Just another WordPress.com site
In his latest budget the Canadian Government announced a plan to reduce the blacklog of Federal Skilled Worker applications by returning all applications submitted prior to the 27 February 2008.
This project could concern thousand of hundred of applications.
You will find additional information from CIC website, bu clicking on the link below:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2012/2012-03-30a.asp
We will keep you posted regarding further devellopment on this project.
You will find below the latest concern of the Canadian government regarding birth tourism in Canada.
This is an article from CBS news website posted on March 5, 2012 By Prithi Yelaja and that can also be consulted on the following link: ( http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/story/2012/03/02/birth-immigration-citizenship.html)
The Harper government is considering changes to the citizenship rules to target so-called birth tourism — where a foreign national comes to Canada to give birth so the baby can get Canadian citizenship.
But critics say closing the loophole will deter bona fide immigrants and harm the economy in the long run.
“We don’t want to encourage birth tourism or passport babies, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told the CBC’s Power and Politics in an interview. “This is, in many cases, being used to exploit Canada’s generosity. The vast majority of legal immigrants are going to say this is taking Canada for granted.
“We need to send the message that Canadian citizenship isn’t just some kind of an access key to the Canadian welfare state by cynically misrepresenting yourself.… It’s about having an ongoing commitment and obligation to the country.”
The potential changes are part of the government’s plan to “modernize” the Citizenship Act, though Kenney admits he doesn’t have a handle on the extent of the problem.
The issue was brought to the government’s attention by hospital administrators and doctors in Montreal who complained that women without legal immigration status had given birth there and left without paying the bill, Kenney said.
A recent story by a Hong Kong newspaper also exposed unscrupulous immigration consultants who were telling pregnant couples how to come to Canada as visitors and give birth here to have a better chance of staying on humanitarian grounds or have their children obtain citizenship and later sponsor them.
Canada and the U.S. are the only nations in the developed world that grant automatic citizenship to babies born on their soil. Most other countries, including the European nations, as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand require people to have permanent legal status prior to obtaining citizenship or require at least one parent to be a citizen.
There would be a provision for babies potentially left stranded without any citizenship under proposed changes, though such cases amount to only a handful a year, Kenney said.
“Any changes that we make would cover off the problem of stateless persons.”
Critics say the government is overreacting to the issue of birth tourism.
“It’s an overblown knee-jerk reaction to a problem that the government has no formal statistics on,” said Toronto immigration lawyer Michael Niren.
“Does it happen? Sure it does, but the government should not move to throw out birth citizenship, which is entrenched in our democratic culture, based on some loosey-goosey evidence.”
The move may score the government points on a “hot button” issue like immigration but changing the law would be short-sighted because it would deter bona fide immigrants from considering Canada, Niren said.
“A protectionist approach may be politically savvy in the short term but it won’t support Canadians in the long run,” he said.
Interesting article from the website of CBCnews ”Canada” demonstrating the motivation of Canadian authorities against any kind of fraudulent immigration.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/01/marriage-fraud-canada-border-agency.html
The legal principle of reasonable delay use in administrative law can also be used in the more specific area of immigration law in favor of an immigrant who is waiting for more than 4 years for his application to be decided.
All the public officers of Canada no matter if provincial or federal, and no matter if they are working in immigration, in a municipality or other department, have the duty to process, give services and apply the law in an efficient matter.
If Canadian Immigration and Citizenship takes too long to make a decision, it’s your right to demand that they finalized your application by applying the law.
Off course, you can only request this if you have always complied with all the requirements during the process and no delays had originated from your side.
This action before a Federal Court is called a ‘’Mandamus’’. It consists basically in exposing to the Federal judge the chronology of your application and to demonstrate that you complied with every requirement. But on the other side, Canadian officers haven’t done their part and the delay they have taken to process you application is equivalent to a denial of justice.
If the general rule is that all the immigration applications are process in a chronological order and that you cannot accelerate this process, the Mandamus is the exception that will bring your case on separate track.
Regrettably, this action can only be used after more than 4 years of processing and not before.
Administrative unreasonable delays can be caused for different reasons such as exaggerated background security checks or more simply, by a lack of efficiency of an officer.
Off course, if you don’t use this right of Mandamus , the Canadian officers won’t have any pressure and this vicious circle of slow processing going on for some times now, won’t change!
If you have always complied correctly and collaborated with Canadian Immigration, you have no reason to accept their unreasonable delay any longer.
(This is a short definition of a Mandamus: The name of a writ, the principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, we command. It is a command issuing in the name of the sovereign authority from a superior court having jurisdiction, and is directed to some person, corporation, or, inferior court, within the jurisdiction of such superior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty.)
When you receive a letter or email from C.I.C. requesting you to send additional document or missing information within a certain time period, you must absolutely comply with this deadline, if not your case can get refused.
Applicants often think that because they received the C.I.C. request from their representative 5 days after the request was made, they have those 5 days additional to send the requested documents.
This is incorrect. The time start directly the day after the email was sent or a letter is received, (no matter when you open your email box or when your representative gives you this information). If you only open you email box every 10 days or if your representative informs you about the request 10 days after he received it, you unfortunately already wasted 10 days and you have no excuse to not comply within the deadline.
If the officer mention in his communication a specific date to obtain some information or document, what he is requesting must be received at his office no later than the deadline;
Because there is always exceptions, if you were away from home (ex: for vacations, at the hospital, business trip…) and when you come back there is a letter from C.I.C. with a time period that has already expired, you should: immediately contact the officer explaining him the situation, join the document or information he requested, if not possible, request for additional time) and off course join the proof of why you didn’t comply within the required time (ex: your airplane tickets; letter from the hospital…)
If for any reason you know that the time you have been given is too short to comply with what is requested, you can make a written request to obtain additional time but again: you need to justify the reason why you cannot comply within the given time, remember that the officer has no obligation to award you with additional time (so don’t take this for granted), join a written proof of why you cannot comply within the given time period (ex: this document is pending the issue of a trial, in this case obtain a written letter from your lawyer that confirm it; or if for other reasons, join the letter of a doctor, University Dean, your employer… that explain why you cannot provide the document or information within the given time period).
Did you received a refusal letter from a C.I.C. officer that states that he didn’t award you the number of points you were supposed to because for example he thinks that your education, which was 15 years, could have been completed in 13 years?
A new jurisprudence from 2011 might make this decision incorrect and award you the points you are entitled. In the case of Prasad v. Canada (link below), the Federal judge had to decide if the visa officer was right to found that Mr. Prasad could have entered the computer science program after Grade 10. Since Mr. Prasad did not need to complete Grades 11 and 12 to enter that particular program, the officer found that Mr. Prasad should only be credited with a total of 13 years of full-time study giving him only 15 points and not the 22 he was expecting.
The Judge stipulate in his judgment: “ The main issue here is whether two years of Mr. Prasad’s education, not strictly required to obtain his college diploma, are nonetheless “studies”. In my view, the grounds given in other cases for not crediting an applicant’s years of study do not apply here. In particular, Mr. Prasad does not have two degrees at the same level, as in Khan and Kabir. Nor did he acquire a lesser diploma after obtaining his highest credential as in Bhuiya. The interpretative rules mentioned in those cases do not appear to apply here. In any case, however, even if the officer’s approach was correct, he had a duty to go on to consider s 78(4). According to McLachlan and Marr, even if the applicant is lacking the requisite number of years of study, immigration officers must determine whether special circumstances require that the applicant receive the number of points corresponding with their educational credential. Here, the officer did not consider the application of s 78(4) and that error alone requires that I allow this application for judicial review.”
The federal judge concluded that the officer erred in law, and he allowed this application for judicial review. This is one very good example of a refusal that shows how can immigration officer makes mistakes refusing cases that shouldn’t be. Educational credentials are often the basis of a refusal but all of them are not correct.
As you can see from this example, refusal letter are not always the end of your immigration process and it is more efficient to contest an incorrect refusal than re-applying and waiting for many other years before you can land in Canada.
Link to the case of Prasad v. Canada: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc645/2011fc645.html
The number of applicant willing to move to Canada has always been high and constant.
Unfortunately in the past years, this situation has led the Canadian Immigration and Citizenship (C.I.C.) to become a lethargic administration. Processing time for immigration matters in Embassy and High commission has become meaningless and goes against the legal principle of reasonable delays.
Furthermore, immigration officer are not consistent in the treatment of applications with increasing number of refusal, which are either incorrect in law and/or facts and are refused without factual and objective valid reasons.
Some consultants will tell their clients that those situations are final and that there is nothing that can be done other than waiting or reapplying. This is totally false and unfortunately proves the lack of interest and honesty some consultants express towards uninformed immigrant applicants.
In Canada, the reality is that the entire immigration process is determined by the Immigration Act and Regulations. C.I.C. officers are only there to apply the law, which they don’t always do so. In the cases mentioned above, the Canadian legal system gives the Federal Court the authority to make sure that the administration and the officers compel and respect the law. If the laws are not followed by those officers, a Judge can intervene and make sure that the law is respected in the applicant’s favor.
Off course, if you do not take action against C.I.C. as the law permits you, no one will do it for you and unfortunately, the administration and officers will continue to act incorrectly like it has happen for many years.
It may appear impossible or unlikely to file an action against C.I.C, but Canadian laws and Constitution make sure that you have this right. The independent and impartial justice system guaranties the respect of the law over C.I.C. arbitrary acts and decisions.
Most applicants invest a lot of money, time and energy in their application and it is frustrating to know that many of them could have been in Canada if only they were aware of their rights.
The number of applicant willing to move to Canada, UK, USA, and Australia is always high and unfortunately the number of scams that take advantage of this situation is rising with it. The western countries are facing big difficulties trying to regulate people outside their borders pretending to give immigrations services.
For example, Canada just changed the regulatory council in charge of the consultants as of June 30, 2011. The CSIC now became the ICCRC. This change was introduced by the actual Canadian Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, the Honorable Jason Kenney, who is trying in good faith to lower the crooked immigration consultants but with limited effects outside the Canadian Borders. The best protection against immigration fraud will always remind self awareness.
From the UAE to China, via India and Pakistan, hundreds of consultants pretends that they can make your immigration quick and easy, but be conscious of those false representation when in reality, the only things that matters to them is the number of applications they send no matter how much refusal they will get.
To be alert of fraudulent consultants these are some advice you should consider:
1- The person in charge of your immigration process is not in the list of the ICCRC ( verify with the membership list of the ICCRC: http://www.iccrc-crcic.ca/public/membershipList2.cfm;
2- You never met your consultant in person;
3- ; The person you are dealing with in your consultant office is always somebody else;
4- Immigration application is not a fast and easy process so be aware of any misleading points or attractive deals;
5- The website of your consultant with nice picture and coats or arms is not a guarantee;
6- Be also aware that consultants are not lawyers and they don’t give you as much guarantee regarding their formation, work and will provide less services than a Canadian Lawyer;
7- Be aware of quota immigration for each year and verify the information you received.
To have more information’s and to be aware of those fraudulent acts, be attentive and don’t hesitate to consult the Canadian government immigration website www.cic.gc.ca and the ICCRC website www.iccrc-crcic.ca.
If your work permit, your temporary visa application (study/visit) or your permanent residency application is refused by an officer, you have the right to make an application for judicial review before the Canadian Federal Court.
This procedure is explicitly provided under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-18.html#h-28
It’s important to remember that under the law, you must absolutely filed your application at the Federal Court before the legal’s delays mentioned in section 72(2.b) of the Act:.
Within fifteen (15) days from the reception of the refusal if it comes from an office located in Canada;
Or
Within sixty days (60) from the reception of the refusal if it comes from an office located outside Canada.
The judicial review allows the courts to review administrative acts such as immigration refusal, and the Judge will decide with the applicable legislation and legal principle if the refusal is correct or not.
If the officer made a mistake and didn’t respect the law, the judge will revoke the refusal and your application will be sent back to Canadian Immigration and Citizenship so it can be process normally at the stage is was just before your refusal.
This legal procedure may takes sometimes considering the legal delays, but if you received an unfounded refusal it’s your right to contest it and you will be sure that the time and money you invested for you immigration won’t be lost because of an unfounded and incorrect officer refusal.
In Canada, the rule of law makes sure that the entire immigration process and every Canadian Immigration and Citizenship administration and officer obey to the applicable legislation, regulation or legal principal;
If during the immigration process a wrongful decision is made or a principal is not respected, the law gives you the right to claims and contests this incorrect situation.
In Canada no one is above the law and if the Citizenship and Immigration Canada have made a mistake or act improperly, a Judge will give to the plaintiff’s favor, a variety of court orders to enforce a right, award damages, impose temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or to make sure the Canadian administration or officer compel to the law.
Litigation do not always involve pleading in front of the Court since Citizenship and Immigration Canada is often ready to make a settlement with the plaintiff since they doesn’t want to have a judgment against them that could open the door to many more actions.
In the next blogs, I will explain more in details the kind of actions you can take depending on the problem you are facing with Citizenship and Immigration Canada such as; refusal, application pending for 5 years or more….
