Plan for 2019:

For the 2019 year, IRCC has increased its targeted admissions by 800, for a new total of 330,800 individuals to be admitted to Canada for permanent residence. This follows the commitment made by the Government of Canada in its 2018 federal Budget to resettle an additional 1000 vulnerable women and girls as refugees. As 200 of these vulnerable women and girls are expected to be settled in 2018, the remaining 800 have been added to the 2019 target.

Plan for 2020:

The 2020 target has been adjusted upwards by 1000, rising from 340,000 to 341,000, as a result of an additional 1000 admissions in the Protected Persons and Dependants Abroad category due to growing demand. While it did not change the overall admissions target, 700 admissions have also been transferred from the Blended Visa Office Referred Program (BVORP) to the Government-Assisted Refugee Program (GARP). Both are refugee resettlement programs, however in BVORP private sponsors help the government with resettlement costs along with providing emotional and social support, while in the GARP the government is the sole financial provider. This change was made due to the complexity of the BVORP, which would have made meeting its target difficult.

Plan for 2021:

The target for 2021 has been increased by 9000 admissions from the 2020 target for a total of 350,000 admissions, which is almost 1% of Canada’s population. Of these 9000 admissions, 6500 are allocated to the economic class and 2500 to humanitarian streams. Immigration targets for Quebec were not provided in this annual report – they will be established at a later date after consulting with the Government of Quebec.

It is interesting to note that while targeted immigration levels across most of the categories show an incremental increase year after year, projected admissions under Family Reunification remained the same for 2021 as 2020. Logically, as the population rises, more applications under the family class will be made, and given the same approval rate, it should result in higher overall admissions.

Immigration Highlights from 2017:

• In 2017, an ambitious plan for population growth was unveiled and 5,371,162 visitor travel documents were approved.
• In 2017-2018, international migration accounted for 80% of population growth. (Source: Statistics Canada)
• In 2016-2017, international students and visitors contributed over $31 billion to the Canadian economy.
• Over 130% increase in citizenship applications from October 2017 to June 2018.
• In 2017, Canada admitted 65,417 new permanent residents in the Economic Class through the Express Entry application management system.
• In 2017, 39% of economic immigrants settled outside Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver.
• In 2017, economic immigrants residing in Canada for at least 5 years exceeded Canadian average earnings by 6% and were 15-24% more likely to be working than Canadian-born residents.
• In 2017, 56% of permanent resident admissions were in the Economic Class.

For more information on the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration please click here and here.

The post What is Canada’s New Multi-Year Immigration Levels Plan for 2019-2021? first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

Ms. Toussaint’s diabetes and hypertension led one of her doctors to declare in a 2010 affidavit that Ms. Toussaint would be at extremely high risk of suffering severe health consequences if she does not receive health care in a timely fashion. Despite the severity of her condition, Ms. Toussaint was found to be ineligible for the program because she was not a refugee or other protected person, victim of human trafficking or detained migrant.

A citizen of Grenada, Ms. Toussaint had initially been admitted to Canada with a temporary resident visa and had worked in Canada from 1999 to 2006 without status. She found herself unable to work due to her medical condition and pleaded with health care professionals for assistance. In September 2008, Ms. Toussaint applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. However, her application was not reviewed because she could not afford to pay the processing fee and was denied a fee waiver. She applied for IFHP coverage but her application was refused in July 2009.

In December 2013, Ms. Toussaint filed a petition with the UN Human Rights Committee. The Committee adopted the view on 24 July 2018 that Canada had violated her rights to life, to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law without discrimination, recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada was obligated to provide Ms. Toussaint “with adequate compensation for the harm she suffered” from 2009 to 2013 and under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future, including reviewing its national legislation to ensure that irregular migrants have access to essential health care to prevent a reasonably foreseeable risk that can result in loss of life.

The road to some semblance of justice for Ms. Toussaint was certainly long. She had previously challenged the decision to deny her IFHP coverage in the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal without success. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal. In the domestic courts she argued that her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom to life, liberty and security of person and to non-discrimination had been violated. She alleged discrimination against her on the basis of disability and citizenship. Her application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Court, which interpreted Order-in-Council P.C. 157-11/848 – in force from 1957 to 2012 and the root of the IFHP eligibility criteria – in line with the Citizenship and Immigration Canada director’s decision to refuse her application. The Court found that the purpose of the IFHP is to provide temporary healthcare to legal migrants. Canada also provides IFHP coverage to some illegal migrants, such as victims of trafficking, who are often unwittingly illegal migrants. Canada feels responsible for such illegal migrants because of the fact that they have been exploited by unscrupulous human traffickers. Ms. Toussaint is neither a legal migrant nor is she unwittingly an illegal migrant. Although she entered this country legally, she chose to remain here illegally; there is nothing stopping her from returning to her country of origin. She has chosen her illegal status and, moreover, she has chosen to maintain it…

(Source)

The post UN Releases Decision on Access to Canada’s Interim Federal Health Plan for Undocumented Migrants first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The Government of Canada has expanded the collection of biometrics because it is recognized as an excellent tool to confirm an individual’s identity. Thus, it will allow Canada to more effectively manage the individuals coming inside its borders and help to deter, detect and stop the entry of those who pose a risk to the health, safety and security of Canadians.

In order to achieve a balance between convenience for travellers and the need for information, biometrics will only need to be given once every 10 years. They will be valid for 10 years from the date they were given. If an individual has already given biometrics for a previous application within the past 10 years, they do not need to give them again. However, note that this 10-year validity period only applies to applicants for a visitor visa, study permit, or work permit. All other applications will require the submission of biometrics each time.

There are some limited exemptions for applicants who will not require biometrics:

• US Nationals applying for a work or study permit
• Canadian citizens, citizenship applicants (including passport applicants), or existing permanent residents
• Visa-exempt nationals coming to Canada as tourists who hold a valid Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA)
• Children under the age of 14
• Applicants over the age of 79 (there is no upper age exemption for asylum claimants)
• Heads of state and heads of government
• Cabinet ministers and accredited diplomats of other countries and the United Nations, coming to Canada on official business
• US visa holders transiting through Canada
• Refugee claimants or protected persons who have already provided biometrics and are applying for a study or work permit
• Temporary resident applicants who have already provided biometrics in support of a permanent resident application that is still in process
• Temporary exemption: Applying in Canada – If you are applying for a visa, study or work permit, or permanent residence in Canada – you are exempt until the in-Canada service is established

The costs for biometrics are as follow:

• Individual applicants: CAD $85
• Families applying together at the same time: maximum total fee of CAD $170
• Groups of 3 or more performing artists and their staff who apply for work permits at the same time: maximum total fee of CAD $255

For more information, please click here.

The post Canada’s Expansion of Biometrics Collection first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

Specifically in that section, the first question refers only to Canada.  The second question refers to Canada and then mentions “or any other country”. The third question goes back to inquiring about Canada only.  The way the questions are arranged and phrased, applicants mistakenly believe that the whole section is only about Canada.  This is unfortunately leading to five year bans pursuant to section 40(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

So what to do?

First, read the questions carefully and do not underestimate the significance of an incorrect answer in filling out immigration applications.  Further still, filling out immigration forms must be undertaken with access to historical information that may be relevant to the questions being asked.  Do not guess about the reasons and timing of previous refusals, removal orders, arrests, charges, and convictions to list but a few, when filing out your forms.  Confirm dates and reasons for important immigration related events in your life.

Second, if an allegation of misrepresentation has already been raised by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, your case should be assessed by an immigration lawyer to see if an innocent error exception, or materiality can be raised amongst other possible considerations, in defence.  This argument does not suggest that applicants need not be accurate in filling out applications.  Rather, an individualized assessment should be undertaken as to the inadvertence of errors made and any explanations provided.

Third, if you are already facing a refusal depending upon your immigration status and the stage of your case the matter may be examined at the Immigration Division, Refugee Protection Division, Refugee Appeal Division, Immigration Appeal Division and/or the Federal Court.  For visitor visa refusals based upon misrepresentation an applicant may seek to challenge the decision to the Federal Court of Canada.

As one example, the innocent error exception has been applied as a defence where an applicant failed to include information, there are also procedural fairness defences and intent can indeed be a relevant factor in considering whether a finding of misrepresentation is warranted. See for example Lamsen v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2016 FC 815, par. 24, Punia v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2017 FC 184, par. 67, Berlin v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2011 FC 1117, pars. 19-22 and Osisanwo v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2011 FC 1126, pars. 9-15

Fourth, make sure to find out if your application has been refused for misrepresentation is the bar for two years or five years.   Applicants face a significantly more severe consequence as a result of the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act (Act).  Section 16 of the Act increased the period of inadmissibility resulting from a finding of misrepresentation from two to five years. On 20 November 2014, section 16 of the Act came into force.

So there are many factors to consider when facing a misrepresentation allegation or finding.  One thing is certain, we are finding because of the increase to the inadmissibility bar under IRPA subsection 40(2) more applicants are challenging these findings.

For more information on misrepresentation cases please click here.

The post Common Misrepresentation When Filing Temporary Resident Applications first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

In Canada, refugee claimants who have experienced trauma and a heightened degree of psychological stress may request a vulnerable status designation pursuant to the Chairperson Guideline 8: Procedures with Respect to Vulnerable Persons Appearing Before the IRB (“Guideline 8”). The IRB defines vulnerable persons as “individuals whose ability to present their cases before the IRB is severely impaired.” The purpose of Guideline 8 is to afford further protection to vulnerable refugees who are ill-equipped to give coherent testimony to establish their claims. The onus is on the claimant to prove to the IRB that they are in fact a vulnerable person, and this must be done at the earliest opportunity in the refugee determination process. After a request has been made, procedural accommodations may be granted that include but are not limited to:

• Priority scheduling or creating a more informal setting for a hearing;
• Excluding non-parties from the hearing room;
• Allowing a support person to participate in a hearing;
• Allowing the person’s lawyer to proceed first;
• Providing a panel and interpreter of a particular gender;
• Varying the order of questioning;
• Allowing the vulnerable person to provide evidence by videoconference or other means.

The IRB suggests to provide expert evidence such as medical reports, psychiatric or psychological assessments to help identify a vulnerable person. It is important to keep in mind that a vulnerable status designation by the IRB does not confirm the IRB’s opinion as to the merits of the case as such a determination will be made by an RPD panel at the day of the hearing. Nonetheless, the same evidence if relevant to the claim can be presented at the hearing and it is up to the RPD panel to decide on its probative value.

The post Vulnerable Status Designation for Refugee Claimants first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The post This Week’s Success Story: Successful Outcome at the Refugee Protection Division! first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

In certain cases, the RPD may decide to allow a claim without a hearing pursuant to section 170 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) that sets out:

170. The Refugee Protection Division, in any proceeding before it,
…
(b) must hold a hearing;
…
(f) may, despite paragraph (b), allow a claim for refugee protection without a hearing, if the Minister has not notified the Division, within the period set out in the rules of the Board, of the Minister’s intention to intervene;
…
Allowing claims without a hearing is a selective process called “expedited processing” that is used in exceptional circumstances where the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship has not filed a notice of intervention, there are no credibility and identity concerns, and the information provided by the claimant is consistent with the situation in the country of their nationality that would merit the granting of refugee protection.

In addition, for a claim to qualify for expedited processing, it must be from a country that is designated by the RPD while the claim is in the queue waiting to be processed. The factors for determining country eligibility include the volume of cases the RPD decides from the country, the rate of acceptance for claims from the country, and the fact that the issues relating to the country of origin are not complex. Starting January 1, 2018, the countries that have been placed on the list of expedited processing are:

• Afghanistan
• Burundi
• Egypt
• Eritrea
• Iraq
• Syria
• Turkey
• Yemen

The post Expedited Processing of Refugee Claims by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The Applicant was a Hungarian of Roma ethnicity who had left Hungary as a result of her fear of persecution by certain groups. Her claim for protection in Canada was found to have “no credible basis” by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD). A subsequent Pre-Removal Risk Assessment determined that she did not qualify for refugee protection under either s. 96 or 97 of the IRPA.

The Court took issue with the PRRA Officer’s state protection analysis and, in particular, with the avenues of redress identified by the Officer as being available to the Applicant. There was “’independent, credible’ documentary evidence in the record which would overcome a credibility finding and demonstrate that it was objectively unreasonable for the Applicant to seek state protection.” Additionally, the Court noted, as a result of the credibility concerns identified by the RPD, the PRRA Officer had discounted the numerous prior positive findings of persecution of Roma claimants by the Court, the RPD and the Refugee Appeal decision.

In rejecting the Officer’s analysis, the Court noted that, unlike section 96 of the IRPA, which requires that an Applicant demonstrate a “well-founded fear of persecution” and an objective basis for that fear, section 97 is objective in nature. Due to the objective nature of a section 97 claim, “a negative credibility finding does not necessarily affect the analysis of the objective nature of risk […].” This is particularly so when state protection is a live issue, since the failure of a refugee claimant to seek the protection of their state where such protection is reasonably available can defeat their claim. Therefore, as the Court went on to explain,

“[…] simply because the Applicant was not found credible is not automatically dispositive of the s. 97 claim. Where there is “independent and credible documentary evidence in the record capable of supporting a positive disposition of the claim,” credibility findings are not determinative […].”

The post Independent and objective evidence of country conditions enough to outweigh credibility concerns? first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The United Nations convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees describes a refugee as:

–       a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group,

–       is out of their country of nationality and due to fear is unable or unwilling to return.

In Canada, this definition is incorporated in sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and does not encompass refugees or migrants who are forced to leave their homelands because of environmental disruptions that jeopardize their very existence. According to Cornell researchers, by 2060 approximately 1.4 billion people could become climate change refugees, and that number is expected to rise.

So far, there are no legal precedents from any common-law jurisdiction recognizing refugee claims on the grounds of climate change. In 2015, for example, the Supreme Court of New Zealand refused to grant leave for an appeal where the applicant’s claim was on the basis of severe environmental conditions in his home country [AF (Kiribati) [2015] NZSC 107]. In this case, the Immigration and Refugee Tribunal of New Zealand upheld the Refugee Protection Officer’s decision stating that while situations of natural disaster and environmental risks entail significant human rights concerns, the claimant must establish that they meet the legal requirements contained in the Refugee Convention.

Now, the question is what happens if the claimant’s country of origin is failing or unable to protect its citizens from dire effects of climate change due to rising sea levels that wipe out entire villages and communities. In the future, there will be significant numbers of refugees fleeing their home countries because of climate change. The issue of whether refugee accepting-countries should recognize and protect environmental refugees under international humanitarian law remains to be addressed.

The post Should environmental refugees be accorded refugee status? first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.

The plan, which was tabled in the House of Commons, comes on the heels of Statistics Canada’s release of new data, which shows that the number of people who consider themselves immigrants in Canada is as high as it has been in almost 100 years. According to figures from the 2016 census, 21.9 per cent of Canadians consider themselves an immigrant or have permanent resident status. To find the last time such a high number of Canadians identified as such, you would have to go all the way back to 1921. As a result of the rise that has already occurred, StatsCan has projected that by 2036, 30 per cent of Canadians could be immigrants. This percentage could be even higher due to this latest announcement.

The census numbers shine some light on where newcomers to Canada are choosing to live. It should come as no surprise that immigrants prefer the big cities, i.e. Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, where they can more easily access cultural communities. 56 per cent of immigrants to Canada choose to settle in one of these three cities. Ontario is the most popular province for immigrant settlement but proportionally not as popular as it once was: 39 per cent of immigrants settle in Ontario, down from 55.9 per cent in 2001. Ontario’s loss has been Alberta’s gain, with 17.1 per cent of immigrants choosing the largest prairie province, up from 6.9 per cent just 16 years ago.

Asian countries are some of the most common birth-countries of immigrants to Canada. Seven of the top 10 countries of birth of recent immigrants are located in Asia: Philippines, India, China, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and South Korea. The top-five countries of birth of refugees were Syria (26,550 refugees between 2011 and 2016), Iraq (15,505), Afghanistan (6,105), Eritrea (5,125), and Democratic Republic of the Congo (5,020).

The post Federal Government Announces Three-Year Immigration Plan first appeared on Bellissimo Law Group.