Borderlines

A discussion of when someone can be inadmissible to Canada for having committed a crime which doesn’t lead to a conviction. Cases referenced are Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 141 and Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 59Sania (Ahmed) Chaudhry was counsel in Garcia. She is currently Legal Counsel (Professional Conduct Proceedings) at Real Estate Council of Alberta.2:00Introduction and an overview of Garcia v. Canada. 15:00The purpose of Canada’s inadmissibility provisions. 17:10What is the standard of proof for determining that someone committed a crime where there is no conviciton? 19:45A review of Enforcement Manual 230:30Determining equivalency and issues with inadmissibility findings where there is no conviction. 39:30Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)46:00 Living in a society where the State makes everything a crime. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A discussion of s. 34(1)(f) of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which provides that a foreign national or permanent resident is inadmissible for being the member of an organization that has committed terrorism. Topics include how terrorism, organization and membership are defined, the Proud Boys, QAnon and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. 5:45What is terrorism under Canadian immigration legislation? 9:45What is an organization? 15:30What does it mean to be a “member?” 19:00The Bangladesh Nationalist Party29:00Would Nelson Mandela be encompassed? 30:45Should only organizations that are officially designated by the government render someone inadmissible?39:39The Ministerial relief process. 47:35Jose Figuerora 53:45Could someone being a QAnon adherent make them inadmissible to Canada? 1:00Does the designation of the Proud Boys broaden what could result in inadmissibility due to terrorism? 1:03Could the leader of a party calling for an insurrection lead to all members of that organization being

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

A discussion about responding to procedural fairness letters with digressions on possible bias against people from Punjab, unreasonable documentation requests, tunnel vision amongst visa officers, how if an officer goes out looking for misrepresentation in an application they will probably find it, aggressively banning people from Canada as a deterrance policy, IRCC misleading Parliament about whether it bounces applications for incompleteness and more.Raj Sharma is a Partner at Stewart Sharma Harsanyi in Calgary. He can be found on Twitter @immlawyercanada2:30 When does IRCC have to send a procedural fairness letter vs. being able to refuse an application without one?15:00Specific issues with the Canadian visa offices in New Delhi and Chandigarh. 21:00Racialized assessments of visa applications. 23:00Why hunting for misrep can lead to misrep findings. 25:00Misrepresentation as a deterrence policy. 35:00Is there a specific focus on Punjabs? 44:00Can you tell if someone is lying as soon as you meet them at th

This episode is about the concept of a universal basic income and how it would work in Canada. We are joined by Sheila Regehr and Sameer Nurmohamed of Basic Income Canada Network. We discuss which type of immigrants (permanent residents, workers, students, asylum claimants, people without status) etc. would be eligible, whether a basic income would impact other public funding for services like legal aid, whether it would cause inflation, and more.5:30 What are different models of universal basic income? 9:00How is the amount of basic income calculated? 10:45What was the Ontario pilot project?12:45In practice is there a difference between an income guarantee model and a flat-payment model?14:30Do wealthy people get the same payment and benefit under a universal basic income? 15:30How would a universal basic income be funded? 23:45Would a universal basic income replace other services like legal aid? 28:25A review of Motion 46 - GUARANTEED LIVABLE BASIC INCOME30:35Would international students, foreign workers

Sergio Marchi was Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration from 1993-1995. 3:00 – Does someone keep the Minister title their whole life? 4:50 – What was the political consensus regarding Canadian immigration at the end of the 1980s? How did the Reform Party impact things? 8:00 – The mix of immigrants between economic, family and humanitarian immigrants. 11:15 – What dictates whether IRCC meets its level targets? 14:30 – The Brian Mulroney government was considering moving immigration under Public Safety. Under Sergio Marchi it instead became it’s on Ministry. What prompted this? 17:30 – Canadian attitudes to refugee resettlements and misconceptions. 20:45 – Sources of resistance to refugee resettlement. Resettled refugees vs asylum seekers. 23:00 – Changes that Minister Marchi made to the refugee determination process. 25:00 – What was Minister Marchi’s approach to intervening on specific cases? When would Minister Marchi help Members of Parliament on constituent files? Did it matter which political

Syed Farhan Ali shares his Canadian immigration story. During the time that his spousal sponsorship application was in process he was denied temporary entry to Canada, missed the birth of his first child and missed her first steps. He recently arrived in Canada after a three year application process. Chantal Dube is a Spokesperson for Spousal Sponsorship Advocates, a group with more than 5,000 members in Canada that argues for reforms to the family reunification process.3:15Said tells the story of his spousal sponsorship application. His application took 34 months to process. During the processing of his application Canada denied his visitor visa applications. He missed the birth of his children and their first steps, although he was able to reunite with his wife during brief trips to the United States, which did grant him a visitor visa. 21:00We discuss the refusal of temporary resident visas for people with spousal sponsorship applications in process, people with frequent travel histories, people with A

The Honourable Chris Alexander served as Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada from July 2013 to November 2015. He represented the riding of Ajax—Pickering in the House of Commons of Canada from 2011 to 2015. Prior to that spent 18 years in the Canadian Foreign Service, serving as Canada's first resident Ambassador to Afghnistan from 2003 - 2005. Subsequent to being an Member of Parliament he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.As Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Mr. Alexander presided over the launch of Express Entry, the termination of the Immigrant Investor Program and the introduction of the Barbaric Cultural Practices Act, which prohibited forced and underaged marriages.5:09 – If there was one misconception about Canadian immigration law that Minister Alexander would like to change what would it be? 15:00 – Bill C-24 and the revocation of citizenship for dual nationals convicted of high crimes. 16:00 – Whether there was a strong anti-fraud and ant

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

Section 15 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination. Aidan Campbell joins to discuss the application of s. 15 of the Charter to Canadian immigration law and the implications recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Fraser v. Canada. Aidan Campbell is an Associate at Mahon & Company, a progressive firm which practices in Criminal Law, Immigration and Refugee Law, Public Interest & Constitutional Litigation, Sex Worker Rights, Prisoners’ Rights, Professional Discipline. Extradition Law and Tenants' Rights Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In R v. Kattenburg Justice Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal cautioned judges against giving "virtue signalling and populism a go." This prompted a largely philosophical discussion about the role of judges, a Toronto judge who wore a Make America Great Again hat in court, a Quebec judge who proclaimed herself a feminist before making statements about Quebec's ban on religious attire, Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizing President Trump, and defining what virtue signaling even is. Andrew Hayes is a US immigration lawyer who practices out of Vancouver. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we provide an overview of family law issues that immigrants and their Canadian sponsors should be aware of, inlcuding the recognition of foreign marriages, how divorce works, threatening to have an ex-spouse deported and the difference between common-law and marriage and getting a marriage anulled.Ari Wormelli practices family law with YLAW Group. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Aris Daghighian is a senior associate with Green and Spiegel LLP in Toronto. He represented the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers as intervenors in Brown v. Canada, 2020 FCA 130. In this episode we discuss the issues raised in the case, including how immigration detention works in Canada, what the disclosure obligations should be on the government in an immigration detention proceeding and whether there should be a maximum time that someone can be held in immigration detention. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

R v. Zora is a 2020 Supreme Court of Canada decision involving the criminal offence of breaching bail conditions. It is relevant in the Canadian immigration context as individuals who are convicted of this crime in Canada, or who are convicted of or commit an equivalent offence abroad, are inadmissible to the country. Steven and Deanna are joined by Sarah Runyon, who was counsel for Mr. Zora at the Supreme Court. We discuss how bail works in Canada, the offence of breach of bail conditions, and the implications of the Supreme Court decision. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Andrew, Deanna and Steven discuss the closure of the Canada - US border during COVID-19 and how the agreement has been implemented in the two policies, recent Executive Orders regarding immigration, and the United States Supreme Court decision in Department of Homeland Security et al v. Regents of the University of California et al.Andrew Hayes is a US immigration lawyer who practices in Vancouver. His website is http://www.usborderlaw.com 2:00 -The closure of the Canada - US border25:00 - Recent Executive Orders pertaining to immigration in the United States 45:00 - The DACA decision Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Vavilov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)is a 2019 Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the Supreme Court of Canada outlined a new framework for the standard of review in Canadian administrative law. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

François Crépeau is a Professor at the McGill Faculty of Law and the Director of the Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism. He was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants from 2011 to 2017.Peter Edelmann and François discuss migration issues generally, the Compact for Migration, and its implication for Canadian immigration and refugee law. This episode was recorded before Peter Edelmann was appointed to the British Columbia Supreme Court. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

An overview of the immigration platforms, and general historic policies, of Canada's political parties. 1:45 - Where do the parties stand with regards to letting provinces decide who immigrates?13:28 – Immigration levels23:30 – What are the promises with regards to border security and the Safe Third Country Agreement? 36:00 – Temporary Foreign Workers42:00 – Application fees46:00 – Settlement services and values tests48:00 – Where parties can work together on and general trends. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Andrew Hayes is a US immigration lawyer who practices in Vancouver. In this episode we discuss how the immigration systems of Canada and the United States each deal with the issue of immigrants and social assistance. How similar is the "public charge" rule in the United States and "financial inadmissibility" in Canada? What is a sponsorship bar? Can permanent residents be deported for imposing a fiscal burden on the state? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.