Let’s Get in Touch
Recent Blog Posts
The Value of an Immigration Consultation – Important Considerations for Potential Clients
Recently, I have found in my practice an increase in the number of the paid consultations I am doing for potential clients, many of whom have chosen to stay on as long-term clients.
With that being said, I find that paid consultations in general are often misunderstood both from prospective clients searching for a representative and also from many representatives seeking to avoid the tiring process.
Particularly with the new technology age, and perhaps due to the availability of online resources, individuals are choosing either to seek help from other applicants/friends or blindly filling out online surveys and assessments in hope of getting virtual advice. Others are trying to shop around for bits and pieces of free advice from different practitioners. Simultaneously, I also find more and more firms, particularly new practitioners, are trying to utilize “free consultations” or “digital solutions” to try and hook in new clients as a way to differentiate their services.
So wherein lies the value of a paid consultation?
Value 1 of a Consultation: Knowing Who You Are Dealing With
The first value of an immigration consultation is you get to know who, in fact, you are dealing with and determine whether they are reliable enough to serve as your representative.
Several things should trigger concern when you are reaching out to a potential lawyer. Is the request handled by the front/desk office professionally? Do you have means to directly communicate with the lawyer/consultant prior to the meeting? Does the firm itself have a good reputation?
I have heard several cases of individuals being duped into expensive immigration (and even illegal/fraudulent) processes simply because they did not run a quick Google search or try and contact a human voice first before signing a service contract. Online advertising, technological gadgets can do wonders in giving the false impression that a company or an individual is a reputable, honest representative. However, without seeing a client-specific email, hearing a voice, or seeing a face, you can never be to sure. Also, practitioners who are leaders in the industry tend to have some sort of pull factor- either through articles they have written, blogs, or from very positive word of mouth referrals.
One of the things I encourage all potential applicants to do is send their prospective representative/firm an email inquiry about their immigration situation. You can do this in a way that still protects your privacy (note: I have seen too often prospective client send their personal info to individuals they have never heard from let alone received an email from).
See how the representative responds to your inquiry. Does the representative/an assistant to the representative contact you? How professional is their email? If I were a client I would be very hesitant if a prospective representative were to email me back with a generic copy and paste letter without any efforts to try and appreciate or understand my unique situation.
A big plus (and something I personally strive for) is to get information from the prospective client before I meet them. I think that a representative/lawyer who offers to take a few minutes of their own time to review your information before they see you saves valuable consultation time better spent on addressing the real issues.
Also, if you find yourself abroad without the ability to phone ask if you can consult by Skype/WeChat. A series of emails back in forth can be time-consuming for both the potential client and the potential representative and may lead to more confusion then solutions for your immigration case.
Value 2 of the Consultation: Seeing if your Immigration Representative Know their Stuff and is Honest When They Need to Take Further Steps to Find Out.
You’ve seen the advertisements. “98% success rate,” “full-service followed by list of a million things,” “Best in Vancouver/Canada.” The self-congratulatory accolades are great but does the individual have baseline abilities in the area where you need legal advice?
A consultation can help you ask questions of the representative to gauge this answer.
For example, you can ask if they have handled this type of case before? You can ask them about requirements of certain programs and how they apply to your specific case?
Not all representatives will have this information memorized, but at the very least they should be able to speak intellectually about their experience in this area and know where they can find the answer.
If it is a question they don’t know, because it is a difficult legal question that requires research and some thought they should be clear in letting you know they do not know but they are willing to do research on it. It is also a positive thing if they need to, for example, take a few minutes to go find the answer in the legal text or consult a colleague with knowledge in that area. However, keep in mind you are not paying for an information dump you are paying to get specific strategies to move forward in your situation. An Encyclopedia Brown of immigration can only go so far without practical application in real-life situations.
Value 3 of the Consultation: Providing Advice and Direction that a Survey/Email Can’t Tell You
Be it IRCC’s Express Entry online point calculator or other quick surveys I have seen, none of these can thoroughly or accurately carve out immigration paths for you. They can only tell you where you stand on certain issues based on the information you are self-providing, which may or may not be accurate.
There are several issues with this. First, many times you are seeking advice from these sources with a specific question in mind. “Do I qualify under this program/provision?” Those specific inquiries tend to have very specific answers but may ignore the larger scope of the situation.
Case in point, I have had several consultations recently where the intended principal applicant contacted me about the possibility of a specific program or option. By running a fuller, more complete consultation I was able to advise them that their accompanying partner/spouse is more suitable for immigration. In another case, I developed several backup strategies for an applicant (now client) when initially they had their mind focused on one option. This way, should the first discretionary path not work, there are other possible options.
Emails are very good at establishing initial communication, but often times (as mentioned earlier), it is limiting in that the topics are usually of a narrow, focused discussion. Email chains can lead to real uncertainty and confusion. A full consultation, run logically from identifying initial legal issues/barriers to overall solutions can suss out a big picture as well as the specific details of a client’s particular legal issue. Often times the intersection of these two matters, the barrier and the bigger picture, is where appropriate solutions and recommendations are drawn.
Value 4 of the Consultation: Giving You Options Whether to Stay or Move On
Throughout a consultation, there can be several keys and triggers as to whether this is someone you want to work with long-term or someone you better avoid.
These could be simple tells. Are they taking notes of your conversation? Are they speaking in a kind/friendly tone? Responsible practitioners should be making some notes and looking up materials while you are talking to them while still maintaining positive communication and body language. Do they articulate clearly? Is this someone who has good command of the language of the application you are pursuing, are they providing logical advice that can be practically followed?
How is their management of the time of consultation? Are they constantly looking at their watch eager for you to leave? Are they keeping track of time if the consultation started late or runs short? Are they amenable to following up with you if you have a few brief questions after?
Finally, it is my opinion that a consultation can, at the end of the day, can truly save a client money/heartache.
Paying a fee now to learn you have no options is much better than blindly investing time and money on expensive, unworkable, options.
In fact, a decent chunk of the hoopla around the previous Federal Investor Immigration Programs and Provincial Entrepreneur Programs was not really built around those programs being the best option but rather the ease and simplicity in which it could be recommended and started with little-to-no consultation. Consequentially, many of these applicants, who probably had clearer. more stable, and importantly much cheaper, options to immigration left with refusals or terminated applications.
A consultation can also give you options to gain opinions from several practitioners first before choosing the best balance of affordable prices and excellent service. Choosing an immigration lawyer is much like choosing a restaurant you want to frequent regularly. You have been served a good meal at others, but is this a place you want to come to whenever you have an issue and can expect it will be taken care of.
Ultimately, you can also cook a meal yourself at home. A consultation may even reveal that you have a relatively straight forward application and can take care of it yourself – as you have all the ingredients. For many prospective clients, I even actively advise them that with their their advanced degrees, high level of English skills, and straightforwardness of their legal matter – a future consultation, rather than my full participation may be more cost-effective.
Conclusion: Paid Consultations are Worth It
With paid consultation, and I am sure my colleagues agree, we are not running them to make a bulk of our profits. We are doing them to ensure that the working relationship will be a good one and that before we proceed on path A, you are aware of the full challenges that we face and our role in collaboratively solving your immigration issues.
On that note, I look forward to seeing you, your family, and friends should you require an immigration consultation. You can email me at will.tao@larlee.com or call me at 604-681-9887.
Tracking What it Updates – One Simple Step IRCC Can Take to Enhance Procedural Fairness
When new changes occur to IRCC’s Guidelines and programs it can take several forms and be communicated to applicants in several ways.
Of those communication methods, we see most often Program Delivery Updates, Notices, and new Operational Bulletins. Legislative changes are often announced through Ministerial Instruction and the GOC’s Canada Gazette.
Most of these changes are relatively well-documented and updated quite quickly after the change is announced. On a side note, I would suggest the Program Delivery Updates could be a little more clearer, as even for myself, who read them religiously. Some of the changes IRCC introduced are hard to track in the text.
The one major gap that IRCC has is in updating it’s new instruction guides, new visa-office specific guides, and new forms. Recently, we’ve seen several of these changes occur without corresponding changes to the website indicating that the document has been updated. In the case of some of the forms, they have even been backdated to reflect when the document was originally created rather than when it was made public. All of this creates confusion, and for IRCC likely more litigation.
Below are just a few examples.
1) The Document Checklist (IMM 5488) for Work Permit Outside Canada is dated February 2015 as per CIC’s website.
The Actual Document is dated November 2015.
In reality, the document was uploaded sometime late December 2015/early January 2016.
2) Below is the most recent Study Permit Visa Specific Instruction Guide for Applicants from India
The CIC Website displays the most recent document as being September 2015.
Implications
For Applicants, the risk with submitting outdated forms is that the Applicants may be refused and or returned for incompleteness. This is particularly true when the document checklist or forms contain new fields that are not in the old versions. CIC may offer some sort of “grace period” but this is solely discretionary and as far as I am aware there is no CIC policy on the reasonable transition period for which they will accept old versions in lieu of the updated versions.
Possible IRCC Solution – Updates Database
I understand that IRCC is working on several strategies in support of digitizing their program integrity and integrating their various networks.
With all these changes sure to occur there needs to be some adequate (publicly available) tracking of all these changes. In fact, anytime a webpage or form changes, it should trigger an update.
This page can also serve as an amalgamation of all the changes occurring across all of IRCC’s platforms.
This is important for several reasons. In the post-Dunsmuir reasonableness era, applicants are more hardpressed to try and show an Officer’s decision was made unreasonably on the merits, particularly when they are owed deference and their judgment falls within the reasonable realm of possibilities. Courts are still eager to point out situations where they may have made different decisions had they assessed the case, but maintain their role is not to readjudicate the decision but rather review the Officer’s decision-making process.
Procedural fairness issues, which (in most contexts) do not require that the Court provide any deference to the decision-maker are stronger in the context of litigation. I believe you will see increasingly applicants attempting to show that the IRCC guidelines created legitimate expectations (i.e. that IRCC;s website showed the latest updated version that the applicant had legitimate reason to rely on). For a good case about the doctrine of legitimate expectations read Lebel J’s unanimous judgment in Agraia v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) 2013 FC.
Also, several of recent CIC/IRCC Guidlines, the IP 8 – Spouse or Common Law in Canada Class at 17.4 (pg 62) and OB-265A – January 8, 2016 Email Communication with Clients, seem to contemplate an increase of Reconsideration Requests from Applicants with refused applications. This may be a broader trend that IRCC is taking towards reducing the high-cost of Federal Court litigation.
Furthermore, there is case law on the procedural duty of fairness owed to applicants to consider new documents where the change in requirements does not arise directly from legislation or regulations and instead a product of IRCC policy.
In Noor v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2011 FC 308, an Indian Permanent Resident applicant was refused for failing to include an item in the Visa-Office specific instructions for permanent residence applications from India. The instruction guide had changed in the middle of application processing and asides from the new document having changed dates, there was no indication provided by IRCC to the Applicant of the change.
In assessing whether a breach of procedural fairness had arisen in the Officer failing to consider additional documentation the Applicant submitted in his Reconsideration Request to try and rectify the error. Scott J writes (emphasis added):
B. Was there a breach of procedural fairness?
30 The Applicant notes that his own failure to submit the correct documents on his original application resulted from the very recent changes to the Visa Office-Specific Instructions posted online. He notes that this was a dramatic and important change, not widely publicized but rather buried in an otherwise unmodified instruction kit. He further points out that the Visa Officer was clearly aware that he was using the old kit, as he attached a copy of its checklist with his application, but that rather than give him the opportunity to correct his application, his application was rejected. The Applicant acknowledges that the Visa Officer may not always be under an obligation to inform an applicant of the deficiencies of his application, but argues that in the unique circumstances of this case, procedural fairness required that he be given some kind of opportunity to provide the missing documents, in view of the recent modification, which was only ascertainable by reading the extra bullet point. The Applicant notes the Officer’s explanation that the refusal to rectify his file came about because of the “reasonable expectation” that he check the new instructions, but argues that this was in fact unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.
31 The Applicant notes that there is no duty of fairness case that is directly on point. However, he cites from Athar v. Canada (MCI), 2007 FC 177, which canvassed jurisprudence on cases involving permanent residence applicants facing credibility concerns at hearings, and whether they should be informed of the deficiencies of their applications. At para. 17 of Athar:
- [There] may still be a duty on the part of a Visa Officer, in certain situations, to provide an applicant with the opportunity to respond to his or her concerns, in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness.
32 Athar also cites Hassani v. Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 1283, where Justice Mosley wrote:
- [It] is clear that where a concern arises directly from the requirements of the legislation or related regulations, a Visa Office will not be under a duty to provide an opportunity for the applicant to address his or her concerns. Where however the issue is not one that arises in this context, such a duty may arise.
33 The Applicant argues that the requirements in this case did not arise from the Act or the regulations, which do not lay out any documentation requirements, but rather from a change in a specific policy. It would have been easy to give the Applicant the opportunity to rectify his application, especially as the Visa Officer was aware that he used the incorrect kit, and this would have satisfied the duty of fairness in the unique circumstances of this case.
34 The Respondent counters that in the Visa Officer decisions, the content of the duty of fairness when determining visa applications has been held to be towards the lower end of the range, as per Patel v. Canada (MCI), 2002 FCA 55, para 10, and Malik, para 29. Given that the Applicant must establish certain criteria to succeed in his application, the Respondent argues that the Applicant should assume that the Visa Officer’s concerns will arise directly from the Act and the regulations, and the onus remains on him to provide the correct documentation. Here, the Applicant was asked to submit a full application, including the documents listed in the Visa Office-Specific Instructions. The Respondent argues that the Applicant was specifically directed to use the 04-2009 Kit, and that this was available five (5) months prior to the submission of his full application.
35 The Applicant is correct in pointing out that the documentation requirements are not set out in the Act or the regulations, but only in the online instruction kit. While this Court did not find that Malik and Nouranidoust could support the Applicant’s first issue, the comments made by the judges in those cases (advising that new documentation ought to be allowed in certain cases) is persuasive in the context of the duty of fairness owed to someone in the Applicant’s distinct situation. It was clear to the Visa Officer that the Applicant was using the older kit, which had recently been changed, yet he was afforded no opportunity to rectify this simple error. Furthermore, the Respondent is incorrect in stating that the Applicant was specifically advised to use the 04-2009 Kit. The letter sent to the Applicant on July 28 (found as Exhibit B to the Applicant’s affidavit, Applicant’s Record p 31) simply directs him to the CIC website for “Visa office-specific forms and a list of supporting documents require by the Visa office”. There is no specific indication at all that these requirements would have changed.
36 The Applicant clearly stated in his request for […]
Financial Sufficiency – Applications for Canadian Study Permits
Several clients and individuals have been contacting me relating to the issue of financial sufficiency. Studying in Canada is expensive (sometimes prohibitively so), and for several students demonstrating sufficient funds to support studies in Canada will be an issue.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) Visa Processing Offices Overseas and in Canada all have different requirements as to what constitutes adequate proof of finances. That topic is beyond the scope of this piece (and will be the focus of my next piece actually!)
What I want to tackle in this piece is the amount that is included in the IMM5843/IMM5710 (and ideally explained later) in a Study Permit Application.
How is adequate financial sufficiency calculated?
CIC’s own Study Permits: Assessing the Application Guidelines state as follows (emphasis added):
“Students are required to demonstrate financial sufficiency for only the first year of studies, regardless of the duration of the course or program of studies in which they are enrolled. In other words, a single student entering a four-year degree program with an annual tuition fee of $15,000 must demonstrate funds of $15,000 to satisfy the requirements, and not the full $60,000 which would be required for four years. Officers should be satisfied however that the probability of funding for future years does exist (i.e., parents are employed); scholarship is for more than one year. Applications for extensions made to CPC-V must also meet this requirement.”
What is very interesting is when you compare this to CIC’s Office Training Module (which has not been made public), which states (emphasis added):
Officers must make sure that applicants have sufficient financial resources to pay their tuition fees, transportation costs to and from Canada, as well as living expenses for themselves and any family member who may be accompanying them, without the need to engage in employment.
The above section is somewhat fair. The wording is repeated in some of the country specific checklists, for example China’s:
However, this wording is missing from the general IMM 5483E (11-2015) checklist that is utilized for every visa office:
Importantly, the wording is in the legislative regulations of the Immigration and Refugee Protections regulations at R.220. It states:
Financial resources
220 An officer shall not issue a study permit to a foreign national, other than one described in paragraph 215(1)(d) or (e), unless they have sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to
(a) pay the tuition fees for the course or program of studies that they intend to pursue;
(b) maintain themself and any family members who are accompanying them during their proposed period of study; and
(c) pay the costs of transporting themself and the family members referred to in paragraph (b) to and from Canada.
The big kicker, is the part that states without the need to engage in employment.
I know that I have seen several study permit applications where counsel/applicants would emphasize that the applicant will be working part-time or possibly that their spouse would find a job and earn X amount of dollars. This line appears to take those factors outside of the Officer’s scope of analysis.
Implications
CIC’s guidelines don’t always seem so crystal clear – particularly when they go beyond their legislative scope into things such as employment as a source of proof. I think Applicants with refusals due to lack of financial resources may want to review the Officer’s analysis and, if they are reapplying, find ways to satisfy the Officer’s Training Module criteria while ensuring to cite the proper legislative framework.
I think also that CIC needs to bring about a little more parity in the way it assesses and provides public information about issues such as financial sufficiency in light of the clear legislative language. Utilizing the same language across all sources – document checklists, visa specific posts, and training manuals would certainly ensure greater consistency.
Please note that the screenshot above titled “Assessment of Funds and Tuition” is derived from an Officer Training Module obtained via Access to Information and Privacy from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. I am not in any way affiliated with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) nor am providing this information on their behalf or a representative of their organization. I also cannot confirm whether these are and will be the current Training Manual instructions moving forward.
The Resignation Letter: An Online Novel (Chapter 4: Maria’s First Day, Mo’s Never-Ending Nightmare)
Mohamed woke up extra early on Boxing Day morning. It was not because he was in a rush to get to the mall to purchase the wool jacket for his wife that he could no longer afford. Boxing Day, a Saturday this year, kicked off the five-day rush prior to the New Year. The Firm’s clients from all over the world were in a rush to replace their 2015 marketing strategies and advertising materials to try and be the proverbial ‘early bird that gets the worm’ in 2016.
Mohamed had called his wife the evening of Christmas. As usual, his wife was busy attending mosque with her younger brother. They had recently moved into a small apartment together, and even had a new household helper. Mohamed had not been back to Sierra Leone in over a year and his wife, who didn’t have a visa to travel to Canada, was awaiting processing on their sponsorship application, currently stuck in the African backlog of a three-year delay. Based on processing, they would expect to hear from Immigration any day now.
The city still pitch black when he woke up, Mohamed took the number 15 bus, as he had every morning for the past ten years. Said his good morning and thank you to the bus driver, who didn’t acknowledge him. Mohamed always sat at the back of the bus, where there were usually less people at this time of the day.
When Mohamed arrived at the office, he noticed he was the first one in. They are probably all hungover again, Mohamed thought to himself. Mohamed had spent his Christmas dinner eating leftovers from his lunch with Shafiq and watching television. It was a boring existence, albeit a quiet one, which Mohamed had become comfortably accustomed to.
As Mohamed was about to turn the corner, a light suddenly turned on in the hallway. It was the cleaning lady “Maria”, an affectionate 45-year old lady that Mohamed absolutely adored for her vivacious laugh and honest approach to cleaning. Maria was more serious this morning however.
“Maria, how was your Christmas? You don’t seem your usual self my dear” Mohammed asked gently.
“Mo, things are not good back home. My husband lost his job and is sick with cancer. It was just diagnosed. My eldest son got arrested for dealing drugs and is in prison. They won’t release him. I can’t afford a plane ticket back to the Philippines right now. I missed Christmas again.” Maria responded, trying to hold herself together.
Mohamed patted Maria on the back reassuringly. He opened his wallet and slipped Maria a twenty dollar bill. “Take this Maria. I know, it has been tough for all of us. We’re both trapped in a city way too beautiful for all of us, but so lonely without our loved ones. It will get better I promise. Go home and get some rest”
“Thanks Mo.” Maria replied, pocketing the twenty dollars. “I would like to go home but your stupid boss left a note for me reminding me that the three new interns are starting today and that I need to set up their work station.. volunteer station.. whatever you guys are calling it this year.”
Mohamed chuckled. He had completely forgot that it was time for the Annual Student Internship Program again. Billed as a program that would give work experience to underemployed/underprivileged recent graduates,
Mohamed knew that the real reason for hiring individuals like this were that they would work for essentially no pay. Mo knew from previous years experience that each year the interns would be brought on for the busy period of New Years, Valentine’s Day, and Easter and then sent home in early May with a generic letter of congratulations and a $500 stipend. During these five months, had they been salaried junior level employees they would have each taken home at least $500 a week and had to have their medical insurance and Canadian Pension Plan covered.
Maria bid adieu and continued with her cleaning duties. Man, this is a whole city of immigration problems, Mohamed thought to himself shaking his head. As Mohamed was about to sit down at his desk, Maria came running down the halls.
“Mo, I forgot to tell you something. You forgot to shut down your computer and you left a document open all weekend.” Maria grabbed the mouse and shook the computer awake. It was the first two lines of your resignation letter. I hope nobody saw it. When I came in yesterday it was brightly displayed. I couldn’t help but notice it.”
“Thanks for mentioning it Maria.” Mo said earnestly. “I hope so too.”
I am an idiot, Mohamed thought to himself. The thought of resigning immediately had since Christmas become a more distant one in his mind. I can resign next summer. I need the money and peak season means overtime hours. Next summer, when my wife joins me in Canada, then I can quit and we can find new jobs together. Mohamed closed the document and prayed that nobody has seen it.
Opening his real-estate marketing final report, Mohamed smiled to himself. This is my life calling. The report was intricately prepared. He knew the things that mattered to clients from Arabic-speaking countries: proximity to the mosque, availability of halal food choices, security, and, most-importantly, privacy. His idea was to market the new complex as a “Little Dubai in the Heart of Downtown Vancouver.” He made some last minute edits to the presentation he would have to give on Monday at the real-estate firm’s offices. Mohamed’s line of thinking was interrupted by an email from his manager.
WELCOME TO OUR 2015-2016 STUDENT INTERNS read the email in unnecessary CAPS usually reserved for emergency situations. Mohamed opened the email to see three student profiles.
The first was a girl named Veronica Chiu. She had quite the impressive profile. She had attended the city’s top private school, the Colburn Academy. She had a business degree from out in Eastern Canada. She seemed like the type who would be working at a Bay Street firm rather than in Vancouver. Mohamed peered at the fine print.
Ah, it all made sense. The profile mentioned that her father, Moses Chiu, was a client of the Firm and that all of them needed to be extra careful in making sure Veronica was happy. Veronica would also be working indirectly through the boss’s guidance.
The second was Dawayne Jamison or “DJ” for short. He went to an inner city high school in California before moving to Vancouver to play college basketball. According to the email, apparently after redshirting he switched colleges three times due to poor grades disqualified him from the basketball team. Eventually, he attended a Christian college, found his calling in God and graduated Valedictorian.
Wow – exactly the kind of guy our firm will use to secure new clients, Mohamed thought to himself.
Mohamed got to the third profile. She is very pretty, very Hollywood gorgeous, Mohamed thought before playing around with his ring finger and realizing he was having thoughts that a married man should not be having. She looked young, maybe half his age. Maria, eh just like our cleaning lady. Mohamed made a mental note she would call Maria Mendes, Ms. Mendes. In Mohamed’s mind there was only one Maria, the nice cleaning lady. Mohamed read Ms. Mendes’ profile. It was very short and stated:
Maria comes to us from Surrey, British Columbia where she recently completed her post-secondary studies. Maria has a particular interest in fashion and international marketing and will be working closely with our International team.
Mohamed had been Deputy Chair of the International team for several years. The current Chair, Elliot Huang, was the Firm’s big rainmaker. In 2015, Elliot had successfully closed 40 new clients for the firm and engaged them in the development of marketing strategies. Many were new immigrants to Vancouver, who established quasi-operational businesses that served as vehicles designed to transfer assets to their young sons and daughters who were studying in the city. However, they made the Firm millions and were given rock star treatment.
Mohamed was secretly quite excited that the team had recruited a new member, and additionally excited that she was quite easy on the eyes.
A follow-up email soon arrived from the boss. STUDENT INTERNSHIP PROGRAM MENTORSHIP PAIRS read the email.
The email read:
• Veronica Chiu has been assigned to the International Marketing Group, she will be mentored by Elliot Huang.
• DJ has been assigned to the Sports and Entertainment Marketing group and will be mentored by Don Michaels.
• Maria Mendes has been assigned to the International Marketing Group and will be mentored by…
Mohamed stopped in his tracks.
…. Mohamed Kamara
Mohamed was shocked. It was the first time he had ever been asked to mentor or let alone participate in the program.
Before Mohamed could ponder any further, a third email came into his inbox. It was from the government’s immigration department in Ghana. Mohamed’s heart sunk has he opened it.
Dear Ms. Kamara:
Your Application for Permanent Residence in Canada has been refused. The primary purpose of your marriage has been adjudged to be for immigration purposes. We are also not satisfied that this is a genuine relationship. Thank you for your interest in Canada.
Officer MF.
“Motherfucker!” Mohamed screamed smashing his keyboard on the table. It snapped in half. Mohamed looked around. Thankfully no one was around as an audience to his morning meltdown.
Before Mohamed had a chance to think any further, the recognizable heavy footsteps of his boss and the accompanying rhythm of a set of high heels came towards him. Mo turned around to see his boss’s recognizable bespoke suit and thick-rimmed glasses. Next to him was Maria. She had a serious, “focused” game face on.
“Is this […]
Sub-Blogs
Tags
My Value Proposition
My Canadian immigration/refugee legal practice is based on trust, honesty, hard-work, and communication. I don’t work for you. I work with you.
You know your story best, I help frame it and deal with the deeper workings of the system that you may not understand. I hope to educate you as we work together and empower you.
I aim for that moment in every matter, big or small, when a client tells me that I have become like family to them. This is why I do what I do.
I am a social justice advocate and a BIPOC. I stand with brothers and sisters in the LGBTQ2+ and Indigenous communities. I don’t discriminate based on the income-level of my clients – and open my doors to all. I understand the positions of relative privilege I come from and wish to never impose them on you. At the same time, I also come from vulnerability and can relate to your vulnerable experiences.
I am a fierce proponent of diversity and equality. I want to challenge the racist/prejudiced institutions that still underlie our Canadian democracy and still simmer in deep-ceded mistrusts between cultural communities. I want to shatter those barriers for the next generation – our kids.
I come from humble roots, the product of immigrant parents with an immigrant spouse. I know that my birth in this country does not entitle me to anything here. I am a settler on First Nations land. Reconciliation is not something we can stick on our chests but something we need to open our hearts to. It involves acknowledging wrongdoing for the past but an optimistic hope for the future.
I love my job! I get to help people for a living through some of their most difficult and life-altering times. I am grateful for my work and for my every client.
Awards & Recognition
Canadian Bar Association Founders' Award 2020
Best Canadian Law Blog and Commentary 2019
Best New Canadian Law Blog 2015
Best Lawyers Listed 2019-2021
2023 Clawbies Canadian Law Blog Awards Hall of Fame Inductee
Best Canadian Law Blog and Commentary 2021
Canadian Bar Association Founders' Award 2020
Best Canadian Law Blog and Commentary 2019
