Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Blogpost: Work Permits at the Border - Buyer Beware

Another day, another tragedy. We received a cold call from an Indian national who had a study permit which expired in August 2017. For reasons of his own, he had stopped going to school, but continued working part-time based on his mistaken belief that he could work without going to school. In any event, he took steps to rectify his situation. His employer obtained an LMIA for him and he could have simply filed an in Canada work permit application to have his status changed. Did he make this relatively simple and straightforward application? Of course not. His consultant and his employer told him to take the LMIA and go to the border for his work permit. Outcome: Not only was the work permit not issued, this individual has now been asked to leave Canada and confirm his departure with immigration otherwise have a removal order issued against him. Foreign nationals can obtain a work permit if they meet the requirements under s.190(3)(f) by presenting an LMIA, job offer, supporting documents at a land POE. We would recommend this generally to nationals from a visa exempt country (an American, some Latin countries, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the usual suspects). The... Read more →

Blogpost: Common Sense and Professionalism Amongst Immigration Officers

Citizenship and Immigration has recently changed the checklist for the submission of spousal sponsorship applications. Their motivation to do so is noble: they wish to increase consistency with respect to forms and documents and in so doing decrease processing times. In the course of making these changes, they are experiencing some growing pains. Applications are being sent back, in some cases even where all documents on the checklist have been provide along with forms and corresponding fees. We recently experienced the return of an application which did meet the checklist and additional requirements. After it was returned we immediately contacted the Operations Manager at CPC-Mississauga. The Manager not only responded to us in a helpful manner, they actually called our office to assist and provide some instructions on what we could do to rectify the situation so that no prejudice would be accorded to our client. Our communication was open, friendly and responsive on both sides and we are now in a position where it appears the situation would be resolved. The above positive experience stood in stark contrast to our recent experience at an Alternate Dispute Resolution Conference (ADR). Our client had filed a conjugal partnership sponsorship which was... Read more →

Discussing the Myriad Forms and Manifold Consequences of Misrepresentation

Rishi Nagar: Hi, I'm Rishi Nagar; I’m a journalist from India and now have the pleasure of working for one of Canada’s largest multicultural broadcasters. It’s my pleasure to take part in this conversation that is of significant interest to our community, that is, immigration, and the consequences of misrepresentation. Raj, what is misrepresentation? Raj Sharma: Thank you Mr. Nagar, misrepresentation is very broadly defined under the immigration and refugee protection act. Misrepresentation is basically either misrepresentation, it could be the withholding, it could be the omission of a material fact that could induce an error in the administration of the act. Here I think our community and we discussed this a lot on Red FM, we discussed this a lot in other forums but I think our community has driven a lot of the jurisprudence in the area of misrepresentation. It's something that I deal with on a daily basis. Rishi Nagar: How many types of misrepresentation are there? Raj Sharma: I don't know I think that's a tough question. I've been doing immigration since 2002 when I started as an immigration hearings officer and so it's been about 15 years and I'm still coming across new, novel approaches... Read more →

Bjorn Harsanyi - SSH Law Partner - On Generalized Risk and Gang Violence

[Raj: Canada's refugee laws are broader than most countries and includes "Persons in Need of Protection" not just "Convention Refugees"] Generalized Risk and Gang Violence The protection afforded to a claimant under paragraph 97(1)(b) of IRPA must be personal and not one faced generally by others in the country. The million dollar question in the last number of years is what is meant by personal risk, and how have the courts defined it in recent years? In the past few years the jurisprudence has become muddied to say the least, with often competing lines of interpretation on when a risk becomes personalized when an individual is faced with gang related violence. Decisions of the RPD emboldened by certain decisions from the Federal Court have repeatedly denied otherwise well founded claims for protection because the risk to them is generalized. This is particularly the case for applicants from countries in Central America, where crime and gang violence is rampant. In recent jurisprudence, the courts have clearly grappled with where the line in the sand should be drawn in these cases. For example, is a shopkeeper who flees Guatemala because he refuses to pay extortion money simply a victim of crime for... Read more →

Podcast - Audio from the Standing Committee Appearance Concerning the Legal Regulatory Disciplinary Frameworks Regulating Immigration Consultants

Individuals looking for assistance in dealing with Canada's immigration authorities can hire a lawyer or a registered immigration consultant. There has been, over the years, many issues regarding the regulation, governance, and quality of representation with both. The following audio is my appearance (along that of Lorne Waldman) before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration discussing the ongoing issues arising from the regulation and governance of immigration consultants earlier this month. Read more →

Final Questions and Answers at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Chair: Thank you. Ms. Dzerowicz, five minutes please. Ms. Dzerowicz: Thank you. I didn't expect to have time but delighted that I do. I'm just going to continue with some of the questioning and I only have five minutes so if you could respond as quickly as possible. I'm just going to go back to the governance and maybe start off where you left off Mr. Sharma where you suggested maybe we could have Immigration Consultants register with Provincial Law Societies. If we were to do that, what would happen to the education requirements and what would happen with ICCRC? Raj Sharma: ICCRC would be gone. Ms. Dzerowicz: So it’d be gone. That would be an alternative system, and then educational requirements would? Raj Sharma: Would be set by the Provincial Law Societies. Ms. Dzerowicz: How about the conflict between a lot of lawyers who would love to see them just do the Immigration Consultants, or would that just shake out? Raj Sharma: Well, I'm sure certain lawyers didn't want paralegals to be providing legal work in Ontario either. They'll have to be cognizant that, again, lawyers don't have the monopoly over the delivery of all legal work in... Read more →

Fifth Round of Questions at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Chair: Thank you Mr. Sharma. Perhaps you could continue that later. Mr. Saroya, you have five minutes please. Mr. Saroya: Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you both, Raj and Lorne. The two fine lawyers are here but we are talking [inaudible 00:45:25] consultants. I agree with the both of you, what you have said so far. The real issue is previous terms of the government, they're trying to fix the issue. They're [inaudible 00:45:39] the problem still exists. We hear it every single day. Most of the [MP's 00:45:47] have at least two members looking for answers on a daily basis. I think the problem is we have consultants, they have the sub-consultant, then they have the ghost consultants and each sitting back in India, back in Pakistan, and Hong Kong and China. I even heard from somebody that said consultant number so and so is looking to hire some people back home who can find some cases. Then he will go back twice a year, three times a year when he can fix the fix. The crookedness has gone so far, I don't think ICCRC have the courage to fix it. It hasn't worked, it won't work,... Read more →

Fourth Round of Questions from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Tabarra: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with my colleagues and Mr. Sarai. My question is for both of you. You mentioned, Mr. Sharma, in your opening statements that anyone over 18 can pass an exam. An exam consists of six months and 320 hours, and they can represent a lot of their clients. My question to both of you is in regards to the UK system, how there's a tier certification that has seven levels of advanced services that Immigration Consultants can give. Sorry Mr. Waldman, you mentioned also that a minimum standard of education, so if you can just elaborate on maybe how we can learn from the UK system and how we can get a certain of education and certification for consultants to have in order to perform their services properly and better service to their clients. Mr. Waldman: Yeah. As I said, I think that ICCRC should be doing it but if they're not, the government can put into the regulations minimum standards and they could say, "If a consultant ... In order to be a member of the ICCRC and to provide these services, the consultant must have this education in... Read more →

Third Round of Questions (NDP) from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Jenny Kwan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Again, I think it's most unfortunate that we can't get on with a debate with a motion that I table and a motion that really calls for a study on a critical issue that's before us. If we don't do this, the fear mongering will continue and it's not good for our country. It is not good for all of us together in a multi-cultural society. I implore the government members to think about that and maybe we can get on with it and do the work that is so very much necessary. With that, I'll turn my attention back to the study at hand. As I was saying, I thank both the witnesses for their comments. I do want to follow up on some specific questions. First off, given the situation that we have with ICCRC, which frankly on all accounts is not doing their job, most certainly not doing their job properly, the issues being raised from other witnesses, "Should consultants be self-regulated?" I wonder if I can get Mr. Sharma to answer that question and I'll turn to Mr. Waldman on that. Raj Sharma: I think... Read more →

Second Round of Questions (from the Conservative Members) of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Chair: Thank you Mr. Waldman. Thank you. Mr. Tilson, seven minutes please. David Tilson: Lawyers don't like consultants and they don't like paralegals. I can quite frankly understand why. I think we need paralegals, and I think we need consultants. All of the issues that you're raising are good ones. Paralegals, as I understand it, can only do certain things. They're restricted from doing all sorts of things. I guess what the committee is looking for is recommendations from witnesses such as you so that we in turn can recommend to the government changes. If we maintained having consultants, you mentioned education, but are there certain things that perhaps they just don't have the training for, may never have the training for, and should be restricted to doing certain things? Mr. Sharma, perhaps we could start with you as to what, if you could recommend to the committee what consultants should not do. Raj Sharma: Look, in terms of, let's say we get the 320 hours, and I'm very mindful that lawyers may be perceived as being anti Immigration Consultants ... I don't want my, and I don't want to come across as this as being self-serving in any... Read more →

First Round of Questions at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Chair: Thank you Mr. Waldman. The first round of questions, Mr. Anandasangaree. Anandasangaree: Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you both for joining us and sharing your perspectives. I think one of the major challenges that we are facing apart from the regulated consultants is the issue of ghost consultants and those who are effectively operating under the radar. In Ontario, for example, the Law Society regulates those who are providing legal services, and if they're not licensed to do so, there are provisions for the Law Society to enforce against those people as there are in the medical profession as well as a dental practice. What can we do to address the issue of those who are not licensed and who will probably never be licensed? What kind of enforced mechanisms should be use and what is the right authorities at the CBSA or is RCMP, the right organization to do the enforcement whether it's in Canada or outside? Start with you Lorne. Mr. Waldman: Well, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act prohibits anyone who isn't licensed from providing paid legal services in the immigration context, so the law already has in place provisions that would ensure that... Read more →

Opening Statements - Raj Sharma and Lorne Waldman - Appearance at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Studying Immigration Consultants

Mr. Chair: Good afternoon. Pursuant to standing order 108-2 and the motions adopted by the committee on October 4, 2016 and April 3, 2017, the committee will resume its study on Immigration Consultants. We had Mr. David Arnold from an Australian High Commission scheduled, but I understand that an hour ago we unfortunately received a message that he had to stay on post. There will be a written submission, and if there are any questions that have been prepared for this witness, please submit those questions. They'll be passed on to Mr. Arnold and responded to. Before us today, we have Mr. Raj Sharma, Managing Partner, Stewart Sharma Harsanyi and Mr. Lorne Waldman, the Barrister and Solicitor for Lorne Waldman and Associates. Welcome, gentleman. Mr. Sharma, the floor is yours, seven minutes. Raj Sharma: Thank you, sir. First of all, I'd like to say that it's an absolute honor and privilege to appear and participate in your study of the legal regulatory and disciplinary frameworks governing and overseeing Immigration Consultants in Canada. By way of background, I am an immigration lawyer in Calgary. Before I went into private practice, I was a Refugee Protection Officer with the Refugee Protection Division... Read more →

Appearing before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for the Study on Immigration Consultants

My opening remarks to the Parliamentary Committee on Citizenship and Immigration delivered on May 8, 2017 in Ottawa: Thank you; it’s an honour and privilege to appear and participate in your study of the legal, regulatory and disciplinary frameworks governing and overseeing immigration consultants in Canada. I am an immigration lawyer practicing in Calgary; before I went into private practice I was a Refugee Protection Officer at the Refugee Protection Division, at the Immigration and Refugee Board. As a former immigration hearings officer and now as an immigration lawyer I’ve done hundreds of hearings before every Division of the IRB. I, my law partner, and our associates appear regularly before the Federal Court of Canada which requires a review of the record below. Over the years, I’ve also had the opportunity to host a Punjabi language radio show in Calgary and for obvious reasons immigration is a matter that is very important to my community. I've heard many horror stories. Few come forward to complain and even if they did, it's clear that the ICCRC has failed in terms of disciplining it's errant members. I’ve seen lawyers and immigration consultants at all three divisions of the IRB. I’ve seen their... Read more →

Changes Coming to Canada's Citizenship Law

Yesterday the Senate approved (with some amendments) the Liberal government's Bill C-6 which repeals many parts of the current (and short lived) Citizenship Act. My summary and a video follow. Read more →