On October 30, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court“) rendered its decision in Febles v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), 2014 SCC 68 (“Febles“).  This was the first time to my knowledge that the SCC has addressed Canada’s interpretation of Article 1F(b) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Can. T.S. 1969 No. 6 (the “1951 Refugee Convention“), incorporated into s. 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA” or the “Act“) (other than in obiter). Febles provides an opportune time to both summarize the principles articulated […]

Read more ›

Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention excludes individuals who have committed serious crimes from being eligible for refugee status under the Convention.  It states: Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention states: F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: ( a ) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; ( b ) He […]

Read more ›

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides: No credible basis 107(2) If the Refugee Protection Division is of the opinion, in rejecting a claim, that there was no credible or trustworthy evidence on which it could have made a favourable decision, it shall state in its reasons for the decision that there is no credible basis for the claim. Manifestly unfounded 107.1 If the Refugee Protection Division rejects a claim for refugee protection, it must state in its reasons for the decision that the claim is manifestly unfounded if it is of […]

Read more ›

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada in Ezokola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) created a new test for determining complicity in Article 1F(a) exclusion cases. Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention provides that: The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there  are serious reasons for considering that: (a)  He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes; The issue that Ezokola addressed […]

Read more ›

The purpose of this blog post is to provide an overview of the changes to Pre-Removal Risk Assessments (“PRRAs“) resulting from Bill C-31 which are now in effect.  A PRRA is a paper application in which individuals can submit that they would be at risk of persecution, risk to life, or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to their countries of origin.  For most applicants, a positive determination results in the granting of refugee protection and the opportunity to apply for permanent residence as a protected person. […]

Read more ›

The Federal Court recently released an interesting case discussing the effect of a criminal charge or conviction abroad on an individual’s ability to claim refugee status in Canada. In the non-refugee context, a foreign national is inadmissible to Canada if he has been convicted abroad of, or if he has committed abroad, an offense whose equivalent in Canada would be an indictable offense under an Act of Parliament. As anyone who is familiar with Canada’s Criminal Code is aware, many criminal offenses are hybrid offenses, and the Crown can elect to […]

Read more ›
Tensions over Judicial Independence, Chart Shows Judicial Review Success Rates per Judge

Don Butler at the Ottawa Citizen has published a pair of fascinating articles about current tensions between the Canadian government and the Federal Court.  Both articles are worth a read in their entirety, as they contain numerous statistics, stories, and  quotes. For example, did you know that: A chief justice of the Federal Court contacted the president of the Canadian Bar Association and asked him to respond to Jason Kenney’s public criticisms of the judiciary? That Conservative MPs tried (and failed) to haul Justice Boivin before a parliamentary committee to answer […]

Read more ›

As previously noted on this blog, big changes are afoot in the Canadian immigration consultant world.  On March 18, 2011, the Canadian government announced that the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) would replace the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) as the body that regulates immigration consultants. Accordingly, immigration consultants that want to continue to represent applicants must become members of the ICCRC.  Pursuant to Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s Operational Bulletin 317, all CSIC members in good standing as of June 30, 2011 are temporarily deemed to be members […]

Read more ›
The Jews of Hungary

I spent 6 months of law school studying in Budapest, Hungary.  While I was there I lived on the border of what use to be old Jewish ghetto during World War II.  I became fascinated with the history of the Jewish people in Budapest, and you can view some of my flickr photos of different Jewish related sites in Budapest here.  Given this curiosity, it was with great interest that I read a recent Federal Court case involving an individual who claimed that he would face persecution if he had to go […]

Read more ›

I generally support much of what the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is doing. I think he is bringing in much needed reforms to many areas of the law. However, there is one thing that Minister Kenney is doing that I just don’t understand, and that is the near vilification of immigration consultants.

Read more ›