Podcast appearances and mentions of steven meurrens

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

The Bill Kelly Show Podcast: Canada's immigration system for high-skilled workers is severely backlogged and even amidst a labour shortage, the government is pausing new invitations because the department simply can't process them quickly enough, according to a briefing document. Immigration lawyer Steven Meurrens obtained the document through access to information and provided it to the National Post. In the memo, department officials outline that “an estimated 76,000” applicants are in the inventory for federal high-skilled worker applications, which is more than what the government needs to meet targets all the way out to 2023. GUEST: Leah Nord, Senior Director of Workforce Strategies and Inclusive Growth for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce - After a week of diplomacy fails between Russia and the U.S amid mass build-up of Russian troops near the border with Ukraine, where does Canada stand? ALSO: Conservatives defy Erin O'Toole by siding with critical senator GUEST: Dr. Lori Turnbull, Director of the School of Public Administration with Dalhousie University - Much has been made of late on social media and in the mainstream media, about trucker protests that are in the works. Truckers are rightfully upset about a vaccine mandate that was clumsily applied to cross-border essential workers, including the professional drivers who've been keeping us supplied throughout the pandemic. But such protests rarely deliver results, aside from angering the motoring public and casting shade on our industry. We will report on significant events that disrupt our industry and your businesses, but do nothing to support this form of protest. One disturbing trend is the amount of money being thrown at recent attempts to bring commerce to a halt. One initiative raised more than $900,000 via GoFundMe in less than a week. Read the full article HERE. GUEST: James Menzies, Editor of Today's Trucking and TruckNews.CA

Deanna Okun-Nachoff and Steven Meurrens discuss how COVID19 has caused havoc to Canada's immigration system, including border closures, operational slowdowns and the suspension of litigation proceedings.

The Government of Canada, as well as several provincial governments, have introduced several measures to protect temporary foreign workers and maintain the integrity of Canada's foreign worker programs. Meera Thakrar is a Canadian immigration lawyer whose practices focus on helping companies recruit and retain foreign workers. Meera joins Peter Edelmann, Deanna Okun-Nachoff and Steven Meurrens to discuss various measures that different levels of government have introduced to protect foreign workers, challenges do governments face in this task and how employer compliance inspections work.

Fresh off our #Clawbies2017 award we had a New Year party and invited all of our friends!Emilie and I kick of 2018 with a call in show - with predictions, resolutions, and admissions from past Docket guests: Louise Arbour, Senator Kim Pate, Making a Murderer's Jerry Buting & Dean Strang, Naomi Sayers, Anne-Marie McElroy, Member of Parliament Nate Erskine-Smith, the crew at PolitiCoast podcast, Borderlines podcast's Peter Edelmann & Steven Meurrens, and good friend of the podcast Peter Sankoff.Oh, Emilie and I also talk about our resolutions and some plans for 2018.Thanks to everyone for listening and sharing the podcast. We had a fantastic year and can't wait dive into 2018.

On the 10th podcast episode, Professor Kent Roach joins Peter Edelmann, Deanna Okun-Achoff and Steven Meurrens to discuss national security law in Canada. Kent Roach is a Professor of Law and the Prichard-Wilson Chair of Law and Public Policy at the University of Toronto. He is a Member of the Order of Canada and is considered to be one of the foremost experts on national security legislation in Canada. This episode contains an overview of the history of national security law in Canada, starting with the MacDonald Commission and the October Crisis of 1970, the formation of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the Air India bombing, the Arar Inquiry, 9/11, and Bill C-51. We also discuss the roles of CSIS, the Communication Security Establishment, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canada Border Services Agency, in administering Canadian national security legislation. Finally, Professor Roach provides an in depth analysis of several controversial elements of the previous Conservative Government of Canada's Bill C-51, and the current Liberal Government of Canada's response under Prime Minister Trudeau.

Garth Barriere and Eric Purtzki joins Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss the constitutionality of laws that are retroactive or retrospective. Garth and Eric are both criminal defence attorneys in Vancouver. Both have appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on numerous occasions. Peter and Steven also discuss the recent election of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

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.

Dani Willetts joins Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss the decision making process at Canada's immigration department, her experience transitioning from a career working for CIC to being an immigration consultant, some recent cases impacting international graduates in particular with regards to the Post-Graduate Work Permit program, a recent Parliamentary report on the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, and the discovery that Canada has started negotiating an extradition treaty with China. Dani Willetts is an immigration consultant at TDWImmigration. From 1989 - 2012 she worked in numerous capacities with Canada's immigration department, including as a Supervisor in Vancouver.

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

In the 3rd episode of Borderlines, Raj Sharma joined Peter Edelmann and Steven Meurrens to discuss marriage fraud. Raj Sharma is the managing partner of Stewart Sharma Harsanyi. He is a well known commentator on immigration law. In addition to his active blog and numerous presentations that he has given at immigration conferences and seminars, he has written numerous op-eds on immigration, diversity and multi-culturalism that have been published in many manjor Canadian newspapers. He has debated Martin Collacott of the Fraser Institute and Centre for Immigration Reform on whether Canada accepts too many immigrants; Deepak Obhrai (MP and Parliamentary Secretary) on additional and stricter language requirements for citizens; David Seymour of the Manning Centre on whether Canada's new immigration policy is too exclusionary; Imam Syed Soharwardy on honour crimes in Canada; and a CSIS agent on the profiling of Muslims. 2:33 - 44:20 - We discuss marriage fraud, and how the previous government introduced several measures to try and prevent it. These measures included introducing a disjunctive test in which a marriage would not facilitate immigration if the marriage was not genuine or if the marriage had been entered into primarily for the purpose of immigration. It also included the introduction of conditional permanent residency, in which immigrants who immigrate to Canada as a result of a marriage or common-law relationship would lose their permanent resident status if the relationship broke down within 2 years of immigrating. Finally, the previous Conservative Government of Canada also introduced a five year spousal sponsorship bar, in which a permanent resident who immigrated after marrying a Canadian could not sponsor a new spouse or common-law partner for five years after immigrating. Raj was a fantastic guest to have for this topic, given that he represented a Canadian citizen who sued the Canada Border Services Agency to compel them to complete an investigation into whether that person had been the victim of a marriage fraud. Raj during the podcast provided an overview of this case, Zaghbib v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2016 FCA 182. Peter then raised the difficult question of “where do you draw the line?” If a Canadian can compel CBSA to remove someone from Canada for marriage fraud, can a company compel CBSA to do the same for a competitor where the Canadian company knows that that the competitor has engaged in foreign worker fraud? What about an average citizen trying to compel the Vancouver Police Department for visiting the Amsterdam Café and smoking marijuana? 44:20 - 49:30 - Peter discusses the ongoing detention situation in Canada, where immigration detainees are often held in provincial prisons. Minister Goodale recently wrote an article in the Huffington Post in which he set out a number of goals in immigration detention, but at the same time also provided justification for the ongoing detention. Peter also showed us a recent tender that CBSA has put out in which they are seeking feedback on alternatives to detention. After providing a brief overview of why people would be detained in Canada, we discuss what possible alternatives there could be. The word “Kafkaesque” makes its first appearance in the podcast, although I’m sure not it’s last. 49:30 – 55:13 Continuing with the theme of detention, we discuss the Federal Court’s recently certified question in Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Lunyamila, 2016 FC 324, in which the Federal Court asked whether it can usurp the powers of the Immigration Division to either order release or continue detention. 51:13 – 56:00 – Finally, we conclude by providing a statistic of how what percentage of people who submitted applications to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada had representatives.

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

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