Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Ministerial Relief

There is an avenue of relief for those found inadmissible to Canada on the most serious grounds of inadmissibility Section 42.1(1) provides an avenue for relief for most of the provisions within s.34/35/37 Some will call this relief more illusory than real; the process may take many years and more than one kick at the can There is no statutory stay of removal while the application for ministerial relief is under review This is no area for amateurs -if you are facing allegations of inadmissibility under the most serious grounds of inadmissibility then you need to talk to experienced legal counsel Read more →

Bias at the Immigration and Refugee Board

I discussed confronting bias and antagonism at the Immigration and Refugee Board in my book. The most recent iteration of this phenomenon is canvassed in a Toronto Star article. The Refugee Appeal Division set aside a biased RPD Board Member's decision and granted protection, noting, in part: In her decision, Bobkin said there’s a high bar for appellants to establish bias or even an apprehension of bias; an allegation cannot be just based on “mere suspicion, pure conjecture or mere impressions.” The adjudicator said she assessed the couple’s allegations based on Mungovan’s tone and demeanour; his use of boilerplate reasons in Romanian Roma cases; and his pattern of focusing on “peripheral, microscopic and sometimes inappropriate credibility issues” in this case and others. ... The refugee judge made comments with a “sarcastic tone,” such as “I didn’t know that I was limited to non-leading questions, but nevertheless,” said Bobkin. Others were made with an angry, argumentative tone, Bobkin said, such as, “You don’t want them to answer the question, I will move on,” and “Is it to be answered or not?” and, “I am going to ask this for the last time.” “At times, the member interrupts counsel. All of these... Read more →

Status Matters

Status matters when it comes to inadmissibility. Foreign nationals (FN) --as well Permanent Residents (PR) to a lesser extent --remain strangers in a strange land. There are various grounds of inadmissibility --here we are talking about those individuals that are in Canada. Status in Canada determines the extent of remedy and recourse available: Protected persons may not be removed until a danger opinion has been secured against them (this is in addition to any right of appeal they may have if they are Permanent Residents as well); There is a higher threshold to establish allegations of foreign criminality (s.36(1)(c)) against a PR; PRs don't face inadmissibility on certain grounds (like medical/health and financial); PRs may have a right of appeal to the IAD (the IAD can consider H&C factors); FN can be removed from Canada for even a scintilla of criminality (they can only afford a straight summary offence; IRPA presumes all hybrid offences to be indictable) Read more →

Consequences of Criminality

There are manifold consequences of serious criminality or criminality under the IRPA (IC or immigration consequences): potential removal of PR/FN -removal order if in Canada --> 44 report…ID (issues removal order)…IAD for PR and appeal rights retained; ineligibility for refugee (s.101 of the IRPA) if protected person + serious criminality/criminality =ineligible for PR exclusion from refugee protection -this would be under an exclusion clause, typically 1F(b) delay/prohibition to grant of citizenship impact on Family Class sponsorship (sponsor ineligibility for certain convictions; family member criminality) possible inadmissibility to other countries (e.g. may need a waiver of inadmissibility to travel to the US) Read more →