Let’s Get in Touch
Recent Blog Posts
VIB Student Week (Post 1) – Distance Learning, Our Distant Understanding
As we welcome the end of the summer, and Canada’s begins welcoming international students to its many world-class learning institutions, Vancouver Immigration Blog (VIB) will take an in-depth look at student-related Canadian immigration issues. This is student week! We hope students and institutions alike find this series particularly useful.
What is Distance Learning?
With the recent news of several Niagara College student suing the Designated Learning Institution (“DLI”) for allegedly promising the ability to obtain Post-Graduate Work Permits (“PGWPs”) through their four-month transfer program, it is an appropriate time to study why Distance Learning is causing so much trouble.
Citizenship and Immigration has provided the following description of Distance Learning on their website:
Distance learning can be through e-learning, correspondence, or internet courses. Distance learning is a process by which technology is used in ways where the student does not have to physically be in the place where the teaching is taking place.
Since by definition distance learning does not require one to be in Canada, a study permit cannot be issued for this type of course. For example, if a foreign national authorized to work in Canada is prohibited from engaging in studies as per a condition of their work permit, they are allowed to engage in distance learning courses.
However, some distance learning courses include an in-Canada portion to the program (e.g., special tutorials or the writing of final exams). If the overall course of study is greater than six months, then the student requires a study permit for the in-Canada portion of the program, even if the in-Canada portion is less than six months. The duration of the study permit should be for the duration of the in-Canada portion only.
(emphasis in original)
The issue with this definition of distance learning is that in its attempt to be “catch-all,” it oversimplifies the much more complex world of curriculum design. Many schools, for reasons completely unrelated to immigration, have courses where Professors teach via virtual lecture, where students do not meet physically in class on a regular basis, or even where experiential-based learning is taught through field research. It is also not clear whether a program itself can be non-distance learning if it has only a few distance learning courses as constituent elements.
On the contrary, you can see that trying to carve out a too-narrow definition of distance learning can certainly open up the Canadian immigration system to abuse. Individuals who study in “distance learning” programs (without Canadian in-class components) can take these courses while working in Canada or even as visitors. Without rules and regulations around distance learning, arguably schools could design purely-economic motivated programs and avoid the study permit process altogether – leaving international students duped.
Complicating matters is the importance of a strong study permit scheme to our overall immigration regime. It that our strong educational institutions are one of our most attractive features to new immigrants. It is well-known that international student industry brings in to Canada at least $8 billion dollars a year (and this is just from old 2010 estimates). The common ratio is that 1 international student can cover tuition for 4 domestic students. Education attracts students and immigrants to Canada and with it, the next generation of young Canadian permanent residents and citizens.
It is important to note that this stage that for students who want to be in Canada, beyond merely the term of their study, rely on the PGWP, a program that allows graduates of Canadian institutions to obtain work permits equal (but no longer) than the length of their studies. This period of time provides the university graduate the period to gain the requisite skilled work experience to qualify for Canada’s economic immigration programs or obtain a provincial nomination. The PGWP can only be obtained once per international student, regardless of whether further academic degrees are obtained.
Taking a program of study by Distance Learning however, does not qualify one for Post-Graduate Work Permits. As stated by CIC on their website.
Distance learning
Students who complete a program of study by distance learning (from outside or inside Canada) are not eligible for the PGWPP.
As discussed earlier, this short policy position raises many questions. What if the program is a mixture of in-class courses and distance learning courses? Why does the PGWP definition use ‘program of study’ while the earlier definition of distance learning rely on ‘course.’
Complicating matters further, CIC says the following about educational programs with an overseas component (such as an exchange).
Educational programs with an overseas component
If a student completes a program of study that has, as part of the program, an overseas component, they will be eligible for this program as long as they earn a Canadian educational credential from an eligible institution.
According to this definition, arguably an individual could qualify for the PGWP through an overseas exchange course (if credits are earned in Canada), but taking a program of study domestically in Canada (where credits are similarly earned in Canada) would disqualify them.
This sort of defies logic.
How have Canadian Courts handled Distance Learning?
The simple answer is the Courts have not yet had to dealt with this issue directly.
In Dehar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) 2007 FC 558, the applicant argued that the Officer’s position, that distance-learning was not considered to be attending a full-time, regular courses for the purposes of including the daughter as a dependent child, was unreasonable. Justice de Montigny ultimately did not address this issue, finding that the Officer’s use of an affidavit to change his initial written decision was unreasonable. However, the judicial review was dismissed on other grounds.
In Muhandiramge v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) 2009 FC 752, Justice Russell cited CIC’s old policy on Federal Skilled Worker credential assessment (which has now changed under Express Entry), which gave credit to distance learning courses.
These were the only two relevant case law references I could find.
Following the United States Model?
It appears Canada is not alone in its unclear laws and regulations surrounding distance learning. A Google search turned up several inquiries by individual with working holiday visas in Australia wondering if distance learning was permitted.
Arguably in Canada, where it is clear distance learning without a Canadian component greater than six months, is permitted, shows that we may be a step ahead of our Aussie compatriots.
However, south of the border in the United States, Distance Learning has been better defined by lawmakers.
Under the new U.S. Code of Federal Regulation: [8 CFR § 214.2 (f)(6)(i)(G)]), the following rules apply to nonimmigrant international students (Disclaimer: I am not a U.S. immigration lawyer, this is only my understanding based on independent research) (my emphasis added):
(G) For F-1 students enrolled in classes for credit or classroom hours, no more than the equivalent of one class or three credits per session, term, semester, trimester, or quarter may be counted toward the full course of study requirement if the class is taken on-line or through distance education and does not require the student’s physical attendance for classes, examination or other purposes integral to completion of the class. An on-line or distance education course is a course that is offered principally through the use of television, audio, or computer transmission including open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, or satellite, audio conferencing, or computer conferencing. If the F-1 student’s course of study is in a language study program, no on-line or distance education classes may be considered to count toward a student’s full course of study requirement.
I think this above definition is a mass improvement on the Canadian definition. It clarifies that a course that has some physical attendance requirements including examinations that are integral to the courses may be considered regular courses and not distance learning courses. It also provides a more specific definition of distance learning and by that definition, appears to exclude field studies or experiential-based learning from falling under ‘distance learning’.
A second arguable benefit of a definition like this is the immigration regulations can clarify when study permits are CLEARLY required. For example, it seems unreasonable to me that a school in Canada could skirt around the study permit rules by offering only distance courses. As mentioned earlier, such a program could also be very deceiving to international students who think they have a path to permanent residency.
Where to go from here?
Under the new Study Permit rules in effect since May 2014, CIC and the DLIs have established a line of communication. We know they are talking about key issues such as sick leaves and suspensions.
Distance Learning should be on top of the next CIC stakeholder meeting agenda list.
AND… It’s Coming: Immigration Minister’s Broad ‘Authority for Negative Discretion’
Introduction
In an earlier blog post on Electronic Travel Authorizations (eTAs), I wrote about my “theory” that Negative Discretion declarations under section 22.1 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) would increase.
To recap, IRPA allows the Minister’s on his own initiative to declare that that a foreign national may not become a temporary resident for a period of up to three years if justified by public policy considerations.
I mentioned that this provisions is quite young and so far there have been no Federal Court case law on the topic that I can point to interpreting what those public policy considerations are.
It turns out that there are more, recent instructions that Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) have put out on this particular IPRA provision.
Analysis of the New CIC Guidelines
In an online update last modified 17 July 2015, CIC has issued Guidelines for the Negative Discretion Authority that lay out what specifically is being targeted by this provision.
They are accessible here.
I have added emphasis below.
Promoting Terrorism, Violence, or Criminal Activity:
- A foreign national who makes public statements or uses any means to broadcast, write, produce, publish or distribute material, including a website and public speaking, to express views which:
- promote or glorify terrorist violence;
- promote or glorify a listed entity under Regulations Establishing a List of Entities pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada, Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on the Suppression of Terrorism or the United Nations Al-Qaida and Taliban Regulations;
- counsel, encourage or incite others to commit terrorist activity or terrorist violence;
- incite hatred that is likely to lead to violence against a specific group;
- promote, counsel, encourage or incite serious criminal activity.
This section is very #C51-esque with some language that mirrors very closely the Criminal Code amendments under that Bill.
What is interesting is that the wording of this possible group that Negative Discretion can be issued against is very broad. I can easily see bloggers and scholars, who express more extreme political views, to be potentially caught under this provision. The already common-practice of “googling” or “researching” individual applicants (both through the Temporary Resident Visa and eTA process) will likely increase from Canada Border Service Agency’s (CBSA’s) side.
The “promotion and glorification” wording also seems highly problematic, especially in combination with no apparent standard of proof required for this negative discretion to be issued. Does sharing an ISIS video on a private blog count as promotion and glorification? Does writing a pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian independence piece meet the requirement? Who is to be the judge of the ‘academic’ elements in the piece in the case it is scholarly work or the work of a journalist?
It is very possible under this provision, we could be preventing a journalist like a foreign national equivalent of Mohamed Fahmy from coming to Canada.
On a different note, I query whether this provision could also be used to keep individuals such as Daryush Valizadeh, a.k.a. Roosh V out of Canada. Arguably, point 4 is triggered by a pick up artist who encourages the rape of women.
Foreign Nationals from Sanctioned Countries or Corrupt Foreign Officials:
-
A foreign national of a country against which Canada has imposed sanctions under the United Nations Act or the Special Economic Measures Act, where that foreign national is:
- a former or current senior official of the government of that country, or of any entity owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of the government; or
- an associate or a relative of an official or person set out in paragraph (a).
-
A foreign national who is a politically exposed foreign person listed in regulations to the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act.
This section is in my analysis equally broad.
The countries that are covered under the first subsection (UN Act or Special Economic Measures Act) include the following:
Canada has imposed sanctions and/or related measures against the following countries:
You will note that these are among the countries that already have significantly lower TRV success rates.
Also, you will note in particular the Guidelines cover off associates and relatives in addition to the current or former official. It is interesting to note that relatives is not defined. Being a second cousin twice removed may be enough to catch you under the breadth of this section.
I think that the second bullet point of the Foreign Nationals from Sanctioned Countries or Corrupt Foreign Officials provision also will attract attention to individuals from country such as China.
This provision refers to the Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (FACFO Act), which itself is extremely far-reaching in its application. Section 2 of the FACFOA Act defines politically exposed foreign person as (emphasis added):
“politically exposed foreign person”
« étranger politiquement vulnérable »
“politically exposed foreign person” means a person who holds or has held one of the following offices or positions in or on behalf of a foreign state and includes any person who, for personal or business reasons, is or was closely associated with such a person, including a family member:
(a) head of state or head of government;
(b) member of the executive council of government or member of a legislature;
(c) deputy minister or equivalent rank;
(d) ambassador or attaché or counsellor of an ambassador;
(e) military officer with a rank of general or above;
(f) president of a state-owned company or a state-owned bank;
(g) head of a government agency;
(h) judge;
(i) leader or president of a political party represented in a legislature; or
(j) holder of any prescribed office or position.
In the case of China, you will possibly Negative Discretion declarations made under Subsection (f), particularly as we are seeing with the rise of fraud cases arising from the leadership changes and rule of law reforms in China. Parent of astronaut families should be careful moving forward with their business and political dealings (even those holding 10-year multiple entry visas).
Mitigating Risks to Public Health:
A foreign national who may introduce, contribute, or pose a risk to public health in Canada. This could include a foreign national who has been in a country with an unusual or unexpected and serious communicable disease with the potential for international spread and significant impact on the health of the Canadian population.
This provision is very interesting. Previously these types of situations were subject to Operational Bulletins, but it looks like the authority to prevent an individual from a country with major health/disease concerns is also widened by these instructions.
Where I See This All Going
Without being overly predictive of the results of the next election, should the Conservatives regain power and in line with the other reforms that are occuring, the use of the Citizenship and Immigration Minister’s ‘Authority for Negative Discretion’ will increase drastically.
This provision, against affects both Temporary Resident Visa applicants and eTA applicants. In fact, even holding a TRV or eTA may not exempt an individual from Entry requirements. I am aware that the CBSA is in the process of training Aircraft Carrier companies to provide information which will allow CBSA to trigger a last minute review of a possible Authority for Negative Discretion.
Information sharing is at the heart of this Government and this current Immigration Regime’s direction. It is too early to see how a provision like this would withstand some of our Charter rights, particularly Section 2 which applies to everyone (including temporary residents in Canada).
Which brings up a hypothetical question to conclude on: If I were a Muslim scholar studying religious independence with a family in Canada and no permanent resident status, would I think twice about writing a blog or giving a speech about my area of research?
I would.
I don’t think I should. But I would.
I think this, as a policy, is ultimately too broad to enforce. There is too much of a gap between the wording of an s.22.1(1) Negative Discretion Authority declaration and the proposed policy implementation.
Ultimately, I believe the laws will have to be re-written by the government to provide for more specifications as to when the provision can be applied, particularly as its effect is essentially the same of many exclusion orders and inadmissibility findings under IRPA.
OPINION: Why Immigration is My Canadian Election Issue – Changing Our Attitude and Communication
Like many of my Canadian friends heading into the end of the summer, I am what the pundits would call an ‘undecided voter.’ Speaking very frankly, none of the three catch-all parties, have to this date won my votes on their policy positions.
For me, like many of my first and second-class Canadian friends, the policy issues that truly matter to me this 42nd Canadian election, are a product of the experiences in this country; for me, a country I know I have the unique privilege of having been born in. The environment, jobs, health, security are all issues that I am keenly aware concern several of my compatriots. Yet, fortunately, I have not run into any of these challenges on a personal level.
For me, it is the single policy issue of Canadian immigration that keeps me up at night. I say this not only because I spend 12 hours a day at work worrying about immigration for my clients, but also because I spend 24 hours worrying about this issue for the security of my family and my future children, who will have an immigrant parent.
Both Raj Sharma and Mario Bellissimo, in respective pieces here and here, have expertly laid out issues and views I strongly side with, in terms of the direction of Canadian immigration policy on both family and economic fronts.
Both cite family reunification as something that needs to be given more value and viewed as a greater economic opportunity. I completely concur. There is also clearly the need for more humanitarianism in our system. I applaud the current Harper government’s decision to open the door to more Syrian refugees, but I think regardless of the pending election, Canada must do more for refugees both domestically and abroad and act faster in responding to global humanitarian crises. Canada also needs to send clearer messages to foreign caregivers who bring invaluable services to Canadian families while carving out their new lives in Canada that they are an asset and not a liability.
However, I think what I want and many Canadians want from the next government is not a specific policy change. Increasing a quota from 5,000 to 8,000 will never full capture the demand that exists for our beautiful country. It is inevitable that people will be left on the outside looking in.
I think what we want is a general attitude change by our policymakers to better communicate with an issue that often trumps several other policy concerns that newcomers to Canada have.
A Little Parable – At the Chinese Visa Office
Many months back, I was applying for a visa to go to China to visit my girlfriend. Due to the unclear Chinese-translated wording on the forms and the uniqueness of my situation I’ll admit I made a bit of a mess of the forms. As I went to the front desk, confusingly pointing at what category I should be applying under, the friendly individual at the front desk kindly guided me through each question and told me to fix and sign next to my corrected answers. My final application form looked like the first draft of an immigration form I help my clients edit. After one last check I was told to come back Thursday to pick up my visa. Sure enough when I came in a week the visa was approved.
It is quite easy to say China is not a comparable and that with that many people seeking entry there is no way to process everybody’s application as thoroughly as we do in Canada. However, I want to drive home the point that if the world’s most populous nation can station helpful humans across the world to personally assist with immigration challenges, surely can we do more. Surely we realize how a functioning visa system can reflect on a nation’s attitude as a whole. It is for many the first point of contact for Canada. It is not good for system integrity or our nation’s reptuation, when applicants need to rely on change.com social media campaigns to have their mother’s attend their wedding.
Furthermore, refusals themselves are a major burden on the system. While some will follow the literal message of the refusal letters and “apply again when they qualify,” many will try to judicially review or appeal decisions, make expensive Access to Information and Privacy requests, flood the call centre, and write letters to MPs. I once had a colleague who once told me the cost per hour of conducting an ATIP request could pay several government workers. I am not sure if there’s a more up-to-date report on this issue, but we know that the issue is at least 15 years old.
A report on Canada’s visa system commissioned in 2013 made several recommendations in March 2014 including providing standardized letters of invitation and complete reasons for refusal to failed applicants. Neither of these recommendations have been acted on. Other suggestions such as providing short-term emergency visas secured by bonds have also not been acted on. The Government’s own Open Source figures, which do not include returned application, show a huge discrepancy against applicant’s from Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African countries. Yet little has been done to try and address these clear communication barriers between Applicant and Government.
The problem of communication extends beyond Canada’s visitor visa regime and is a microcosm of a larger communication challenge. The Express Entry system, in place since January 2014, replaces officer communication with mathematical algorithms that attempt to cookie cutter applicant lives without taking into account the necessary discretion provided by the laws themselves. In the Temporary Foreign Worker context, communication still occurs largely by unverified fax. Answers to seemingly two-second administrative issues take months and months of attempted communication and legal action to resolve. These all add up to costs and could all be saved by more human (or effective digital) communication.
Ultimately, had I applied for my Chinese visa under a system as uptight and rigid as the current Canadian system, I would have not been able to see my girlfriend. It would be unclear if that future family I dream about every night would even be able to materialize given it was my only permissible vacation in 9 months.
Better Communication and More Transparency
I think Canadians deserve to know the why of our immigration system. The why usually only comes out in a short paragraph in the Canada Gazettes that most of the time leaves those of us who study these laws closely quite unsatisfied. Canadians deserve to know why certain amount of parents and spouses approved every year. Canadians deserve to know why their family members cannot attend their weddings and funerals. Canadians deserve to know at the very least what the program requirements are of each program without having to rely on a user experience forum or a high-priced lawyer to figure out basic program eligibility questions.
What party can come out and say they will invest in immigrants and invest in increasing communication and transparency. My election vote will go to that party.
Canada’s New Electronic Travel Authorization Regime: 5 Things You May Not Have Known
Because the actual requirement to hold an Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) does not kick in until March 2016, the regime has been understudied and largely unreported outside of the immigration legal community.
On the surface, the new eTA requirement conceptually seems quite simple. Up to now, those exempt from the temporary resident visa requirement process did not undergo any prior screening or vetting. Decisions were made solely at the port of entry and concurrently Canada’s border/immigration system was susceptible to allowing in visitors, who had not made prior applications to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) and who are ultimately inadmissible, into Canada.
Importantly, Canada made some commitments in the Canada–U.S. Beyond the Border Action Plan several years ago where they pledged to introduce an eTA regime. They were bound by those commitments to introduce the regime.
I want to highlight in this piece, five things you might not know about the eTA regime.
By the way, I will not go through a comprehensive review of the regime. For those who want to read more about the policy changes in general, check out CIC’s Program Delivery Update for August 1, 2015 and the text of new Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) via the Part 2 – Gazette in April of this year. Check out also my colleague Steve Meurren’s post for a summary of the new regime.
#1 – The eTA now allows for visa-exempt visitors to Canada to be issued removal orders from outside Canada. Until that removal order is enforced, the visitor will not get an eTA and not be allowed to come to Canada.
This authority is created by by subsection 240(2) of IRPR which states (emphasis added):
240. (1) A removal order against a foreign national, whether it is enforced by voluntary compliance or by the Minister, is enforced when the foreign national
. . . .
When removal order is enforced by officer outside Canada
(2) If a foreign national against whom a removal order has not been enforced is applying outside Canada for a visa, an authorization to return to Canada or an electronic travel authorization, an officer shall enforce the order if, following an examination, the foreign national establishes that
(a) they are the person described in the order;
(b) they have been lawfully admitted to the country in which they are physically present at the time that the application is made; and
(c) they are not inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.
And until that removal order is enforced (i.e. they meet the above requirements), s.25.2 of IRPR applies:
Electronic travel authorization not to be issued
25.2 An electronic travel authorization shall not be issued to a foreign national who is subject to an unenforced removal order.
#2 Cancelling an eTA (at least from a legal perspective) is not as easy as CIC makes it seem (from a policy perspective).
The intersection between policy and law always play an interesting role in Canadian immigration law. As the Federal Courts have made clear on several occasions, online instruction guides, processing manuals, operational bulletins (which now can be extended to include program delivery updates) do not constitute law.
Often times CIC will provide instructions that summarize the law without providing its full details or make recommendations that aren’t legal policy (e.g. when they tell applicants they should apply for extensions 30 days before expiry for several programs, when often times doing may hurt their implied status).
CIC writes on their webpage regarding eTAs:
For how long is an eTA valid?
Section 12.05 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations indicates that an eTA is valid for five years or until the applicant’s passport expires, whichever occurs sooner.
Section 12.06 of the Regulations indicates that an eTA can be cancelled by a designated officer. Once cancelled, an eTA is no longer valid.
While this statement is not incorrect per-se- it omits a few important details.
Cancellation
12.06 An officer may cancel an electronic travel authorization that was issued to a foreign national if
-
(a) the officer determines that the foreign national is inadmissible; or
-
(b) the foreign national is the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Act.
Subsection 22,.1(1) of the Act (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act) is an interesting one.
This section allows the Minister, on his or her own initiative, to declare that a foreign national cannot be come a temporary resident for a period of three years, justified by “public policy considerations.” The underlying provisions has been in force since August 2013 but it appears no Federal Court jurisprudence (at least none that I could find) talk about this provision. To me it is a very discretionary provisions.
Could we see an increase of cancellations of eTAs on s.22.1(1) IRPA grounds where inadmissibility has not yet been made out but there is some concern about the individual’s background? I certainly think so.
#3 – Adverse Information on your immigration file may mean your eTAs might take a while.
CIC has made available by way its most recent program delivery update, updated instructions for how to assess adverse information on file for an eTA applicant.
CIC writes (emphasis in original and added):
If the applicant previously applied for entry to Canada (either through a CIC program or through the CBSA at the port of entry), or if they are already known to CIC (through intelligence, for example), and if there is adverse information on file for the applicant, it will be uncovered through the automated eTA screening process, which will cause the application to be referred for manual review.
Officers should consider:
- Did the adverse information result in a previous refusal?
- If so:
- What is the full story behind the refusal? Look at the case notes to fully understand the reason for the previous refusal. It is not sufficient to only look at the refusal ground(s).
- Was the applicant previously refused because they did not meet the specific needs of the category to which they were applying? For example, if they were refused a work permit because they did not provide a labour market impact assessment, would this impact their eligibility to come to Canada as a visitor?
- Have their circumstances changed since the refusal? Is this still a concern?
- Has the applicant received an approval between the time of their eTA application and the adverse information on file? Note that the automated eTA screening process will not take this into account when determining if a case should be referred for manual review.
- If not:
- What type of adverse information is on file?
- How long ago was it entered?
- Has the applicant received an approval between the time of their eTA application and the adverse information on file? Note that the automated eTA screening process will not take this into account when determining if a case should be referred for manual review.
An officer must be satisfied that an applicant is not inadmissible to Canada under A34 to 40 prior to issuing an eTA. Officers initiate and conduct admissibility activities as needed. This may include screening requests to partners, criminal record checks, info sharing, medical exams and misrepresentation activities.
I find CIC’s example of applying for a work permit without an LMIA kind of curious, as not meeting program requirements does not directly lead to an inadmissibility. However, it appears to suggest that for these type of cases, a procedural fairness letter may be sent to eTA applicants asking them to “explain the circumstances”, with the ultimate fear being that an applicant is attempting to enter Canada to work without authorization.
What this all means, is an Applicant needs to be very careful with misrepresentation (a topic I have written about quite extensively, so see previous posts!).
#4 Permanent Resident Problems are Coming
Strategically for a permanent resident, there may have been reasons in the past to enter Canada on a separate passport or travel document (particularly if their permanent resident card had expired or was lost and/or they no longer met the residency requirement).
eTAs effectively end that practice and create an added barrier – the e-relinquishment process.
CIC writes in their website section titled “Manual processing Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) applications“) (emphasis added):
Officers should consider:
- Based on case history, is the applicant indeed a permanent resident?
- Based on case history, has the applicant renounced their permanent resident status? Often, even though a person has renounced their status, their GCMS profile still shows them as a permanent resident.
Procedure
Level 1 decision-makers at the OSC will query for these applications by performing a search in “IMM activities, Auto Searches.” The “Activity” will be “Derogatory information,” the “Sub-activity” will be “Client Derogatory Information,” and the “Status” will be “Review Required.”
If the applicant is a permanent resident and has not already gone through the formal process of relinquishing their status, they should be contacted to determine whether they would like to voluntarily relinquish their status
-
If the applicant does not wish to relinquish:
- The officer must withdraw the application
- Advise the applicant that they will need to get an appropriate travel document that demonstrates that they are a permanent resident, which may necessitate a determination of their status (PDF, 665.91 KB)
-
If the applicant would like to relinquish:
-
-
Once they have done so, and assuming they are otherwise admissible, the officer may issue the eTA
-
Again, expect this new eTA to increase the number of residency determinations and will likely trickle through to more appeals at the Immigration Appeal Division.
#5 Interactive Advance Passenger Information (IAPI) and Carrier Messenger Requirements (CMR) make Airline Staff the Front-Line Messengers for the new eTA program
An Applicant holds a valid eTA and is now booking a plane ticket. Now what?
There is a whole process that runs in the backdrop between commercial Airline Carriers and Canada Border Services Agency to inform them of who is on the plane that will be arriving in Canada. A lot of the front end information sharing will essentially begin with you entering your name into a flight reservation system to buy tickets all the way until you arrive in […]
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
