This was not the end of the revocation road, though, as our client was issued a subsequent notice in 2018 following the introduction of a new revocation process by the Government of Canada. Our office worked tirelessly to respond to the allegations included in this notice. While we addressed the legal concerns that our client had obtained Canadian citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances, our firm also focused on our client’s establishment in Canada and the best interests of the children in this case. We are committed to ensuring that all possible legal challenges our presented on each of our files, and it is this thoroughness that once again ensured our success.

We could not be happier for our client, who no longer has to face the potential revocation of their citizenship. We appreciate our client’s generous words written following the successful conclusion of her case, as follows, “no words could ever describe the happiness I feel …Your team is my life saver. It’s so thankful that I can stay with my family and watch my kids grow”.

The post This Week’s Success Story: Successful End to Citizenship Revocation first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

In Dunsmuir, the Supreme Court reconsidered the analytical process of judicial review and clarified that the function of judicial review was to ensure “the legality, the reasonableness, and the fairness of the administrative process and its outcomes.” The court also highlighted that in judicial review, although the court’s inquiry into whether a decision is reasonable is “concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process, it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.” [emphasis added].

The question of standard of review is now being revisited. On 10 May 2018, the Supreme Court granted leave in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Alexander Vavilov, which will be heard together with the appeal in Bell Canada, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada and National Football League, et al. v. Attorney General of Canada.

In Vavilov, the Registrar of Citizenship (Registrar) revoked Mr. Vavilov’s citizenship under subparagraph 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act on the basis that Mr. Vavilov’s parents were foreign employees (spies) who had adopted assumed identities of two-deceased Canadians. The parents moved to Boston, Massachusetts where they became naturalized American citizens using their assumed Canadian identities. In 2010, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) arrested the parents and removed them to Russia “in a spy swap.”

Although Mr. Vavilov was born in Canada, the Registrar justified his citizenship revocation on the basis that his parents worked for a foreign government as spies and were not “lawful Canadian citizens” at the time of his birth. The Federal Court found that the standard of review is correctness and that “the interpretation of subparagraph 3(2)(a) of the Citizenship Act is a question of law of general application across Canada and raises a pure question of statutory interpretation.” It upheld the Registrar’s decision on judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal, however, found that the Registrar’s determination was unreasonable pursuant to Dunsmuir. The court stated that “deference will usually result where a tribunal is interpreting its own statute or statutes closely connected to its function, with which it will have particular familiarity.” The court concluded that despite affording the Registrar deference under the reasonableness standard, the decision in the circumstances of the case “is not supportable, defensible or acceptable” because the parents were not employees of a foreign government within the meaning of subparagraph 3(2)(a). The Minister of Citizenship has now challenged the decision before the Supreme Court for which leave has been granted and the court has invited oral and written submissions from the appellant and respondent specifically on the issue of standard of review.

The post The Supreme Court Has Announced it is Revisiting Dunsmuir first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

In a decision made Wednesday, May 10^th, Justice Jocelyne Gagne has specified that the law that allows the government to strip a Canadian of their citizenship without a fair hearing violates Section (2) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which states that “no law should deprive someone of the right to a fair hearing.”

Mr. Mario D. Bellissimo, who represented one of the eight applicants who had their citizenship revoked or were issued a notice of revocation, expressed his agreement and relief by the court’s decision.

To read the full article, please click here.

For more information on Citizenship Revocation, please click here.

The post Mario D. Bellissimo Featured in The Global and Mail! first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

[195] In light of the above, I am of the view that the impugned provisions of the Citizenship Act violate section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights. The Applicants should be afforded (1) an oral hearing before a Court, or before an independent administrative tribunal, where there is a serious issue of credibility; (2) a fair opportunity to state the case and know the case to be met; (3) the right to an impartial and independent decision-maker; and (4) an opportunity to have their special circumstances considered when such circumstances exist. I am finally of the view that the conflict between the impugned provisions and the Bill of Rights cannot be avoided by interpretation and consequentially, I will declare the impugned provisions inoperative.

[196] However, I do not find that the impugned provisions violate either section 7 or section 12 of the Charter.

We would like to congratulate our co-counsel on their efforts and the countless hours that contributed to this result.  We now await word from the Department of Justice as to whether the Department will pursue the matter at the Federal Court of Appeal.

The post Applicants Succeed in Challenge of New Citizenship Revocation Process! first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

Unlike the previous revocation process where citizens had a right to have their matter heard by the Federal Court if requested before a decision to revoke citizenship was made, the current process only provides citizens with a right to make written submissions. A request for an oral hearing under the current process does not have to be granted and a decision to revoke citizenship can be made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration without the involvement of an impartial tribunal. The only remedy available to an individual whose citizenship is revoked under this current process is to seek Leave of the Federal Court to have the revocation decision judicially reviewed. This can occur only after the individual’s citizenship has already been taken away.

Those who joined this litigation benefited from a stay of the revocation process for the duration of the proceedings. However, those who are not part of this challenge are still at risk of having revocation and potential removal enforced against them. Canadian citizens who received Notices of Intent to Revoke or revocation decisions under this current process should still explore if their cases can be stayed through an application or motion at the Federal Court.

For more information on the citizenship revocation constitutional challenge, please click here.

The post Update on Federal Court Challenge against Citizenship Revocation Regime first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

It has not yet been decided when the final date to join the litigation will be, but it is important for applicants facing revocation that they inquire to determine if they could benefit from joining this proceeding. Most notably, they can explore if a stay of the revocation process will apply to their respective cases while lead cases are litigated in the main proceeding.  The scope, timing, and administrative steps are still being negotiated by the parties through case managed proceedings.  The hearings will likely take place in the fall of 2016 in Toronto.

For more information on citizenship revocation, please click here.

The post New Citizenship Revocation Regime Challenged in Federal Court first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.