Borderlines

Marina Sedai is an immigration lawyer and the past National Chair of the Canadian Bar Association Immigration Section, a role that she served in from 2018 – 2019, and is also a past provincial char of the CBABC Immigration Law Section. She can be found on Twitter @MarinaSedai. We discuss various myths about Canadian immigration law, including:* Refugees get more financial help than pensioners. & Foreign nationals immigrate and then bring their whole extended family over. *If including your spouse or common-law partner on your permanent resident application is inconvenient or unhelpful to your immigration process then you can exclude them and later sponsor them.* Volunteering isn't work.* If my kid is born in Canada then my H&C application is guaranteed to succeed.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We discuss how mandamus applications work. Adrienne Smith is a Partner at Battista Smith Migration Law Group.2:00Does filing mandamus applications annoy Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada? 5:30Has there been a change in the frequency with which mandamus applications are considered? 13:30During COVID-19 is there a difference in filing a mandamus application between online and paper applications? 18:00What is a mandamus application? 26:00What is the legal test for a mandamus application? 49:00During COVID-19 when a visa office is largely closed would you still file a mandamus demand letter?55:00Missed opportunities during COVID-19.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We discuss issues involving the deportation of long term permanent residents for criminality. 5:45 - What are the grounds for deporting a permanent resident for criminality? 13:00 - How does the appeal process work? 17:00 - What are the factors in deportation.19:00 - An overview of the history of the law involving the deportation of permanent residents. 26:00 - What is the probability of success for a permanent resident in avoiding deportation once proceedings start? 36:00 - Stays of removal41:00 - Strategies and tips for responding to procedural fairness letters involving removal. Michael Greene, Q.C. is an immigration lawyer in Calgary. He served as the National Chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s Citizenship & Immigration Section in 2000-2001. He is representing Jaskirat Singh Sidhu in his immigration and deportation matters.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hilary Evans Cameron is an Assistant Professor at Ryerson Law. Prior to become a faculty member, Hilary represented refugee claimants for a decade. She is the author of Refugee Law’s Fact-finding Crisis: Truth, Risk, and the Wrong Mistake. Her paper on risk salience in refugee decisions that we discuss can be found here. She is also the creator of www.meetgary.ca, a website which provides guidance to both decision makers and asylum claimants on the implicit biases and thought processes that can influence decision makers. She provides training to the Immigration and Refugee Board on this topic. 3:00The two strong pulls in the law of how a decision maker should make a decision in a refugee hearing that impacts risk salience. 7:00Can a decision maker ever be truly neutral? 11:00Does the fact that the refugee process starts with a removal order “set things up” for strict scrutiny? Plus how politicians can influence error preference. 18:30Refugee acceptance rates have increased recently. Is this a result of new decision makers or the same decision makers applying different maxims. Can someone’s risk salience approach change over time? 22:00The non legal things that can influence decision makers. 26:30Studies on accuracy in credibility and how risk salience follows. 30:00Should decision makers make their biases explicit? 36:30What is the fear that people have of refugee claimants? 43:01The illusion of transparency. “The idea that truth will shine through.” 44:30The myth that a memory is like a video recording. 46:00The myth that a refugee claimant will never take unnecessary risks. 47:15The myth of once a liar always a liar.48:80The maxim of the perfect applicant. 52:00The maxim of “our expectations were clear.” 1:01The inconsistency between standards in refugee law and trauma theory. 1:04Hillary’s working with the IRB1:15Have any IRB members told Hillary that who the representative is can impact how they view the claim? 1:21When should you admit a past lie?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dennis McCrea was the founder of McCrea Immigration Law. He started practicing immigration law in 1974, and was one of the original members of Vancouver's immigration bar. In this episode we discuss how to build an immigration practice, how the practice of immigration law has evolved, avoiding burnout and more.3:00How lawyers use to interact with visa officers. 6:00The formation of the immigration bar. 11:30Thoughts on whether it is possible to have both a corporate immigration practice and a refugee or enforcement practice.15:30Did the practice of immigration law become more or less fun over time? 18:00What kept Dennis motivated when it came to practicing immigration law? 22:30What type of cases did Dennis enjoy the most? 26:00What are some tools that lawyers can use to prevent burnout? 41:00Did the practice of immigration law vary depending on which political party were in power?42:00How to retire. 45:00How can junior lawyers who are trying to build a practice have time for hobbies? 48:00How Steven and Deanna got into immigration. 58:00Growing a firm. 1:03:00Should you article at an immigration law firm. 1:06:00Being too specialized. 1:13:00What percent of Dennis’s practice was immigration processing, firm management and enforcement? 1:16:30Thoughts on consultants. 1:19:00Are decisions getting better or worse? Are boilerplate refusals becoming more or less common?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Joshua Sohn practiced immigration law for over 25 years. He is a past president of the Canadian Bar Association’s Immigration section. He worked both as a sole practicioner, at a small firm and at a big 4 accounting firm. We discuss Joshua’s career, what made him go to law school, whether he took immigration courses in law school, how he started in refugee law, differences between working as a solo practicioner, small firm and eventually at a big 4 accounting firm, and then back to a small firm, differences working in a downtown core vs suburb, and managing the stress of practicing immigration law and running a business. There are a lot of nuggets in here for aspiring lawyers and current practicioners.2:00Quitting social media after retirement. 9:00Law school14:00Articles17:30Are there any courses or law schools that are best to help someone start a career in immigration? 19:30Starting a career in refugee law. 22:30Is it possible to make a viable practice just doing refugee law? 29:00The law firm as training ground. 32:00Practicing as a sole practitioner vs at a large firm.35:30Does it make sense for someone to do just immigration law or should people getting into the field specialize in another area as well? 37:00Practicing immigration law in Vancouver vs. Surrey 41:00Compassion vs. running a business42:00How IRCC’s current processes create new pressures on immigration solicitors. 49:00The Big 4 accounting firms and immigration. 53:00Mentorship and volunteerism. 1:01Tips to tell a co-worker who leaves half-drunk coffee cups around. 1:03Self-care for lawyers.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A discussion of the philosophy behind economic immigration, how Canada ranks economic immigrants, Ministerial Instructions and listener Q&A. Ashal Kaushal is an Assistant Professor at the University of British Columbia's Allard School of Law, where she teaches, amongst other courses, Immigration Law.6:00An introduction to Canada’s points system, how Express Entry changed it and Ministerial Instructions. 14:30The three models of economic immigration. The Human Capital Model, the Demand-Driven Model and the Neo-Corporatist Model22:00How the same job offer can be worth different points depending on the immigration program.28:30Is it possible to qualify the value of a prospective economic immigrant through their job? 32:00Why are the points what they are? Why would a job offer go from 600 to 200 / 50, for example? How did the change from Conservative to Liberal government change? 37:30A ranking system based on wage. 44:00Ministerial InstructionsListener Questions55:30How long will Express Entry last before they bring in a whole new system? 1:00Should there be country caps on economic immigration? Will India remain the top source country of immigrants? 1:06What, if anything, should be done about how the federal and provincial governments have economic immigration programs that target the same “high skilled” people?1:16Should Canada bring back the Immigrant Investor Program? 1:24If you could make one change to Express Entry or economic immigration what would it be?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A discussion of when someone can be inadmissible to Canada for having committed a crime which doesn’t lead to a conviction. Cases referenced are Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 141 and Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 59Sania (Ahmed) Chaudhry was counsel in Garcia. She is currently Legal Counsel (Professional Conduct Proceedings) at Real Estate Council of Alberta.2:00Introduction and an overview of Garcia v. Canada. 15:00The purpose of Canada’s inadmissibility provisions. 17:10What is the standard of proof for determining that someone committed a crime where there is no conviciton? 19:45A review of Enforcement Manual 230:30Determining equivalency and issues with inadmissibility findings where there is no conviction. 39:30Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)46:00 Living in a society where the State makes everything a crime.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A discussion of s. 34(1)(f) of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which provides that a foreign national or permanent resident is inadmissible for being the member of an organization that has committed terrorism. Topics include how terrorism, organization and membership are defined, the Proud Boys, QAnon and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. 5:45What is terrorism under Canadian immigration legislation? 9:45What is an organization? 15:30What does it mean to be a “member?” 19:00The Bangladesh Nationalist Party29:00Would Nelson Mandela be encompassed? 30:45Should only organizations that are officially designated by the government render someone inadmissible?39:39The Ministerial relief process. 47:35Jose Figuerora 53:45Could someone being a QAnon adherent make them inadmissible to Canada? 1:00Does the designation of the Proud Boys broaden what could result in inadmissibility due to terrorism? 1:03Could the leader of a party calling for an insurrection lead to all members of that organization being inadmissible for being a member of an organization which has committed terrorism? 1:05What about antifa? The Republican Party? 1:13Would it be misrepresentation to not declare one’s being a QAnon adherent in the IMM5669?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 3 was a landmark Supreme Court of Canada which affirmed the use of the Ribic factors in the H&C assessment. We discuss these factors and how they are used in immigration appeals.1:00How the assessment of Humanitarian & Compassionate considerations has become somewhat nebulus. 4:00A case study of Chieu v. Canada 10:00What is an example of a negative country condition in someone’s country of citizenship? 13:00The decision and principles in Chieu. 15:00The Federal Court of Canada in Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 927, which seems to limit Chieu. 16:00The Ribic factors and the types of immigration appeals. 20:00How much weight each factor should get. 25:00Stories about our appeals. 32:00The remorse factor and flexibility. 45:00The counter arguments to considering country of citizenship conditions. 50:00 Consents on appeal.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.