Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Humanitarian & Compassionate Applications

I just finished completing and submitting several "H&C" applications. "H&C" apps are what are known as section 25 or Humanitarian and Compassionate Applications. They allow for an exemption of the requirements under IRPA. In my practice, they are generally used for individuals without status in Canada. Most of the time this involves failed refugee claimants. Canada's immigration law requires that an individual must apply for immigration outside of Canada. An H&C allows for an exemption to that general rule, allowing the applicant to apply in-land. H&C's used to be also used for individuals with/without status who used to marry a Canadian citizen/permanent resident in Canada and wanted their application processed in land. There's a new procedure for that (in-land spousal sponsorships) that should be used. Anyway, the guide and forms can be found here. An immigration practitioner should also read the information contained in CIC's operations manual (referred to by H&C/immigration officers when reviewing their application). That can be found on the same site, here. The app has to be sent to CPC Vegreville (address on the checklist). Remember to follow the checklist, and include all necessary documents, including: Photographs (specific specifications) Forms Criminal record/clearances (from every country the applicant... Read more →

Skilled workers misled?

An interesting article found here. talks about the disillusionment of professionals who have recently immigrated to Canada. The professionals - from Pakistan and India - claim to be misled about employment prospects and credential recognition in Canada. Now working at mostly 'menial' or at least in positions wholely unrelated to their background, the foreign professionals appear bitter with their lot. It would appear that CIC is unsympathetic to their plight. The CIC spokesperson merely reiterated that the onus is on prospective immigrants to do their 'homework' and research employment and accreditation prior to immigration. I believe that its incumbent on a legal professional to frankly advise any foreign client some of the difficulties outlined in the article. At the same time, I also believe that a natural amount of 'dislocation' is inherent when transplanting to another country - and I certainly don't believe that CICs website creates any expectation with respect to prospects of employment or recognition of credentials. I am also aware of many immigrant success stories - including lawyers from India who have now been called to the Bar here in Alberta. Read more →

Inadmissibility Case - Radio Appearance

Just finished an on air interview with Dave Rutherford from CHQR Radio AM 770 - Jan 23, 2006 @ 10:30 MST (see link here). Dave had some serious concerns about how a US national (accused of gun smuggling and alleged to be a gang member) was released from immigration's custody here in Canada. A Member of the Immigration Division (Paul Kyba) found that the Minister (CBSA) didn't establish the foreign national inadmissible under section 36(2)(c). It seemed that Dave felt that if the US wanted someone, then Canada should simply oblige. I pointed out my strong feelings that Canada ought not to abdicate either its sovereignty or the sovereignty/jurisdiction of its Immigration Tribunals. If someone is on Canadian soil - Canadian law applies and we have a minimum duty of fairness towards that individual in the context of legal proceedings. While there is a low legal threshold - "reasonable grounds" (essentially more than mere speculation) - the Minister must still establish a legal basis for removing a foreign national from Canada. In this case, that low threshold was not met. Hopefully, our institutional safeguards remain in place so that we do not have another Maher Arar. Read more →

Admissibility Hearings

A recent admissibility hearing (and its result) has occasioned some media coverage (Download DHoang.pdf and/or here) and concern about Canada's immigration laws - especially its enforcement aspects. In a nutshell, IRPA has provisions allowing an Immigration Officer to make a report (s.44) to the Immigration Division. A Member of the Immigration Division, after reviewing the submissions of the Minister can find that a foreign national (or permanent resident) is inadmissible to Canada. Most of the inadmissibility sections in the Act deal with safety and security of Canadians. Unfortunately, the media assumes that because someone has been accused of a serious crime that that person ought to be removed from Canada, whether or not the Minister has established sufficient legal basis. In this case, allegations of gun smuggling appear to have hit a nerve given recent headlines of gun violence in Canada. While this client was the subject of a US Grand Jury Indictment, the evidence presented still did not satisfy the individual and specific requirements of the (in)admissibility provision raised by the Minister. Read more →

Federal Court "Appeals"

The Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction over federal tribunals, such as the Immigration and Refugee Board, or decisions made by a representative of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (an Immigration Officer). This is not technically an "appeal" although many clients refer to it as such. In terms of immigration, the following two occasions may necessitate an application for leave and judicial review to the Federal Court: When a refugee claim has been denied; and When a Humanitarian and Compassionate Application (H&C) or PRRA application have been denied Time frames are extremely important. It is very difficult to submit or file documents that are late. For a refusal of a refugee case, a leave application must be filed within 15 days of receiving the decision. The same is true of a denied H&C or PRRA application. Once a leave application is filed, the Department of Justice (which represents the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) files a notice of appearance. The applicant’s record must then be filed within 30 days of the filing of the leave application. The Federal Court decides (after receiving the Minister’s response) whether or not to grant leave to the application (which results in an appearance... Read more →