Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Video Blog: Tips For Preparing for the Spousal Sponsorship Interview

I’ve talked in the past about preparing and submitting a spousal sponsorship. These applications are straightforward but there are complications that may come up that may require legal advice or representation. Once a positive decision is made on sponsor eligibility an officer will finalize the application by reviewing the applicant's - the sponsored person is the applicant - his or her admissibility to Canada and the genuineness of the relationship. If the documents provided don't satisfy an officer's concerns, an interview may be held. This spousal interview causes stress and anxiety for both the sponsor and applicant. In my view the best antidote for stress and anxiety is preparation; I'm surprised how often applicant's walk into an interview "cold" with little or no preparation. The interview usually involves only the applicant; however the sponsor can also be asked questions (if overseas, the visa officer may call the sponsor). Remember, methods vary principles stay the same. The key is to think like an officer. You've got to understand the strengths and weaknesses of your file. Questions will be asked about the origins and development of the relationship. Questions will be asked about pre- and post-marriage behaviour (trips, outings, activities). One issue... Read more →

Discussing the strange immigration and citizenship case of Deepan Budlakoti

I was asked by Rishi Nagar of RedFM on the strange immigration and citizenship case of Deepan Budlakoti. My discussion begins at 10:00 and I have (obviously) a different perspective. Read more →

Discussing Citizenship Changes with MLA Darshan Kang

Fair is fair. We had MP Devinder Shory on July 25, 2014 to discuss the legislation that he initiated, Bill C-24. There's always two sides to every story, and here we had the pleasure of Darshan Kang (presently MLA) who will be challenging Mr. Shory for the riding in the next Federal election. Read more →

Discussing Citizenship Changes with MP Devinder Shory

I co-host a weekly legal affairs radio show; MP Devinder Shory was good enough to come on our program on July 25, 2014 to defend the legislation that he initiated. Bill C-24 of course makes citizenship harder to get and easier to lose. Read more →

Blog Posting - Choosing Counsel - Who is the Client?

Recently our firm was contacted by a prospective client, a highly skilled employee with a large corporation in Alberta. He had applied, through his company's immigration law firm, for nomination under the Alberta Immigrant Nominee Program several months ago. As a result of delays in processing times this individual had implied status and was forced to remain in Canada while his work permit extension was in process, awaiting a positive LMIA. He was frustrated and queried as to what our firm would have done differently had we been his counsel throughout his time in Canada. We reviewed the circumstances of his case and it became readily apparent that his representatives had not looked out for his best interests. Instead, they compromised his best interests by applying for an AINP nomination which while it would eventually result in permanent residence for this individual, would also tie him to the specific company until he became a permanent resident of Canada. This benefited the company immensely, but not the individual. The failure to look out for this client's best interests, as opposed to the company, was obvious as the client could have applied for permanent residence under the Canadian Experience Class well prior... Read more →

Once more unto the breach...and Clausewitzian Friction

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead. In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility; But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger. . . . Henry The Fifth Act 3, Scene 1, 1-6 The judicial review application will be heard tomorrow before Justice Gagné (a relative recent appointment to the Federal Court). The matter involves a (faulty) decision by the RPD. My client was granted refugee protection; the Minister sought to vacate that status after they learned of a warrant for his arrest in the US. The Minister alleged that the offence (for which my client was never convicted, and only charged in absentia) constituted a "serious non-political" crime as envisioned by Article 1F(b) of the Convention. The RPD Member took the (stale dated) evidence (containing hearsay and triple hearsay) at face value and failed to properly assess (in my view anyway) the so-called Jayasekara factors. There's more. Not only did the RPD Member accept a document containing triple hearsay, he erred in shifting the onus from the Minister to my client. That is,... Read more →

A "Serious" Non-Political Crime

My friend, Peter Edelmann, was counsel for the Respondent in MCI v. Jose Vicelio Lopez Velasco 2011 FC 627. It's one of the cases that I'm relying on in my appearance before the Federal Court tomorrow morning. The Facts The facts in Lopez Velasco are the following: Mr. Lopez Velasco fled his native Guatemala for Mexico, making his way to the US where he lived between 1988 and 1992); Mr. Lopez Velasco was convicted of four misdemeanour offences under the California Penal Code of "annoying or molesting children"; he was initially charged with a felony offence of committing a lewd act upon a child but at trial these charges were reduced; Mr. Lopez Velasco did not disclose his conviction at the time of his claim for refugee protection; his claim was granted in 1994 and he did advise of same when he applied for permanent residence in 1996; The Minister sought to vacate that status in 2009 because they alleged Mr. Lopez Velasco committed misrepresentation (did not disclose his criminal conviction in the US prior to his arrival in Canada); The RPD dismissed the Minister's application to vacate; it found that the crime(s) committed did not constitute serious non-political crimes... Read more →

5 Tips for Winning Your (Criminal) Deportation Appeal

A removal order can be issued against you if you are a Permanent Resident of Canada and have been convicted of an indictable offence in Canada (for the purposes of IRPA, hybrid offences are considered indictable. A removal order can even be prepared if you've been convicted (or there are grounds to believe that you have committed) an equivalent offence outside Canada to one in Canada that would receive 10 years sentence or more. Tip #1 - if the sentence is more than 6 months, you do not have an appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division. There is, however, a possibility that the officer will exercise his or her discretion not to write a section 44 report (which initiates removal proceedings) against you. You've got one shot. In the immortal words of Eminem: Look, if you had, one shot, or one opportunity To seize everything you ever wanted, one moment Would you capture it? Or just let it slip, yo ... The moment, you own it, you better never let it go You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow This opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo Tip #2 - If the allegation involves you... Read more →

Blog Posting - Immediate Benefits of New Rules on Citizenship?

The government has recently put out a press release indicating that the changes to the new Citizenship laws have already reduced backlogs and applications are being assessed more "efficiently than ever". http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?crtr.sj1D=&crtr.mnthndVl=12&mthd=advSrch&crtr.dpt1D=6664&nid=872699&crtr.lc1D=&crtr.tp1D=1&crtr.yrStrtVl=2008&crtr.kw=&crtr.dyStrtVl=26&crtr.aud1D=&crtr.mnthStrtVl=2&crtr.page=1&crtr.yrndVl=2014&crtr.dyndVl=31 Strangely enough, the new rules only came into force very recently (June 19, 2014) and most of the key provisions (such as a more stringent residency requirement) have not even come into effect. At the very least the government could have simply stated "they believe" the changes will provide immediate benefits. Instead they have again relied on their timeworn philosophy of bragging about policy and legal changes without any evidence of benefits. It would be nice if the government could actually provide statistics to verify its press releases. Boasting and bragging about outcomes and effects of changes and policy with no evidence of the same have become de rigeur for this government's immigration file, so do not hold your breath waiting for verification of these "benefits". Read more →

Another Look at the Refugee Health Cuts

There has been a lot of heat, sound and fury surrounding the refugee health cuts since they were announced in July 2012. Advocates for refugees, including medical professionals and lawyers were vociferous and united in their opposition to the change in policy. Ministers Kenney and Alexander have been equally steadfast in defending their position. Justice Ann Mactavish found that the refugee health cuts violated fundamental rights under the Canadian Charter. That decision is apparently to be appealed. My article, co-authored with Nadeem Esmail, Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute was published this month in the C2C journal. The reductions in health care coverage for refugee claimants under then-Immigration Minister Jason Kenney in 2012 as part of a larger package of refugee policy reforms have often been cited as evidence of the callous parsimony of the Harper Conservative government. ... The 2012 refugee healthcare reforms were part of a larger, long-term effort by the Harper government to overhaul immigration and refugee policies, ostensibly to better serve Canada’s economic interests. ... For failed refugee claimants, there is either no health coverage or limited emergency health coverage in Australia, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland. ... Complaints about... Read more →

Blog Posting - Service Canada Rejection of All Low Wage LMOs filed Prior to June 20, 2014

Based on changes to the Foreign Worker Program, Service Canada has unilaterally rejected all low wage LMO applications (now known as LMIA) filed prior to June 20, 2014. They will be refunding the application fees to employers, but otherwise the applications have been discarded. The definition of "low wage" depends on the province. For example, in Alberta, a low wage position is any role which pays less than $24.23 per hour. Accordingly, if you or your employer are waiting on a positive LMO from Service Canada for a low wage position and you filed prior to June 20, 2014 you will need to re-apply as per the new program parameters. Do not wait for notice or the fee refund back from Service Canada to notify you of this situation. Read more →