Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

No the Canadian government is not shutting down the "LMIA program"

Rumours abound in immigration. Here's one snippet from a Punjabi akhbar. The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is actually a hodge-podge -comprising low wage/low skill to high wage/high skill; from occupations requiring LMIA to those exempt. The "LMIA program" is not being shut down. The TFWP has always been tweaked to respond to economic realities. COVID-19 has impacted processing; employers may be required to re-advertise or extend advertisement; they may be asked to up the wages being offered; and Service Canada may refuse to process certain applications where the business has been impacted by COVID-19 related restrictions. Conversely, and for obvious reasons, Service Canada has eased the requirements for certain agricultural foreign workers. Posted processing times are significantly faster than pre-pandemic times. I guess you shouldn't get your immigration news from an ethnic newspaper. I discussed this on RedFM with host Rishi Nagar on June 23, 2020. Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Lawyers · No the LMIA Temporary Foreign Worker Program is Not being Suspended LMIA_mixdown(1) Consult a lawyer or an experienced, registered immigration consultant or go directly to the source by reviewing the Government of Canada/CIC website. Read more →

Criminal Inadmissibility -Canadian Offences

Canadian Convictions A PR or FN is inadmissible under 36(1)(a) of the IRPA (“serious criminality”) for having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament that could result in a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years[1] or for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months was imposed. Again, whether or not an offence is ”serious” depends on the length of the possible sentence or actually imposed –not on the nature of the offence. ”Term of imprisonment” refers to gaol –not to a Conditional Sentence Order[2]. Criminality ”locks in” as of the date of commission, not the date of a finding of inadmissibility. There is a lower threshold for Foreign Nationals[3]; a FN can be found inadmissible to Canada for a single conviction for any hybrid offence even if prosecuted summarily. On the other hand, a FN can avoid immigration jeopardy with a conviction of two straight summary offences arising from a single occurrence. Generally speaking, offences committed while the person concerned was a minor do not lead to inadmissibility. However, if the case is/was transferred to the ordinary courts, the exemption does not apply[4]. A conviction of course, refers to... Read more →

Immigration Jeopardy: Consequences for Criminality

There are numerous immigration consequences for Foreign Nationals, Refugees (and Claimants), Permanent Residents and even Canadian citizens for criminality; even a single pebble of criminality has far-reaching effects. Immigration jeopardy can flow from convictions in Canada and offences committed outside Canada. Some examples: For Permanent Residents and Foreign Nationals, criminality can result in loss of status and removal from Canada. Criminality can impact family class sponsorships and stymie the hope of family reunification. A Permanent Resident or a Canadian Citizen convicted of an offence involving violence against a family member results in sponsor ineligibility for years. A criminal conviction by a sponsored family member, even accompanying dependents, could waylay a years old family class sponsorship and the dream of family reunification. Even those recognized as Refugees in Canada can be removed and sent to a country where they fear persecution if there is sufficient concern regarding their (criminal) risk to Canadians. Canadian criminality can result in lifetime inadmissibility to the United States even for a Canadian citizen. It can also delay the application by a Permanent Resident for citizenship in this country. Time spent in jail, on probation, or out on parole does not count for the calculation of residency... Read more →

The Procedural Fairness Letter

Applicants should not assume that they will get the benefit of a Procedural Fairness letter or another opportunity to remedy a deficient application! Justice Gascon discussed/reviewed when an Officer is obliged to provide a PFL or PF opportunity in a somewhat recent case (Penez 2017 FC 1001): [35] It is well-recognized that the onus is on visa applicants to put together applications that are convincing, and that anticipate adverse inferences contained in the evidence and address them; procedural fairness does not arise whenever an officer has concerns that an applicant could not have reasonably anticipated (Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 526 at para 52). [36] Furthermore, the nature and scope of the duty of procedural fairness are flexible and will vary depending on the attributes of the administrative tribunal and its enabling statute, the specific context and the various factual situations dealt with by the administrative body, as well as the nature of the disputes it must resolve (Baker at paras 25-26; Varadi v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 155 at paras 51-52). The level and the content of the duty of procedural fairness are determined according to the context of each case. Its purpose is to... Read more →