Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Stay of Removals -Deferral Requests and the Federal Court

Practitioners should be alert to the increasing rate of removals by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), as more deferral requests and Federal Court stay applications will likely follow. A thorough discussion of these issues appears in Inadmissibility and Remedies (co-authored with Aris Daghighian and published by Emond), but here are the basics. Record Scratch -How did we get here? An individual facing an enforceable removal order from Canada may seek a judicial stay from the Federal Court as a last resort when all other statutory, regulatory, or logistical impediments to removal have been exhausted. Under section 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, removal orders become enforceable once all appeal periods and other statutory bars are exhausted. While removals must be carried out “as soon as possible,” officers do retain limited discretion to defer. A judicial stay of removal typically arises in two scenarios: (1) a removals officer refuses a deferral request, prompting a challenge via an application for leave and judicial review, or (2) a decision imposing or confirming a removal order is being contested at the Court, and a stay is required to pause enforcement pending resolution of that underlying challenge. A deferral request can be... Read more →

Deporting a Protected Person -The Danger Opinion

Abbasi v. MCI 2025 FC 442 from March 10, 2025, presided over by Justice Angus G. Grant, dismissing a judicial review application by Daryoush Abbasi against a "danger opinion" issued by a delegate of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. This case highlights the challenges authorities face in removing individuals deemed dangerous, even with refugee protection, and the rigorous legal framework balancing public safety and non-refoulement obligations. It also underscores that past refugee status does not preclude deportation if current risks to society outweigh future risks to the individual. It also -troublingly -reveals significant delay in initiating and following through with inadmissibility and enforcement proceedings against a predator of young girls in Canada. Daryoush Abbasi, a 46-year-old Iranian citizen, arrived in Canada in October 2000 and successfully claimed refugee status based on persecution in Iran due to his Baha'i faith. He became a permanent resident but developed a significant criminal history involving sexual offences against young, vulnerable female children. His convictions began in 2002 with a Sexual Interference charge (a 3 year suspended sentence) -the victim was a 13 year old girl with fetal alcohol syndrome. In 2005 a report was written against him by a CBSA Officer... Read more →

Advocacy Before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada [Summarized]

The following is a summary of a presentation done in 2021 for the SABA Advocacy Webinar. Effective advocacy before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and the Federal Court of Canada demands thorough preparation and a deep understanding of the facts and applicable legal framework. Mastery of these elements is essential to persuade any decision-maker. There is no substitute for exhaustive preparation. For the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), this means a comprehensive grasp of the Basis of Claim, your disclosure, the National Documentation Package, and the analytical framework under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. At the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), it requires familiarity with the Appeal Record, your materials, and the relevant framework—such as the Ribic and Chieu factors for removal order appeals or the genuineness factors for sponsorship appeals. Before the Federal Court, you must know the Certified Tribunal Record, your submissions, and the Department of Justice’s arguments with precision, defending your cases and distinguishing theirs. Understanding the decision-maker and opposing counsel is equally critical. The RPD and IAD do not disclose presiding Members in advance, though experience reveals their styles over time. At the Federal Court, contacting the registry a week prior... Read more →

The 30 Year War

Vic Satzewich’s 2021 article, "Lawyers, Immigration Consultants and the 33-Year Jurisdictional War," published in the Canadian Review of Sociology (Vol. 58, pp. 186-206), focused on his observations of the 33-year jurisdictional conflict between lawyers and immigration consultants in Canada. Overview of the Conflict: Satzewich examines a 33-year jurisdictional dispute (starting in the 1980s) between immigration lawyers and consultants over the right to practice immigration law in Canada, framing it as a struggle for professional control. He uses an ecological framework (drawing on Andrew Abbott and Sida Liu) to analyze why lawyers, a powerful profession, failed to monopolize this field against consultants, a "weaker profession in the making." Origins and Context: Consultants entered the immigration law field in the 1980s, driven by rising demand for affordable advice amid increasing complexity in Canada’s immigration system (e.g., federal/provincial streams). Lawyers historically dominated this space, sanctioned by the state with high social status, but consultants gained traction, often at lower cost, prompting a defensive response from the legal profession. Key Jurisdictional Events: Mangat Decision (2001): The Supreme Court ruled in Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat that federal law (under the Paramountcy Doctrine) allowed non-lawyers to practice immigration law, rejecting the Law Society’s... Read more →