Update: “Taking the High Road” – Crossing the Canada/US Border following the Legalization of Cannabis In our previous blog post, we discussed the serious implications of cannabis affiliation at the U.S. Border. With the very recent legalization of cannabis, this topic has also made headlines. Many Canadians are concerned that they will be banned for life from the U.S. if they admit to smoking cannabis, presently, or in years past. Canadians are also worried about admitting their ties to cannabis producers or retailers, whether these ties are in the form of one’s employment or one’s investments (or maybe even both). Cannabis use is not federally legal in the U.S., which means Canadians are right to be concerned. Canadians should never take cannabis across the border, as this could result in very serious consequences. Border officers have full discretion, and they allow entry into the U.S. based on the circumstances of each traveller. Should you be in possession of cannabis at the U.S. Border – even unintentionally – or should you admit to any association with the drug, officers may choose to ban you for 5 years, or indefinitely, depending on the severity of the situation and the amount of cannabis at issue. Importantly, a determination of inadmissibility is not easy to overcome. Canadians who do find themselves banned can apply for a temporary waiver to allow entry, but the process can take up to a year, and the waiver must be renewed every so often. On October 10, 2018, the U.S. Government released a statement, clarifying that Canadians who are employed in a legal cannabis industry are generally allowed to enter the US for non-work purposes (i.e. reasons unrelated to the cannabis industry). If you are granted entry into the U.S., you must know that you cannot bring any cannabis back into Canada from the U.S., just as you cannot bring any Canadian cannabis into the states. This is a steadfast rule: it even applies when you purchased the cannabis in a state which the drug has been legalized. If you “accidentally” have cannabis in your car upon entering Canada, declare it to Border authorities. It will be seized but that is preferred to being charged for attempting to smuggle. It is important that Canadians consider and evaluate the risks in even attempting to cross the U.S. Border, as a result of their connections to the cannabis industry. Transportation within Canada can be done a lot more freely, due to the recent legalization, though there are still some restrictions (transportation of cannabis within Canada is limited to 30g). For more information about how the recent legalization of cannabis could affect your chances of crossing the U.S. Border and how Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Immigration lawyers can assist with your immigration law matter, please contact one of our immigration lawyers. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Cannabis Law, ImmigrationOctober 23, 2018June 16, 2020
Taking the High Road: Canadians Crossing the US Border Many of our readers may be pleased about the soon-to-be legalization of marijuana. These same readers may find themselves feeling slightly relieved, as gone are the days where smoking pot also meant breaking the law. Right? Wrong. Although cannabis is about to become legal in Canada, there are still many important legalities that must be borne in mind, or else you could find yourself in some hot water. One of the biggest concerns immigration lawyers have, with regards to the legalization of marijuana, are the implications at the United States border. If a person admits to smoking marijuana, presently or in years past, or if a person admits to having ties to U.S.-based cannabis companies, they could be in serious trouble at the border and could find themselves banned from entering the U.S. – indefinitely. This is because the recreational use of marijuana is not yet legal federally across the United States. Unlike in Canada, criminal law in the U.S. is regulated state by state. In plain terms, what this means is that the consequences for committing a crime in the U.S. vary state by state, whereas in Canada, we are all subject to the same Criminal Code. When marijuana becomes legal in Canada, it’s legal everywhere in Canada, but in the U.S., only nine American states have legalized cannabis for recreational purposes. It is currently illegal under U.S. Federal Law. So while us Canadians may be free to use cannabis as we please, there’s a line to be drawn, and that line is at the U.S. border (which operates under U.S. Federal Law). According to the Canadian Border Services Agency, both the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and the Canadian agency allow access to their respective countries based on the “circumstances” of each traveller. Unfortunately, some circumstances matter more than others to U.S. border agents. One such circumstance they aren’t a fan of includes those that link travellers to marijuana, whether through consumption or their employment. According to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, if an individual works in the Canadian cannabis industry, he or she may be turned away from the border or banned from entering. As a case in point, a businessman from Vancouver was recently banned for life from the U.S. as a result of his investments in U.S. marijuana companies. Immigration lawyers across Canada have spoken out about the dozens of cases they have recently encountered where Canadians have been denied entry to the U.S. as a result of their connections to the cannabis industry. Some of these attorneys have gone so far as to advise their clients, who work with American marijuana companies, to not cross the border. If they do, they may be “aiding and abetting the U.S. marijuana industry,” which still is illegal. However, it is not just those who work or invest in the cannabis industry who may have difficulties in crossing the border. The federal prohibition of marijuana in the U.S. will continue to be a serious cause for concern for a lot of Canadians. For example, anyone who does so much as admit they have used cannabis may similarly be banned from the U.S. for life. The most famous example of this happening is with Ross Rebagliati, a Canadian Olympic snowboarder. Rebagliati was banned from the U.S. for simply admitting that he had used marijuana in the past. Not surprisingly, a denial of entry could have serious ramifications for those who are travelling to the U.S. for business or to be reunited with their families. In one case in particular, three individuals from Vancouver who were looking to sell agricultural equipment to a cannabis business in Washington State (where cannabis happens to be legal) were banned from the U.S. for life, and of course, they didn’t make the sale. Once the recreational use of marijuana becomes legal, it should come as no surprise that more and more Canadians will likely begin to consume the once illegal substance. And with more consumers comes more concern. The more people using marijuana in Canada means there is a greater possibility that more people would be barred from entering the U.S., either temporarily or permanently. In an effort to avoid such consequences, many Canadians may be tempted to lie to U.S. Border Officers, or refuse to answer their questions. Refusing to answer could result in you being barred from entering that one time, but it likely would not lead to a permanent ban, as can be the case with admitting to smoking marijuana previously. As for lying to Border Officers, this can result in a 5-year ban for misrepresentation, or worse, a forever ban. Given that officers can search the internet or a person’s electronic devices to ascertain that individual’s activities—including where that person works or what organization they are associated with—many will be caught if they are not forthcoming. As immigration lawyers advise, a determination of inadmissibility will not be easy to overcome. Canadians who do find themselves banned can apply for a temporary waiver to allow entry, but the process can take up to a year, and the waiver must be renewed every so often. Due to the jurisdictional issues, there is unfortunately very little the Canadian government can do in order to prevent U.S. Customs and Border Patrol from asking travelling Canadians about their marijuana use. At the end of the day, whether your ties to marijuana are work-related, investment related, or recreationally related, you should be wary about crossing the border. For more information on the legalities of cannabis use and investments and how Devry Smith Frank LLP’s Immigration lawyers can assist with your immigration law matter, please contact the Immigration Practice Group. “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.”</h6 By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Cannabis Law, ImmigrationAugust 21, 2018June 16, 2020
Canada Not Ready for New Wave of Asylum Seekers Canada is not ready to handle a second wave of asylum seekers who may be fleeing the United States, especially when the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is going to expire between January and March 2018. In August alone, 5,712 refugee claimants arrived in Canada, which calculates to an 82 per cent jump from July. Quebec saw 5,530 people cross at Roxham Road B.C. saw 102 people Manitoba saw 80 people through In total, 13,211 people have entered illegally into Canada since the beginning of 2017. Roxham Road has been the point of entry for 11,896 of the 13,211. In an effort to limit the next wave of asylum seekers, the federal government has dispatched Montreal Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez who took a trip to Los Angeles to meet with lawmakers, diplomats, immigration advocates and members of the Latino community to spread a message that Canada was no automatic safe haven for migrants, if they choose to make their way to our border. If you have any questions regarding requirements needed for asylum, citizenship, or general immigration inquires please contact our Toronto Immigration Lawyers, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationSeptember 20, 2017June 18, 2020
End to DACA in Sight? Trump has recently announced that the controversial DACA program is coming to an end. He has turned the decision over to Congress to determine the proper legislative response to ensure that the future of undocumented persons is constitutional. The program has been suspended for 6 months; those already registered can continue to have their permits renewed, but no new applications will be processed. The program was put into place by the Obama administration. DACA, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, offered foreign-born persons who were brought to the United States as children some degree of residency. Individuals could receive a tenuous status in the United States if they met the following conditions: they immigrated before their 16th birthday, they were enrolled in school or had graduated, and had no felony convictions. If eligible, individuals were able to pay $495 to apply for a two year period of protection from deportation and renewable work permits. Only available to those who came to he United States in their youth, this program reaches those whose immigration was not their own decision. Children who know no other country are given the opportunity to succeed in what is their home. This program has afforded these children the security and potential for upward mobility that has always been denied to their undocumented parents. Under DACA they have been able to go to university, get drivers’ licenses and work freely. This program has made whatever semblance of “American Dream” the hopeful parents had for their children within reach. However even the decision to apply for protection under the program is a big decision, since it means identifying oneself to the government as being undocumented. There are presently around 800,000 individuals registered, but many more are eligible. For some, this risk of registration is too great. Trump’s recent announcement may be the materialization of just this risk. Trump has publicly attacked the constitutionality of the program itself. DACA was introduced by Obama after years of Congress being unable to pass a likewise bill addressing undocumented children and what their rights should be with respect to school and employment. In response to Congress’ inability to pass legislation, Obama introduced DACA as an interim measure to provide security for eligible persons while waiting for reform legislation to be written. The Trump administration has expressed that DACA is unconstitutional because it was passed by the President and not the legislature, which is the government body that is constitutionally mandated to pass laws. This is a division of powers argument. The program is being impugned because it was formed through an executive act, where it is argued that only a legislative act can create programs such as itself. For now, like Obama tried, Trump has turned to Congress and given them six months to enact legislation and thereby legalize the program. Trump’s announcement has generated discussion as to whether Canada will open its immigration doors to the former DACA recipients. The participants are considered valuable from a labour market perspective as they are either educated or employed, and pay taxes. It is interesting to note that Canada presently has no comparable program to provide work permits for children who were brought by their parents illegally. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationSeptember 14, 2017June 18, 2020
Highly-skilled foreign workers and tech industry look to Canada There has been an on-going debate as to whether expedited visa programs for highly-skilled foreign trained workers are salutary from a domestic labour point of view. One perspective decries them as facilitating domestic job theft, while an alternative perspective recognizes that such visas are necessary to fill glaring gaps in the domestic labour pool. The United States has affirmed the former position; whereas recent changes to Canada’s immigration policy support the latter. The American visa system for highly-skilled foreign workers, the H-1B visa, has a cap of 85,000. This cap is intended to prevent foreign workers from usurping well-paid jobs from Americans, in a protectionist, America-first philosophy. This perspective, coupled with pervasive uncertainty in future immigration trends in the Trump presidency, has caused certain industries dependent on highly skilled labour to look for opportunities elsewhere. Canada’s official position on highly skilled foreign workers is much more inviting. There is no cap on the number of visas, there is certainty in work permits, and, as of June 2017, Canada has adopted the Global Skills Strategy, to facilitate and expedite the entry of such individuals. This new programme has made bringing in foreign talent more accessible and timely, and it reduces costs for employers. Employers will benefit from the transparency of the programme, in knowing what the precise requirements for entry are, as well as being able to adapt their plans given the speedy two week decision-making period. These diverging perspectives are changing the international flow of labour with respect to the tech industry. Not only is the tech industry reliant on a high level of skill and specific talent, it is also especially reliant on foreign workers, particularly those from India. Large multinational corporations are seeking opportunities to have subsidiaries or satellite offices in Canada in order to benefit from a more favourable immigration policy. As well, tech start-ups are increasingly looking to Canada as a place to form their businesses. These Canadian offices are geographically close to their American counterparts, often in the same time zone, to facilitate easy cross-border collaboration. Additionally, the employees may feel more secure, given the accessibility of longer stays and permanent residency, and, potentially, citizenship for themselves and their families. This favorable immigration environment is conducive to the ever expanding tech industry. The majority of tech workers in the tech hubs, such as Silicon Valley, are foreign workers. And these innovative workers drive production and grow the economy. Investing and supporting the tech sector through inviting foreign workers actually creates domestic jobs rather than eliminating them, as these entrepreneurial tech positions create growth and expand companies and their need for more employees. The new Global Skills Strategy recognizes that Canada presently lacks the domestic talent to satisfy the demand in these industries. The new program is paving the way for Canadian cities to become more competitive in the lucrative tech through including highly skilled foreign workers. If you are an employer looking to hire a highly-skilled foreign worker, or you are a highly-skilled worker looking to come to Canada, or for any other immigration-related matters, please contact our Immigration lawyers today. For any other inquiries, browse our website, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationAugust 25, 2017June 19, 2020
Canadian Government Launches the Global Skills Strategy By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student On June 12 of this year, the Government of Canada announced the commencement of the Global Skills Strategy. The program was originally announced back in November, 2016. The Global Skills Strategy Programme is designed to assist employers to attract foreign workers with top-talent and innovative skills in an effort to help Canadian companies thrive, grow and ultimately, create more jobs. “When companies in Canada can thrive and grow, they create more jobs.” The intent of the Global Skills Strategy is to provide employers with a faster and more predictable process for attracting top-talent and new skills to Canada. Under the Strategy, in most circumstances and for managerial and professional occupations, lengthy visa processing delays no longer await highly-skilled workers coming to Canada. Canada’s ambitious two-week turnaround for processing work visas and permits brings a greater level of certainty to both workers and employers. The two-week service standard also applies to immediate family members accompanying highly-skilled workers to Canada. The Strategy also introduces work permit exceptions. Highly-skilled workers who need to come to Canada for a short-term work assignment no longer require a work permit. Eligible workers are permitted one 15 consecutive day work permit-exempt stay in Canada every 6 months, or one 30 consecutive day work permit-exempt stay every 12 months. Researchers taking part in short-term research projects also do not require a work permit. Rather, researchers are allowed one 120-day stay every 12 months with no work permit, if they are working on a research project at a publicly funded degree-granting institution or affiliated research institution, such as a University. Other changes brought forward by the Strategy include: * A dedicated service channel for employers making a significant investment to Canada. This channel helps employers navigate the immigration application process. The channel gives employers access to an account manager, who will assess the employer’s needs, answer questions, and provide guidance. and * The creation of Global Talent Stream for skilled occupations in shortage and for employers with unique talent needs. The Global Talent Stream is available to two categories of employers: Category A: Firms in Canada that are referred to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program’s Global Talent Stream by an Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) Designated Partner because they are innovative and can demonstrate a need to hire unique and specialized temporary foreign workers in order to scale-up and grow. Category B: Firms in Canada that need to hire foreign workers for highly skilled in-demand occupations found on ESDC’s Global Talent Occupations List where there is insufficient domestic labour supply. Reports indicate that since the official launch of the Strategy, Canada has been quite successful in recruiting new workers and talent. This is not however surprising, given the reputation Canada has for good quality of life, in tandem with the current political climate in the United States. If you are an employer looking to hire a highly-skilled foreign worker, or you are a highly-skilled worker looking to come to Canada, or for any other immigration related matters, please contact our Immigration lawyers today. For any other inquiries, browse our website, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationAugust 16, 2017June 19, 2020
Legal Limbo By: Samantha Hamilton, Student-at-Law There is a gap in the deportation system, and it is being filled with indefinite detention. But is this acceptable? A recent decision from the Federal Court says yes, the gap is a misapplication of an appropriate, acceptable law. Alvin Brown spent five years in immigration detention before his deportation order could successfully be carried out. Once deportation has been ordered, immigration detention can be ordered to keep the individual in custody until the date of deportation. Such detention address the evil of individuals not showing up on their deportation dates, where CBSA estimates that there are over 40,000 such individuals in Canada. In response to this, interim detention can be ordered to keep individuals in custody and ensure that they are in fact deported. However, this is not always the linear progression. The problem arises when individuals have been given a deportation order, yet do not meet the formal, legal requirements for deportation, often because they lack formal identity papers for their former countries to repatriate them. What results in this situation is a state of limbo, indefinite detention. In order to deport an individual there needs to be a receiving country, which is supposed to be the individual’s place of birth. However, some people do not have adequate formal documentation to satisfy a recipient government of their nationality or birth place. Recipient countries will not accept such individuals without confirmation of their identity. An individual may lack adequate identification for a variety of reasons, such as a lack of record of their birth, or leaving their birth country at a young age without bringing any documentation, posing an issue of accuracy of identification. Reviews of prolonged detention are to occur every 30 days, but without any movement on the identification of the nationalities of these individuals, such reviews maintain the detention status. While immigration detention is meant as a mechanism to facilitate deportation, in these situations it can become vexatious and quasi-punitive. Some individuals frustrate this process as they refuse to sign their identity paperwork, such as in the case of Michael Mvongo. But others were seemingly innocent, as they happen to be born in countries that are refusing to recognize their births, such as in the cases of Alvin Brown, Ebrahim Toure, and Kashif Ali. The UN has recommended a 90 day cap for detainees. Other countries have set this as the maximum period of immigration detention, but Canada has not. In 2016 there were multiple reports of hunger strikes by detainees holding out for such a cap, with three of them lasting over two weeks. As of yet, the potential for unlimited detention can persist in Canada. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that can assist you with any need. We have a very experienced group of immigration lawyers that are ready to assist you in any capacity. If you require representation, please contact our immigration lawyers today, or if you have any questions you may contact our office directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationAugust 15, 2017June 19, 2020
Gateway to Canada: Roxham Road By: Nicolas Di Nardo Desperate migrants are still making a run for it to Canada’s border. Since Trump took over the highest office, a tiny dead end on Roxham Road looks to have become the favourite non-official border crossing for tons of people looking for refuge. On Sunday alone, approximately 400 people crossed over the border using Roxham Road, according to U.S. and Canadian officials. Every person to cross at Roxham Road, enters Canada with the hope that it will be the answer to their problems, most of which stem from the current political climate in the United States. What they probably don’t expect, is to be greeted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers with handcuffs, ready to arrest them. However, they are only cuffed for a moment, now that Canadian police have set up a reception centre in the Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle area of Quebec, so that migrants can be processed, given food, and assistance to help prepare their applications for refuge. They even have shuttle busses ready to transport everyone, and will soon be adding electricity and portable toilets. Just this week, they have also started to add tents to accommodate more people, and are looking to add lighting and heat. Interestingly enough, even though these migrants are entering Canada at an unofficial location (not a legal port of entry), they are legally allowed to request refugee status as a result. A little quirk in the application of the law has caused this, but whoever was the first to come to this realization, using Roxham Road as an entry point, had to have done some research beforehand. If they were to try to enter Canada from the U.S. using a port of entry, they would have been denied entry and told to apply for refugee status in the U.S. as a result. The law, under the 2002 Safe Country Agreement between Canada and the U.S. states that if migrants are seeking asylum, they must apply to the first country they arrive in. Since people are entering Canada through a non-official point of entry, they are not being denied or told to turn back, instead, they are given the opportunity to apply for refugee status. Many Migrants have decided to seek refuge in Canada because of Trump’s bans and clear dislike of majority-Muslim countries, because they do not see the U.S. as they used to, as a safe haven. Instead, Canada has now become their idea of a safe haven. Taking a chance and staying in the U.S. with the risk of being sent back to their respective countries was not attractive for many, and the risk they took to get to Canada and cross the border was and is a better option. A number of migrants have said that they are seeking a better life, and if they are forced to go back, they will be in more trouble than they are currently. With the increase in numbers of people entering Canada, last week it was announced that shelter will be available in Montreal’s Olympic Stadium, however, if people would like to go on their own and seek their own housing, they are welcome to do so. If they require assistance, they are also able to reach out to the government. For now, until their applications are processed and approved, they are free to live in Canada and do what they choose. If you have any questions regarding requirements needed for asylum, citizenship, or general immigration inquires please contact our Toronto Immigration Lawyers, or call us directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationAugust 10, 2017June 19, 2020
Canada’s Immigration Detainees: Locked Up By Dodgy Risk Assessments By: Nicolas Di Nardo A recent blog post highlighted an immigration detainee that went to court to fight for his release after being locked up for 4 years while awaiting deportation. For more information on that story, please click here to read our blog. Now, a Star investigation further into this matter reveals that detainees are being locked up based on dodgy risk assessments. Immigration detainees are essentially defined as individuals that are non-citizens, whom the government believes will not show up for their deportation. They wear jumpsuits, orange in colour, and can be subjected to routine strip searches. Kept in maximum-security provincial jails, they spend 18 to 24 hours a day in their cells, even if they are no criminal record. These individuals are also detained indefinitely. Unfortunately, there is no legislation governing where the detainees must be placed, so their fate is held by the border services officers once someone has been ordered to be detained by the quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board. In our previous article, The Star profiles a detainee, Ebrahim Toure, who is the longest held detainee currently imprisoned. The reason for his detention in a maximum-security centre is that the government fears he is not going to show up for his deportation, even though he has cooperated with the government, providing them with all of his information, documentation, and has even stated he wishes to be deported. Now, with new developments in The Star’s investigations revealing that the risk assessments done on these detainees are quite dodgy, especially considering someone like Toure is in detention with no criminal record in Canada, can be quite worrisome. Many of Canada’s Border Police lack the expertise to assess risk posed by immigration detainees, as revealed by documents obtained by The Star which were filed in federal court. With such a crucial downfall for the Border Police being exposed to the public, it makes you wonder how many detainees have been wrongfully placed in detention due to unqualified officers’ assessments. Considering detainees can be held indefinitely even though they pose no threat to our society, or may have been cooperative with the government the entire time, something needs to be done. Lawyer Jared Will has been fighting for detainees in the past, and is currently assisting Toure fight for his release and represented Alvin Brown for his deportation. With the current spotlight of The Star’s investigation on the risk assessment for Kyon Ferril’s detention from 2015, a risk assessment was provided to the court filled out by one Canada Border Services Agency officer. The officer wrote, “I am not a medical or mental health professional… I have not received any training on the completion of this form. This assessment is cursory in nature and should not be construed as an accurate representation of the subject’s risk of mental health status.” This not only raises concern about the qualifications of our border officers, but also may cause people to question the legitimacy of theses assessments – especially if almost every form was filled out as such, and still led to these individuals in question to be detained. How many people are detained that don’t pose a threat to society? How many don’t have a criminal record but are detained? How many of them really won’t show up for their deportation? It might be hard to find a legitimate answer to those questions once you factor in the possibility that many of these assessments may be inadequately completed, or false. Unfortunately, the above statement that was on the form for one detainee, Kyon Ferril, caused him to continue serving his indefinite detention in a maximum-security jail, rather than being sent to a less-restrictive facility. The government has three medium-security facilities which are mainly used for immigration detention, however, once an assessment is done and the detainee is deemed “high risk” they are immediately sent to a maximum-security provincial jail. The assessments in question are known as the National Risk Assessment for Detention (NRAD). This form is used when someone is first incarcerated and once complete, will provide their classification (high, medium, low) which then determines how they are to be dealt with. Per the policy, this form should be reassessed every 60 days. As a result of the NRAD, a majority of the detainees end up in jails alongside the criminal population, when many should be in the medium or low-security jails. Most of which are held there indefinitely while detained (if they are ever deported or released). Back in May, there was a fight against indefinite detention, for more information please see this article. Ebrahim Toure, the detainee profiled by The Star as mentioned earlier, is being represented by Jared Will, who has been in a constant battle with Canada’s immigration system and often representing detainees looking to fight for their release, transfer to a less restrictive facility, or even to be deported back to their home country. Will also expresses his disapproval during his cases, and has chimed in about how the officers fill out these forms. He’s shocked by the “lack of competence” of the officers. Considering these officers hold the power to determine how one must live until they are dealt with by the government, deciding people’s basic liberty and security interests, Will is appalled by the administrative process. From the officer’s form that was submitted to court, you can clearly see and understand that the officer had an issue with the task they were given. The statement essentially says that they don’t know what they’re doing, and that the information the officer is providing is not reliable. As The Star dug deeper into the assessment forms, they found “shoddy, inaccurate form completion”, something that should be alarming, considering, as stated before, they determine where someone is going to be held indefinitely. A couple of things they noted from reviewing the forms were: Key sections left entirely blank Both “no” and “unknown” boxes ticked on questions about mental illness and medication Long gaps in time between assessments For two former detainees, Alvin Brown (deported) and Ferril (on strict bail) their assessment forms were accurate with the points listed above. Due to the realization of this horrible practice by Canada’s Border officers, the CBSA will be improving their NRAD form, protocol changes are in the works, training will take place (beginning this summer), and policy will now require the officers provide detainees with a copy of the assessment once completed. Devry Smith Frank LLP is a full service law firm that can assist you with any need. We have a very experienced group of immigration lawyers that are ready to assist you in any capacity. If you require representation, please contact our immigration lawyers today, or if you have any questions you may contact our office directly at 416-449-1400. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationJuly 20, 2017June 22, 2020
Bill C-6 and a Smoother Path to Canadian Citizenship By: Katelyn Bell, Summer Law Student Bill C-6, an Act to Amend the Citizenship Act and make consequential amendments to another Act, was introduced in Parliament on February 25, 2016. Nearly sixteen months later, on June 19, 2017, the Bill received Royal Assent. In other words, as of June 19, 2017, the Bill is now law. However, not all of the changes introduced by Bill C-6 have taken legal effect. Many changes will not take effect until Fall 2017, while others will come into force in early 2018. The introduction of the Bill brings about many positive changes, and provides benefits to thousands of Canadian immigrants. Of the changes ahead, most notable is that permanent residents of Canada may apply for citizenship sooner than they were previously able. There are many other very positive changes to the Citizenship Act brought forth by Bill C-6, including, but not limited to, the following: Equal treatment under the law: Dual citizens living in Canada who are convicted of treason, spying and terrorism offences can no longer have citizenship revoked, but rather, will face the Canadian justice system, like any other Canadian citizens who break the law. Effective June 19, 2017. More flexibility for Canadian immigrants: Applicants no longer have to declare on the application form an intention to continue living in Canada once they are granted citizenship. Effective June 19, 2017. Minors can apply for citizenship without a Canadian parent: The age requirement for citizenship has been removed. Further, a person who has custody of a minor can now apply for citizenship on behalf of the minor. Effective June 19, 2017. Accommodations for those with disabilities: It is now codified law that reasonable measures must be taken to accommodate the needs of a citizenship applicant who is a disabled person. Effective June 19, 2017. Less stringent time requirements: Applicants will be required to be physically present in Canada for 3 out of 5 years before applying for citizenship. Under the previous Act, the requirement was 4 out of 6 years. Additionally, the requirement that applicants must be physically present in Canada for 183 days in 4 out of 6 years preceding their application will be repealed. Effective Fall 2017. Prior time spent in Canada counts toward citizenship: Applicants will be able to count each day that they were physically present in Canada as a temporary resident, or protected person, before becoming a permanent resident as a “half-day” toward meeting the physical presence requirement for citizenship, up to a maximum credit of 365 days (1 year of the 3 year requirement). Effective Fall 2017. Income tax filing: Applicants must file Canadian income taxes, if required to do so under the Income Tax Act, for 3 out of 5 years (rather than 4 out of 6). This requirement matches the new physical presence requirement. Effective Fall 2017. Relaxed age requirements: Applicants between 18 and 54 years of age (previously those between 14 and 64) must meet the language and knowledge requirements for citizenship. Effective Fall 2017. Seizure of fraudulent documents: Under the Citizenship Act, there will be clear authority for Citizenship Officers to seize fraudulent or suspected fraudulent documents. Effective early 2018. Federal Court authority: The Federal Court, as opposed to the Minister, is the decision-maker in all citizenship revocation cases, unless the individual requests that the Minister make the final decision. Further, individuals will have a right to appeal the decision if their citizenship was revoked because of fraud. Effective early 2018. Without question, the changes introduced by Bill C-6 are positive in nature. In reversing many of the changes to the Citizenship Act introduced by the previous Conservative Government, the Liberals have made their position on immigration crystal clear — “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” (- Justin Trudeau in spar with Harper over the right to revoke citizenship (2015)). Not only are the changes under Bill C-6 contrary to the Conservative agenda, but the Liberal government’s approach to immigration in general is in stark contrast to President Trump’s approach in the United States. As Canada becomes more generous, the U.S. continues to crack down on immigration. If you have any questions regarding Bill C-6 changes, or are in need of an immigration lawyer, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP’s immigration lawyers today, or contact our office directly at 416-449-1400 for more information. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, ImmigrationJuly 18, 2017June 25, 2020
