 2008); Briefly Speaking/ JUST Editorial Board (Toronto, Ontario; 2005 – 2012); Unison Health and Community Services Legal Aid clinic (Toronto, Ontario; 2009 – 2013) Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (Toronto, Ontario; 2012 – present); Manitoba Bar Association (Winnipeg, Manitoba; 2013 – present) Alastair’s career in law focuses on social justice issues, professionalism and fighting to make sure people are treated fairly. After graduating from one of Canada’s top law schools, Queen’s University (Faculty of Law) in Kingston, Ontario, he articled at Green and Spiegel LLP, an immigration law boutique on Bay Street in Toronto, Ontario. From 2007 to the present, Alastair has provided more than 50 presentations, on a volunteer basis, to community groups, lawyers and paralegals. In particular, he trained Legal Clinic staff at their annual training retreats in 2009 and 2010, funded by Legal Aid Ontario. In 2012, Alastair joined the faculty at Seneca College in Toronto and taught Immigration and Refugee Law to post-graduate students. In Winnipeg, Alastair has provided guest lectures to law students at the University of Manitoba (Faculty of Law). How did you get into immigration? Topics covered in the Episode: What is the Manitoba PNP - General Overview Are there any options available for foreign nationals to immigrate directly to MB without having first worked in the Province? How can the PNP be used to transition foreign workers to PR status in Canada? Are there any options for low-skill workers or is the program just restricted to skilled workers? Where do you see the MB PNP headed for the future? Any upcoming changes or things the listeners should be aware of? Top 3 - 5 practical tips for submitting applications OR Top 3 - 5 most common errors people make when submitting their applications to the MB PNP. How can people reach you? Clarke Immigration Law: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/ Alastair’s e-mail: clarke@apply2manitoba.ca Alastair’s Blog: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/blog/ “Silly Rules” of Immigration Law: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/repost-silly-rules-immigration-law/ MPNP: From Temporary Status to PR Status: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/mpnp-temporary-status-pr-status/ MPNP: How to Apply …. and Tips: http://www.apply2manitoba.ca/mpnp-how-to-apply/ Western Canada Line Dance Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyanG4BelGg   Time Stamped Quick Reference Guide In order to help you jump to the areas of most interest to you, I have included below some time stamps for some of the significant topics covered in this episode. 3:57 – Who is Alastair Clarke? 11:28 – How he got into immigration. 16:30 – Overview of the Manitoba PNP. 18:37 – Are there any options available for foreign nationals to immigrate directly to MB without having first worked in the Province? 21:30 – How can the PNP be used to transition foreign workers to PR status in Canada? 26:52 – Are there any options for low-skill workers or is the program just restricted to skilled workers? 28:20 – Where do you see the MB PNP headed for the future? Any upcoming changes or things the listeners should be aware of? 39:06 – Top 3 practical tips for submitting applications OR Top 3 most common errors people make when submitting their applications to the MB PNP. 44:38 – How to contact Alastair Clarke.

Canadian Immigration Podcast – Show notes Season 1: Episode 14 Interview with Barbara Jo Caruso. Barbara Jo Caruso is a founding partner of Corporate Immigration Law Firm, located in the heart of the Financial District in Toronto, Ontario. BJ is a co-author of the Annotated Immigration & Refugee Protection Act, published by Carswell ("The Annotated IRPA"). The Annotated IRPA is a leading immigration textbook in Canada, and is used by Federal Court Judges, Canadian immigration officials at all levels including Canada Border Services Agency Officers, Immigration Officers, Appeal Board Members, Refugee Board members, lawyers and law students alike. I can attest to the fact the Annotated IRPA was definitely used by government officers. My first copy was given to me by the hearings officers in Calgary when I was working as a Pro Bono Student (Slave) while attending law school. BJ is Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Immigration Law. She is one of the most respected business immigration lawyers in the country and a tireless advocate for her clients and our profession. She is currently serving as Treasurer on the Executive Committee of the Canadian Bar Association's National Immigration Section and a mentor to many young aspiring immigration lawyers across the country…..me included. We could easily spend the whole podcast episode discussing BJs numerous professional accomplishments; however, knowing BJ, she probably just wants me to stop with the introductions and get to the real reason she has come on the Canadian Immigration Podcast – and that is to discuss some recent changes that have occurred at our Canadian ports of entry that are catching many foreign nationals off guard. BJ, can you take a minute to explain these recent changes at Canadian ports of entry and how they are impacting people seeking entry to Canada? Topics discuss: How things work at the POEs New access to Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) by PIL Officers 1800 cases flagged in the first month of operations where travellers were identified as having outstanding warrants against them. Can impact any FN who has ever been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime inside and outside Canada. CPIC information is not updated – onus on FN to satisfy officer they are not inadmissible Failure to disclose prior criminality could lead to finding of misrep and 5 year bar How to overcome inadmissibility – TRPs, Rehab & “deemed rehab” Additional Questions: So what happens if I am an individual with a DUI who is travelling to Canada for business and I really don't have time to prepare a TRP or Rehab application? What can I expect to happen if I decide to travel anyways and test my luck? Let's say I'm a Global Mobility Manager who needs to send a highly specialized employee to Canada on short notice, but fortunately the employee tells me prior to travel that she had a prior criminal conviction. What should they do? Given what we now know about the increased powers of inspection granted to CBSA officers at the front lines, If there was one piece of advice you could give an individual who needs to travel to Canada, but may be criminally inadmissible, what would it be?

Canadian Immigration Podcast – Show notes Season 1: Episode 14 Interview with Barbara Jo Caruso. Barbara Jo Caruso is a founding partner of Corporate Immigration Law Firm, located in the heart of the Financial District in Toronto, Ontario. BJ is a co-author of the Annotated Immigration & Refugee Protection Act, published by Carswell ("The Annotated IRPA").  The Annotated IRPA is a leading immigration textbook in Canada, and is used by Federal Court Judges, Canadian immigration officials at all levels including Canada Border Services Agency Officers, Immigration Officers, Appeal Board Members, Refugee Board members, lawyers and law students alike. I can attest to the fact the Annotated IRPA was definitely used by government officers. My first copy was given to me by the hearings officers in Calgary when I was working as a Pro Bono Student (Slave) while attending law school. BJ is Certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Immigration Law. She is one of the most respected business immigration lawyers in the country and a tireless advocate for her clients and our profession. She is currently serving as Treasurer on the Executive Committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s National Immigration Section and a mentor to many young aspiring immigration lawyers across the country…..me included.  We could easily spend the whole podcast episode discussing BJs numerous professional accomplishments; however, knowing BJ, she probably just wants me to stop with the introductions and get to the real reason she has come on the Canadian Immigration Podcast –  and that is to discuss some recent changes that have occurred at our Canadian ports of entry that are catching many foreign nationals off guard.  BJ, can you take a minute to explain these recent changes at Canadian ports of entry and how they are impacting people seeking entry to Canada?  Topics discuss: How things work at the POEs New access to Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) by PIL Officers 1800 cases flagged in the first month of operations where travellers were identified as having outstanding warrants against them. Can impact any FN who has ever been arrested, charged or convicted of a crime inside and outside Canada. CPIC information is not updated – onus on FN to satisfy officer they are not inadmissible Failure to disclose prior criminality could lead to finding of misrep and 5 year bar How to overcome inadmissibility – TRPs, Rehab & “deemed rehab”  Additional Questions: So what happens if I am an individual with a DUI who is travelling to Canada for business and I really don’t have time to prepare a TRP or Rehab application? What can I expect to happen if I decide to travel anyways and test my luck? Let’s say I’m a Global Mobility Manager who needs to send a highly specialized employee to Canada on short notice, but fortunately the employee tells me prior to travel that she had a prior criminal conviction. What should they do? Given what we now know about the increased powers of inspection granted to CBSA officers at the front lines, If there was one piece of advice you could give an individual who needs to travel to Canada, but may be criminally inadmissible, what would it be?      

The New Liberal Government's Immigration Reforms How changes impact foreign workers and prospective immigrants? ”We will make it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada, and contribute to the economic success of all Canadians.” “Immigration has always been an important part of Canada's economic growth, but over the past decade, Stephen Harper has turned his back on welcoming those who want to contribute to our country's success.” Refugees: “We will renew and expand our commitment to helping resettle more refugees, and deliver a refugee program that is safe, secure, and humane.” Settle 25,000 Syrian refugees by Jan 1 Well underway Invest $250 million ($100 million this year) to increase refugee processing, sponsorship and settlement Restoration of Interim Federal Health Program Provided limited and temporary health benefits to refugee claimants Appoint individuals with appropriate subject-matter expertise to Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board. Establish an expert human rights panel to determine designated countries of origin, and provide a right to appeal refugee decisions for citizens from these countries Removed Visa Requirements from Mexican Citizens Phasing out visa requirements for other countries Emphasis on Family Reunification: “We will take immediate steps to reopen Canada's doors, and will make reuniting families a top priority. “ We will also nearly double the budget for processing family class sponsorship. Reducing wait times for spousal sponsorship and Parental sponsorship Double parent and grandparent entry applications to 10,000 a year Currently taking 8-10 years to process Remove conditional PR (currently 2 years live together) Increase age of dependency from 19 to 22 Many children between 19 -22 are in school and still depend upon parents Citizenship: Repeal Controversial provisions in the Citizenship Act to strip citizenship from dual nationals Bill C-24 – created second class citizens and more difficult to become citizens Crediting individuals for residency time prior to PR as it did before Express Entry: will provide more opportunities for applicants who have Canadian siblings by giving additional points under the Express Entry system We will make changes to the Canadian Experience Class to reduce the barriers to immigration that have been imposed on international students. Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Removal of $1000 LMIA fee for caregivers of physically or mentally disabled family members Better regulate caregiver agencies “We will also work with the provinces and territories to develop a system of regulated companies to hire caregivers on behalf of families. This will make it simpler for families to hire caregivers, and protect caregivers by allowing them to change employers in the case of bad relations or abuse.” Listener Questions: Question 1 From: Hasanova Subject: Immigration to Canada Message Body: I live in Azerbaijan with my family and I am expressing a deep interest in migrating to Canada for a better life for my family. Question 2 From: sagun Subject: express entry and work permit Message Body: Hi, I would like to inquiry that if I have Job offer letter supported by LMIA by a company in supervisor post. Can I apply for Work Permit as well as FSW Express entry program together? Please reply me. Sincerely yours sagun Question 3 From: aruna Subject: canada immigration Message Body: Is experience in banking consider as skilled work experience? Report on Express Entry Pilot Course – Canadian Immigration Institute Express Entry Pilot Course on submitting your profile was completed yesterday November 21st. Fantastic group of people involved. It was a lot of fun. Gained great insight into the areas that give people the most trouble. I will use this wonderful insight in creating the full Express Entry course Now that Phase 1 is done, I will be sending out an invitation to participate in Phase 2 of my pilot which will cover all aspects of filing your PR application after you receive an ITA. Stay tuned for more information in the coming weeks. Questions for our Next Podcast If you have an immigration question you would like to leva with me, there is a number of ways to do it. You can leave it in the comments section under this podcast, connect with me on Facebook at the Canadian Immigration Podcast facebook page. I can also be reached through LinkedIn and Twitter, and even on my law firm website: Holthe Tilleman LLP. Because of the high number of questions I get, I am not always able to answer each person individually. I am really sorry for this. However, I will try to select the best questions that I get most frequently and podcast the answer as I have done in this episode. So please don't hesitate to send your immigration related questions my way. Subscribe to the Canadian Immigration Podcast on iTunes 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. Don't forget to subscribe to my mailing list as well. Links to Resources: Real Change: A New Plan for Canadian Immigration and Economic Opportunity: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-for-Canadian-immigration-and-economic-opportunity.pdf Liberal Party Platform: What does Real Change Mean to you? https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/ Express Entry – The secret to finding your correct NOC!: http://www.canadianimmigrationpodcast.com/express-entry-the-secret-to-finding-your-correct-noc/

The New Liberal Government’s Immigration Reforms How changes impact foreign workers and prospective immigrants? ”We will make it easier for immigrants to build successful lives in Canada, and contribute to the economic success of all Canadians.” “Immigration has always been an important part of Canada’s economic growth, but over the past decade, Stephen Harper has turned his back on welcoming those who want to contribute to our country’s success.” Refugees: “We will renew and expand our commitment to helping resettle more refugees, and deliver a refugee program that is safe, secure, and humane.” Settle 25,000 Syrian refugees by Jan 1 Well underway Invest $250 million ($100 million this year) to increase refugee processing, sponsorship and settlement Restoration of Interim Federal Health Program Provided limited and temporary health benefits to refugee claimants Appoint individuals with appropriate subject-matter expertise to Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board. Establish an expert human rights panel to determine designated countries of origin, and provide a right to appeal refugee decisions for citizens from these countries Removed Visa Requirements from Mexican Citizens Phasing out visa requirements for other countries Emphasis on Family Reunification: “We will take immediate steps to reopen Canada’s doors, and will make reuniting families a top priority. “ We will also nearly double the budget for processing family class sponsorship. Reducing wait times for spousal sponsorship and Parental sponsorship Double parent and grandparent entry applications to 10,000 a year Currently taking 8-10 years to process Remove conditional PR (currently 2 years live together) Increase age of dependency from 19 to 22 Many children between 19 -22 are in school and still depend upon parents Citizenship: Repeal Controversial provisions in the Citizenship Act to strip citizenship from dual nationals Bill C-24 – created second class citizens and more difficult to become citizens Crediting individuals for residency time prior to PR as it did before Express Entry: will provide more opportunities for applicants who have Canadian siblings by giving additional points under the Express Entry system We will make changes to the Canadian Experience Class to reduce the barriers to immigration that have been imposed on international students. Temporary Foreign Worker Program: Removal of $1000 LMIA fee for caregivers of physically or mentally disabled family members Better regulate caregiver agencies “We will also work with the provinces and territories to develop a system of regulated companies to hire caregivers on behalf of families. This will make it simpler for families to hire caregivers, and protect caregivers by allowing them to change employers in the case of bad relations or abuse.”   Listener Questions: Question 1 From: Hasanova Subject: Immigration to Canada Message Body: I live in Azerbaijan with my family and I am expressing a deep interest in migrating to Canada for a better life for my family.   Question 2 From: sagun Subject: express entry and work permit Message Body: Hi, I would like to inquiry that if I have Job offer letter supported by LMIA by a company in supervisor post. Can I apply for Work Permit as well as FSW Express entry program together? Please reply me. Sincerely yours sagun    Question 3 From: aruna Subject: canada immigration Message Body: Is experience in banking consider as skilled work experience?    Report on Express Entry Pilot Course – Canadian Immigration Institute   Express Entry Pilot Course on submitting your profile was completed yesterday November 21st.   Fantastic group of people involved. It was a lot of fun.   Gained great insight into the areas that give people the most trouble.   I will use this wonderful insight in creating the full Express Entry course   Now that Phase 1 is done, I will be sending out an invitation to participate in Phase 2 of my pilot which will cover all aspects of filing your PR application after you receive an ITA.   Stay tuned for more information in the coming weeks.   Questions for our Next Podcast   If you have an immigration question you would like to leva with me, there is a number of ways to do it. You can leave it in the comments section under this podcast, connect with me on Facebook at the Canadian Immigration Podcast facebook page. I can also be reached through LinkedIn and Twitter, and even on my law firm website: Holthe Tilleman LLP.   Because of the high number of questions I get, I am not always able to answer each person individually. I am really sorry for this. However, I will try to select the best questions that I get most frequently and podcast the answer as I have done in this episode. So please don’t hesitate to send your immigration related questions my way.   Subscribe to the Canadian Immigration Podcast on iTunes 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. Don’t forget to subscribe to my mailing list as well.   Links to Resources: Real Change: A New Plan for Canadian Immigration and Economic Opportunity: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-for-Canadian-immigration-and-economic-opportunity.pdf Liberal Party Platform: What does Real Change Mean to you? https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/ Express Entry – The secret to finding your correct NOC!: http://www.canadianimmigrationpodcast.com/express-entry-the-secret-to-finding-your-correct-noc/