Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Mandamus to Compel Action on Your Citizenship File

My client was facing enforcement action by CBSA. It was a years long, seemingly interminable investigation as to her first marriage. After securing a response to an Access to Information Request (which yielded interesting details, including the fact that her citizenship application had been "put on hold") I filed an Application for Judicial Review and sought the prerogative writ of mandamus, which, in essence, compels the Respondent to do something that they're supposed to do (in this case, make a decision on that investigation). My thinking was that if a decision is made to close that file, then processing on the citizenship will follow; if a decision was made to write and refer a report alleging inadmissibility, then my client would be able to challenge that at a hearing before the Immigration Division and, if necessary, appeal any removal order to the Immigration Appeal Division. Leave was granted; at the hearing in July of this year it was clear that the presiding Justice was reluctant to grant mandamus in this sphere; he urged me to challenge the decision to suspend processing on the citizenship application instead (based on just one line that survived redacting in hundreds of pages). The client... Read more →

Judicial Review of a Law Society Decision

I will be appearing before the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta with respect to a decision by the Credentials and Education Committee of the Law Society of Alberta refusing the appeal under Rule 50.2 of the Rules of the Law Society and Section 37(4) of the Legal Profession Act (LPA). In essence, my client, a current member of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC), graduated with a common law degree from a University in the UK. To practise law in Canada, an applicant requires to establish that he or she either has a Canadian (common) law degree, or equivalent. Equivalency is determined by the National Committee on Accreditation (the NCA). The NCA's policy on distance learning results in a requirement of 8 upper year law school courses and 6 examinations. Unfortunately the 8 upper year courses are not available in this province. An applicant can appeal an evaluation by the NCA (having exhausted the internal NCA appeal process) to the CEC under s.50.2(4) of the Rules. There is no appeal against the number of examinations required by the NCA. That means that an appeal does lie against the number of courses required. An applicant can also appeal... Read more →

Luigi Pascale v. MCI & CBSA

This was a somewhat unusual and unique fact scenario. The Applicant arrived in Canada as a child and never became a citizen. After a string of criminal convictions, a danger opinion was issued against him largely based on a sexual assault. The danger opinion resulted in the loss of his appeal rights to the Immigration Appeal Division. He was deported and later returned without authorization. In the meantime, the conviction for his sexual assault (which we argued was foundation of the danger opinion) was set aside. He was, in essence, acquitted of the offence. We proceeded with an application for judicial review, arguing that the danger opinion became void as a result of the underlying conviction being set aside. Justice O'Keefe did not concur with our arguments. The Federal Court decision can be found here. Read more →

Roman Chernikov v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Chernikov v. MCI, a Federal Court decision discussing the use of danger opinions against foreign nationals. Read more →

Sharma Harsanyi Counsel on Most Immigration Hearings in Calgary

Breakdown of total immigration hearings by lawyer in Calgary. Read more →

Breakdown of Calgary Immigration Lawyers (number of hearings)

I had made a Access to Information request in March 2011 for: "a breakdown of counsel of record on all hearings in Calgary before the Refugee Protection Division, Immigration Division and Immigration Appeal Division by the following lawyers: Bjorn Harsanyi; Raj Sharma; Nico Breed; Peter Wong; Jean Munn; Michael Sherritt; Michael Greene; Rekha Mcknutt; Ram Sankaran..." The results are in. Download 2011 04 27 ATIP Request. I'll post a complete breakdown soon. Read more →

Seizure and forfeiture of currency over $10,000

Section 12 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, S.C. 2000, c. 17 (the PCMLTFA) requires an individual to report currency in excess of $10,000 being brought into or taken out of Canada. Read more →

Sharma Harsanyi - Most Reported Federal Court Decisions since 2009

Raj Sharma and Bjorn Harsanyi of Sharma Harsanyi have the most reported decisions at the Federal Court (compared to the other principals or partners of immigration firms in Calgary) since 2009. Broken down by law firm/lawyer: Sharma Harsanyi -- 9 reported decisions Raj Sharma -- 7 reported decisions Bjorn Harsanyi -- 2 reported decisions Caron & Partners -- 4 reported decisions Peter Wong -- 1 reported decision Jean Munn -- 3 reported decisions Sherritt Greene -- 5 reported decisions Michael Greene -- 3 reported decisions Michael Sherritt -- 2 reported decisions Source Advanced Search option on the Federal Court of Canada website - link here. Search terms: Exact phrase (raj sharma/bjorn harsanyi/peter wong/jean munn/michael sherritt/michael greene) with date restriction (2009 to 2011). Read more →

Failure to declare cash when entering Canada...

Client failed to declare cash when entering Canada. The amount exceeded $10,000. Unfortunately, there are a number of aggravating circumstances; including the fact that the client had previous violations and the fact that the client changed his story to the CBSA officer. The cash was seized. When we sought a review, the decision maker focused on the fact that the client's explanations as to where he got the funds was insufficient. In our view, the officer has placed the client in an almost impossible position. In reality, the funds were a cash loan to him by family members (corroborated by way of affidavit evidence). While some of the funds were returned, the decision maker has denied the return of the balance. As a result, we are seeking review by the Federal Court. This action is quite different than judicial review on immigration matters: Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act: Appeal to Federal Court 30. (1) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 27 may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision, appeal the decision by way of an action in the Federal Court in which the person is the plaintiff and... Read more →

Just got a fax from the Federal Court - Justice Campbell granted leave on an application for leave and judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Protection Division. Oral argument will be on November 3, 2010. -- Raj Read more →

Attending at the Federal Court tomorrow. It's an interesting case. In our view, the Refugee Protection Division made an error in not finding a nexus to a Convention ground; further, in not assessing the claim under the 'compelling' reasons exemption. I am working on an potential paper on the compelling reasons exemption, and look forward to appearing before the Court and discussing the reviewable errors made by the RPD. Read more →

Just reading R Cuthbertson's article in the Herald "Home to Haiti? Refugee's plight highlights system's challenges". The article is about "Marie", represented by this office, who was refused refugee protection by RPD Board Member Preeti Adhopia about a week before the devastating earthquake in Haiti: "If what has happened to my client [gang rape while her 5 year old daughter hid; murders of a brother and a sister] isn't atrocious and appalling, I don't know what is," Harsanyi says. "Haiti is the rape capital of the western hemisphere. To return my client to that is fundamentally wrong." Read more →

We've been retained by Mr. Elvir Pobric and will be attending (more specifically, Bjorn will be attending as I am in Vancouver until later this afternoon) at his detention review this morning. The Minister is required to satisfy that grounds to continue the client's detention exist; that the client continues to be a flight risk (which was the argument at the last hearing). Read more →

Just got back from the Remand Centre from meeting a client. This case will raise a number of issues, including a detention review, a PRRA submission, and perfecting a Federal Court application. It's a complex matter involving a high profile immigration matter. I'm looking forward to starting work on the file. Read more →