The post This Week’s Success Story: Application for Rehabilitation Approved! first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

Through Bill 9, the Government of Quebec announced earlier this month its intention to cancel 18,000 applications for permanent residence from its Quebec Skilled Worker Program (QSWP), citing backlog as the primary reason. These applications are from the first-come first-served immigration system which existed prior to the arrival of the expression of interest scheme (similar to the federal version) in August 2018. The new system, accessed through the “Arrima” portal, allows MIDI to match applicants with employment needs in various regions of the province and send invitations to apply for a CSQ accordingly.

Applicants will be refunded their processing fees of $1000, a move that is expected to cost the province approximately $19 million. Needless to say, this decision has been controversial.

However, this strategy is not unprecedented; in 2012, the Government of Canada expressed its intent through Bill C-38 to eliminate the backlog in the Federal Skilled Worker Program (FSWP). As a result, FSW applications submitted before February 27, 2012 for which a decision had not been rendered by March 29, 2012 were eliminated. Approximately 300,000 applications were returned and refunded in this exercise.

There are multiple benefits to this strategy, primary among which is that it is expected to reduce waiting times under the QSWP to around 6 months. As stated by MIDI, some applications have been sitting for more than 3 years. The adverse effect from the returned applications is minimized because those applicants can simply re-apply under the new Arrima system, and may benefit from reduced wait times. Additionally, in theory the province will be able to match applicants with the employment needs of the province, addressing an economic need and ensuring applicants have a higher chance of becoming employed in their field quickly.

However, on the other hand, while cancelled applicants can re-apply under Arrima, they will incur additional costs for a new application, such as legal representation, translation services (if applicable), document notarization, etc. They may also need to re-take language evaluations if they are no longer valid or if higher scores are required. Furthermore, there may be an issue of work experience that may no longer be valid, which may prevent applicants from receiving an invitation under the new system. Finally, there are the issues of fairness with regards to applicants who planned for their life in Quebec believing that their applications were well underway, making investments into their future in Quebec such as buying a house, who suddenly find themselves in limbo.

As of February 20, 2019, the Quebec Association of Immigration Lawyers (AQAADI) has reportedly filed an injunction against MIDI in the name of a Korean woman, Seeun Park, to stop the implementation of this policy and resume processing older applications. The hearing is to take place on Friday, February 22, 2019.

(Sources)

The post Quebec Poised to Cancel 18,000 QSWP Applications first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

Mr. Babafunmi was a Nigerian citizen who had studied and worked in the USA for several years prior to being deported to Nigeria for criminality. He later travelled to Canada to make a refugee claim based on fears tied to his time in Nigeria. The claim was refused and so were applications for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, sponsorship by his spouse/common-law partner from within Canada and criminal rehabilitation.

Justice E. Susan Elliott began her analysis by rejecting the respondent’s argument that rehabilitation factors fall outside the scope of a judicial review of a H & C application, noting:

I agree that an H&C application is not at all the same as a rehabilitation application. Nonetheless, the Officer did engage in an analysis of the Applicant’s criminality and his rehabilitation determining that they were “significant negative factors” in the Officer’s assessment of the H&C application. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the Decision, including the criminality and rehabilitation findings, is justified, transparent and intelligible and that the outcome falls within the range of possible acceptable outcomes defensible on the facts and law in light of the record before the Officer.[2]

The Court held that when reviewing the H & C application of an individual who has prior criminality and has provided evidence of rehabilitation, the officer must balance both “the positive and negative factors” as well as “consider the likelihood of the Applicant re-offending”.[3] The Court relied on Lau v. Canada[4] as authority for the proposition that the likelihood of re-offending is the most important factor in an application for rehabilitation.[5]

Turning to the BIOC, Mr. Babafunmi submitted that several children would be directly affected by his removal to Nigeria. The officer had adopted the following position on two of these children – the Applicant’s Canadian godchildren:

“their best interests would not be significantly negatively impacted by the Applicant being returned to Nigeria and they could strive to maintain their close relationship by other means.”[6]

The Court found the officer had erred in the BIOC analysis by failing to consider the best interests of the Applicant’s godchildren going forward.[7] The officer, in Justice Elliot’s view had not followed the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada in Kanthasamy[8] and Baker[9].

Those preparing or reviewing an H & C application can draw on the lessons and cases referred to in Babafunmi when preparing or reviewing an H & C application that may raise questions of the Applicant’s likelihood of reoffending or the best interests of a child who may be directly affected by the decision.

For more information please contact us.

(Sources)

The post Lessons from a Recent Federal Court Review of a Humanitarian and Compassionate Application first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The post This Week’s Success Story: Residency Obligation Appeal first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

On the other hand, rural communities have fewer aggregate jobs available, but there is less competition, due to factors such as a lack of awareness and unfamiliarity with the community. This has resulted in many lucrative positions remaining vacant. As a result, the Government of Canada announced the creation of the Rural and Northern Immigrant Pilot on 24 January 2019. It will be a five-year pilot program aimed at increasing the number of immigrants settling in rural communities. It will provide immigrants with employment opportunities and communities with a labour force to grow the local economy. This initiative was implemented based off the success of the Atlantic Immigration Pilot, which boosted immigration in the Atlantic Canada region.

Interested communities must coordinate with their local economic development organization (EDO), which will complete and submit the application on behalf of the community. The application consists of a Community Interest Form, an economic development plan written in the last 3 years, and letters of support from a municipal leader as well as a local or regional immigrant-serving organization. If the community is selected, the EDO will manage the program for the community.

In order to be eligible, communities must:

• Have a population of 50,000 people or less and be located at least 75km from the core of a Census Metropolitan Area, as defined by Statistics Canada OR up to 200,000 people and be considered remote from other larger cities, as per Statistics Canada’s remoteness index;
• Be located in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Ontario, Saskatchewan, or Yukon;
• Have job opportunities;
• Have an economic development plan;
• Have a local economic development organization that can manage the pilot for the community;
• Be able to settle new immigrants in the community by having or developing:
  1. Relationships with local or regional immigrant-serving organizations;
  2. Opportunities to connect newcomers with established members of the community, such as through mentoring or networking;
  3. Access to key services like education, housing, transportation and health care;
• The community must also have the support of its municipality and a local/regional immigrant-serving organizations, shown through letters of support.

For the initial launch of the program, IRCC will select a small number of communities from the applications received. There seems to be a preference for francophone communities, as suggested by an explicit invitation for such communities to apply and identify themselves as francophone on their applications. Furthermore, one of the selection criteria states that decision makers will consider if communities are able to attract and integrate French-speaking newcomers. This is in line with the Action Plan announced by the Government of Canada in March 2018 to increase francophone immigration to Canada.

If selected, the community will play a lead role in the successful implementation and management of the program (via the EDO), with the Government of Canada playing a supporting role. The community would first need to recruit and identify individuals who would be valuable for the local economy. These individuals would then be recommended for permanent residence. If permanent residence is granted, the community would need to provide services for these individuals to adjust to their new lives in Canada. Finally, monitoring the results of the program will be key, to provide feedback to the Government of Canada on its long-term feasibility. To accomplish all this, a community’s EDO will need to work with employers, immigrant-serving organizations, and other key stakeholders.

The deadline to apply for this application is 1 March 2019 by 11:59 pm PST. Applications can be submitted via e-mail or physical mail.

For more information please contact us.

(Sources)

The post Immigration in Rural Communities the Focus of IRCC’s New Pilot Program first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

 2. Parental Sponsorships will no longer be lottery based but again “first come, first ” 20,000 applications will be accepted.  The interest to sponsor form will be available at noon EST on January 28, 2019.

To learn more about parental sponsorships click here.

3. Biometrics  were introduced effective July 31^st 2018 in the Europe, Middle East and Africa region and now introduced in December 31^st 2018 for Asia, Asia Pacific and American region, for all persons between 14 to 79 years of age who are:

• applying for a Temporary Resident Visa, Temporary Resident Permit, work permits or study permits (except American citizens)
• claiming refugee protection
• applying for permanent residence
• renewing permanent residence (PR) Cards for persons who were under 14 when they obtained their initial PR Card
• Once the Biometric fee is paid, applicants await instructions from IRCC

4. Medical inadmissibility – In June 2018 IRCC implemented a temporary public policy tripling the excessive demand threshold for medical inadmissibility costs from $6,604.00 to $6,839.00 respectively to 3 times that average $19,812 to $20,517 in 2019. IRCC also removed special education services, social and vocational rehabilitation services and personal support services as social service costs that would factor into a medical inadmissibility assessment.

To learn more about medical inadmissibility click here.

5. Beware… American Citizens whom are permanent residents of Canada may now require their PR Card to board an airplane destined for In many instances US citizens travelling to Canada are now required to scan their US passports and are asked the question (through the scanning device) “Are you a permanent resident of Canada?” Answering yes will result in the denial of a boarding pass in the absence of a PR card or permanent resident travel document.

To learn more about permanent residency cards click here.

The next five updates in Part II will address – Impaired Driving Now Constitutes Serious Criminality, Improved processing times, Changes to Visa Application Centres and short term work permit exemptions.

Thank you for reading.

For more information please contact us.

The post 10 Important Updates in Canadian Immigration Law, Policy and Processing Part I first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The sponsors were really desperate and did not know what to do, because, according to their account, they had provided the requested documents on time, not once, but twice.

The sponsors and applicants retained our firm to help them with the application. We reviewed all the documents and realized that IRCC made a mistake in refusing the application, as the documents were submitted to them.

We wrote a reconsideration letter to the visa office, supported by the evidence we gathered that in fact the documents had been submitted and the acknowledgments of receipt were sent to the applicants.

Within a few days, the visa office wrote to us that they would re-open the file and continue processing the application. At the same time, they requested additional documents. The clients were very happy about the outcome of their case.

The post This Week’s Success Story: Parental Sponsorship Refused in Error first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

Some of the changes included:

1. Doubling the number of applications allowed for parents and grandparents to 10,000 each year.
2. Restoring the maximum age for dependents to 22 from 19, to allow more Canadians to bring their children to Canada.
3. Restored spouses immigrating to Canada receiving immediate permanent residency and repealing the then two-year waiting period.
4. Work permit pilot project for eligible in Canada spousal applicants.
5. One-year processing times for spousal and common law sponsorship applications.
6. Effective June 6th 2017 15 points additional points were awarded for candidates with Canadian citizen or permanent resident siblings in Canada under the Express Entry system.
7. Additional funding for family class processing.
8. Removal of distinctions between in-Canada and Family Class sponsorship application forms.

Given the above there is little question that family reunification has been prioritized but as we enter an election year some of the familiar refrains will likely reappear including:

1. Reducing the numbers of admissions in the family class was seen as a way to alleviate some pressure on our already burdened system and prioritize economic classes.
2. Parents and grandparents immigrating to Canada are predominately elderly and will not assume employment in Canada and present with excessive medical costs.
3. Canada long did away with the inclusion of siblings with a few exceptions in the family class for example, because selection was based primarily on relation rather than on potential economic benefit. More emphasis on economic categories has benefited Canada and this could not have been accomplished through family class migration.

What did not change though, is that there remains no direct sponsorship of brothers and sisters. Those who advocate in favour of an expanded rather than limited family class especially as it relates to parents and grandparents argue the financial, social and emotional support that family members provide is vital to the sponsor’s ability to integrate successfully into Canadian society. Elderly relatives or children who need to be cared for would benefit by this care coming from a relative as opposed to a social or private service, and this would result in less of a burden on our stretched social resources and services.

In my view and I have advocated for this change for a number of years, is that we must continue to closely and carefully study the social as well as economic fusion and functionality across all categories. In that the family class need not only be thought of as a non-economic category and economic migration as a category that does not impact our nation building.

Family reunification has always been one of Canada’s objectives for immigration, especially since family reunification is seen as a “factor in promoting newcomer integration” and long-term settlement. In an immigration-friendly country like Canada we are increasing the number of immigrants entering into the country yearly so does it make sense to restrict the sponsorship of siblings, which, after all, are considered members of an immediate, and not extended, family?

Prior to the early 90’s, siblings were able to be directly sponsored under the family class. The Immigration Act of 1985 and the 1978 Regulations allowed for a much broader definition of admissible family members under the family class, which included siblings and most other relatives. This changed even though the family reunification objective under the law did not. The ultimate goal of such initiatives is to test and deliver an immigration program that has been carefully defined and debated. So, the Liberals have gone a long way in restoring family reunification and restoring siblings to a more prominent role in the immigration landscape should be next. Happy 2019 everyone!

(Sources)

The post Liberals Unveiled a New Plan for Immigration Focused on Family Reunification, Middle Class Growth in 2015 – How Is It Working in 2019? first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The appellant challenged the finding by the Canadian Human Rights Commission that as a person with “no immigration status, he was not lawfully present in Canada”.[2] As a result, the Commission had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to consider Mr. Tan’s complaint.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie, writing for the majority in Tan, began his decision by considering Forrest v. Canada (Attorney General),[3] a 2006 Federal Court of Appeal case which held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints from individuals without immigration status. Forrest found that it was the role of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to determine a person’s status. In Tan, the majority also interpreted “lawfully present in Canada” and “status of an individual”, terms which appear in the CHRA.

Notably, the majority found that “Forrest FCA was wrongly decided and ought no longer to be followed”.[4] Justice Rennie also wrote that “inclusive references” in the CHRA “demonstrate an intention to extend the benefit of the legislation to as broad a group of persons as possible.”[5]

The correct approach, in the majority’s view, is for the Commission to first attempt to answer the question of whether or not the complainant is lawfully present on their own. If the Commission cannot draw its own conclusion on this point, it should seek the advice of the appropriate minister.[6] Justice Rennie cautions that the advice of the Minister – be it the Minister of Justice, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration or Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, or anyone else – is only one factor to consider amongst myriad “other relevant factors”.[7]

Mr. Tan’s entry into Canada was “lawful as it was authorized under the Extradition Act”, concluded the majority.[8] Furthermore, Mr. Tan was “lawfully present in Canada” when the alleged discrimination occurred and so the Commission ought to consider the complaint.[9]

The Tan decision does not apply to any individual without immigration status, however. The majority expressly distinguishes Mr. Tan’s case from that of an individual on immigration detention, or a person whose refugee claim or pre-removal risk assessment was rejected.[10] Justice Rennie writes that Mr. Tan is “required by Canadian law to remain in Canada for the duration of his sentence”, unlike individuals who “but for pending legal proceedings or administrative delay, would be removed from Canada.”[11]

(Sources)

The post The Federal Court of Appeal’s Recent Decision in Tan v. Canada (AG) first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.