Archive | Travel

Couple accused of having fake marriage — despite their child

Posted on 21 December 2016 by admin

Would people go so far as to cheat Canada’s immigration system by having a baby to cover up a marriage of convenience?

Three different adjudicators presiding over a Brampton woman’s long-drawn-out spousal sponsorship application apparently think so, even though the couple has a daughter together.

Since 2008, Saranjit Kaur Sandhu has made three failed attempts to bring her spouse, Kulwinder Singh Sangha, to Canada from India — twice the Federal Court of Canada overturned the negative decision and sent the case back to the immigration appeal tribunal for reconsideration.

“The birth of a child does not definitely prove that a marriage is genuine. Each case will turn on its own facts, although there is much to be said for the presumption that ‘the parties to a fraudulent marriage are unlikely to risk the lifetime responsibilities associated with raising a child,’” wrote Justice Yves de Montigny in rejecting the second tribunal decision in 2014.

“(T)here is no evidence that having a child was a ploy to enhance the applicant’s husband’s chances of obtaining permanent residence in Canada.”

Sandhu’s appeal has recently been rejected by the tribunal for the third time and she is back before the Federal Court for another intervention.

“The focus of the past decisions has been the conclusion that the child of the marriage was conceived to bolster the relationship for immigration purposes,” wrote tribunal adjudicator Elena Rose in the latest rejection of the couple’s sponsorship appeal.

“The panel does not believe that the mere continuation of a purported relationship during a sponsorship and an appeal period, nor a shared child, is necessarily evidence inconsistent with a primary goal of immigration on entering the marriage.”

Sandhu, 35, was sponsored to Canada by her first husband in 2005 but the couple separated after six months “because he became abusive towards me and I could not take the sufferings any longer,” according to her affidavit filed with the court.

After the divorce, Sandhu remained in Canada. In 2008, she wed Sangha in an arranged marriage, set up by her family in India. However, her sponsorship application was rejected in the same year. Her battle with the immigration appeal tribunal ensued.

In the meantime, the couple had a daughter, Arshleen, who was born in Canada in 2010 before Sandhu took the then 4-month-old baby to India to be looked after by grandparents.

In the latest rejection, adjudicator Rose wrote she didn’t understand why Sandhu remained in Canada after her marriage broke down, given she had no ties to Canada. She also pointed out that the applicant had failed to specify grounds for the divorce as cruelty.

“Given the alleged difficult circumstances that the appellant had encountered with her first husband, her quick return and immediate embracing of a second marriage, without even considering any other candidates seemed curious,” Rose wrote.

She also questioned why the husband, a never-married 40-year-old would marry a divorcee, 35, whose divorce, by her own admission, put her into a “‘low’ place in society,” the adjudicator wrote.

Although the couple provided supporting evidence detailing their relationship — calls, photographs and Sandhu’s yearly visits to see Sangha in India — the panel concluded that “while corroborating evidence is often helpful in establishing genuineness, it can also be fabricated to bolster an appeal.”

The adjudicator also took issue with Sandhu sending her daughter back to India temporarily while working three jobs — as a cleaner, at a bakery and a plastics factory — in Canada to support her husband and girl in India.

She also suggested Sangha memorized details about his wife’s life, including her address and postal code, “to show he is knowledgeable about her.”

“There is no evidence of a genuine sharing of responsibility for the welfare of the family,” said Rose in dismissing the couple’s appeal. “The evidence throughout was clear that the applicant’s marriage exists for him if he comes to Canada, reunification with his wife and daughter are very secondary.”

In an interview, Sandhu said she insisted on remaining in Canada so she could raise her family and give her child a better future. Being in Canada by herself, she said she had no choice but to send her newborn daughter to her husband’s family back home. However, she did bring the girl back to Canada in 2013.

“I had to leave my daughter with my husband so I could work and earn money to pay for immigration litigation, my own living expenses and travel to and from India,” said Sandhu.

“Canada is a country of hope and good life if one works hard. This is my home. Since we came back, Arshleen often asks me why her father is not with us and why he does not take her to school.”

In the 2014 Federal Court decision, Justice de Montigny said that the fact Sandhu has spent a few months every year with her husband indicates their established relationship.

The tribunal’s decision “must rest on a reasonable assessment of the evidence and cannot be the result of irrelevant factors, peripheral considerations or, even worse, prejudice and insensitivity to cultural difference,” said the judge.

With all that her client has gone through, Jaswant Mangat, the couple’s lawyer, hopes that this time around the Federal Court will take the rare move to order officials to approve Sandhu’s sponsorship of her husband instead of deferring to the tribunal for redetermination, again. A court date is pending.

“No one would persist like this couple has just to bring someone over unless it is a bona fide relationship,” said Mangat. “They have suffered enough.”

Comments (0)

Legal aid faces financial crunch in serving refugee claimants

Posted on 17 November 2016 by admin

Legal Aid Ontario is faced with an unprecedented funding crisis that has sparked fear among lawyers and advocates that coverage and representation of refugees at asylum hearings could be compromised.

In August, LAO introduced a new vetting system of coverage on asylum claims based on country of origin as a measure to keep spending on refugee and immigration cases in check.

“The LAO has experienced significant financial pressures at the moment and our immigration and refugee program is not immune to those pressures,” said Andrew Brouwer of Toronto’s Refugee Law Office, a LAO-funded legal clinic that specializes in asylum cases. “One of the steps we have taken is to revisit our requests of coverage.”

According to Brouwer, the financial crunch on LAO’s refugee program stems from skyrocketing asylum claims in the past year, years of flat-lined federal funding and a dwindling expedited program at the Immigration and Refugee board.

Francisco Rico Martinez said he was shocked when a client came to his office at the FCJ Refugee Centre crying, saying her asylum hearing might not be covered by legal aid because she came from Morocco, a country on LAO’s merit assessment list.

Martinez said the woman was allegedly trafficked to Canada by relatives to be a caregiver, had her passport taken away and was abused.

“You can’t use country of origin as a base to determine what asylum cases will be reviewed for coverage,” he said. “This is a prejudiced approach.”

The Immigration and Refugee Board has seen a significant growth in the number of asylum claims, with an approximate intake of 23,000 projected for the year, more than double the volume in three years. The claims come from all over the world and no one could explain the recent surge.

Although legal aid expenses have gone up from $17.6 million in 2013 to $22 million last year, the federal government contribution has remained unchanged at $7 million, leaving LAO short by millions of dollars, lawyers said.

LAO currently pays lawyers a total of 16 hours — no more than $136.43 an hour to the most experienced counsel — to prepare the “basis of claim” forms for all asylum seekers and the refugee hearing.

A claimant, who meets legal aid’s income cutoff ($12,863 for a single person, but varies depending on family size), must then apply to have legal counsel covered at the hearing.

Under the new coverage assessment introduced in August, a panel of refugee lawyers only reviews the basis of claims from claimants on its country list to decide who will get counsel expenses covered at their hearings — to save the administrative costs of vetting claims from all countries.

Fifty-five countries, including China, India, France, the United States and the United Kingdom are currently on the list for vetting. All have an average refugee acceptance rate below 50 per cent — the criteria LAO used to come up with the list. According to LAO, 95 per cent of the cases reviewed in the past three months have been deemed to have merit.

“We do not believe this practice has any effect on the claimants’ hearings. Adjudicators have no way of knowing which claimants are being represented on legal aid certificates,” said LAO spokesperson Feroneh Neil.

“Even if they did know, adjudicators cannot draw any valid inferences about the strength or weakness of a refugee claim based on whether someone receives legal aid.”

Martinez said acceptance rate is not a fair measure because advocates have long complained about refugee judges’ systemic biases against claimants from certain countries such as Mexicans and Roma.

“Assessing merits based on the basis of claim is also a problem because it only provides very little information on a reason for asylum and it doesn’t give you details of the complete claim, with supporting evidence,” Martinez noted.

In the old days, lawyers had to put together an opinion letter setting out whether funding should be provided.

“That was problematic because it involved LAO paying lawyers to do work on a process that did not produce anything of benefit for the client, bur rather simply helped LAO administer its program,” said professor Sean Rehaag of the Osgoode Hall Law School.

“The new process is better because LAO pays lawyers to prepare a basis of claim, which the claimants submit to the refugee board and which LAO also uses for the purposes of merit screening.”

However, Rehaag is opposed to any merit screening of refugee claims to assess coverage.

“LAO does not use merit screening to decide whether or not it will pay to defend someone on serious criminal charges,” said Rehaag. “Why, then, does LAO do merit screening in the refugee law area?”

For years, the Immigration and Refugee Board would entertain requests to expedite processing of strong and solid claims to save time and costs. However, the expedited program became obsolete in 2012 when the then-Conservative government introduced tight statutory timelines with the unrealistic belief all asylum claims would be determined in six months.

Currently, only claims from Syria and Iraq are considered for expedition.

Refugee board spokesperson Anna Pape said asylum adjudicators’ decision-making is not influenced by whether or not a claimant has legal representation.

“The board is committed to fairness in its dealings with all those with proceedings before it, regardless of whether they are self-represented or are represented by counsel,” she noted.

“We had thousands of claims being expedited before. Now the board refuses to do it. The per-case cost and the length of hearing keep going up because of the demands made by members (adjudicators),” said Toronto lawyer Raoul Boulakia, president of Refugee Lawyers’ Association of Ontario.

“This isn’t sustainable. You can’t have too little funding plus more demands and a more costly litigation system,” added Boulakia.

Comments (0)

Sponsored refugees fare better than government-assisted peers, study shows

Posted on 02 November 2016 by admin

Refugees sponsored by community groups do better than government-assisted ones with fewer relying on food banks and social assistance, an evaluation of Canada’s much heralded resettlement program shows.

Some 65 per cent of government-assisted refugees reported using food banks, compared to only 29 per cent of their privately sponsored counterparts, according to the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada report released this week.

Five years after their arrival, 41 per cent of government-assisted refugees relied on social assistance, compared to just 28 per cent among those sponsored by private groups. While six out of 10 of the former were employed within five years, the rate went up to 7 out of 10 for their privately sponsored peers.

The relative success of privately sponsored refugees is bolstered, in part, by the stability and guidance offered by relatives or sponsorship groups, advocates say.

Janet Dench, executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, said she was not surprised with the findings.

 “Privately-sponsored refugees usually have family members in Canada for support and they are not selected for their vulnerability like the GARs (government-assisted refugees) are,” she explained. “Clearly the report shows there is not enough support for GARs.”

The internal review examined all aspects of the refugee resettlement programs — government-assisted, private sponsorship, the blended-visa program, which is a blend of the two, and the resettlement assistance program — between 2010 and 2015, before Ottawa opened its doors to 31,000 Syrian refugees in December.

During the period, a total of 49,516 refugees were resettled in Canada, 53 per cent of them under the government-assisted program, 46 per cent sponsored by private community groups and just 1 per cent under the blended-visa program.

Thirty-nine per cent of government-assisted refugees were children, compared to just 30 per cent among their privately-sponsored and blended counterparts.

While two out of five privately-sponsored refugees know either English or French, the rate dropped to 26 per cent among the government-supported refugees. Those referred by visa posts under the blended program had the highest needs, with only 14 per cent speaking one of the two official languages.

Through interviews and analysis of data, the review found the level of the refugee assistance program’s income support is inadequate, with more than half of government-sponsored refugees saying the money did not cover their essential needs.

The majority of their income support goes to housing, leaving little for other basic necessities. While it took government-assisted refugees an average of 3.7 weeks to secure permanent housing, it took more than twice the time for private sponsorship groups to do so.

After 10 years, the review showed that the government-assisted group had annual employment earnings of $32,000 versus $33,000 for privately-sponsored refugees.

The evaluation also identified other problems and gaps in the resettlement programs: lengthy processing times for privately sponsored refugees and a lack of clear roles and responsibilities concerning the internal operation of the programs — issues raised in previous program reviews.

While government-assisted refugees are processed on average within two years, those sponsored by community groups often have to wait as many as 54 months — up 50 per cent from the 36 months in 2010.

Between 2010 and 2014, the backlog for the government sponsorship program went up by 29 per cent to almost 11,000, compared to an 8 per cent fall for private cases to 18,762.

About a quarter of the settlement agreement holders also said they had experienced at least one breakdown of a sponsorship relationship — a failure to meet the sponsorship arrangement of care for a refugee or family — in the past five years.

“There are a lot of groups that want to do private sponsorships as a result of the Syrian resettlement efforts. There is a lot of energy, opportunity and availability. If the government does not make it more responsive to these groups, we are going to lose them,” said Dench.

Comments (0)

Citizenship applications plummet as fees soar

Posted on 19 October 2016 by admin

The number of immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship has plummeted for the second year in a row in the wake of hefty application fee hikes Ottawa introduced in recent years.

The trend has prompted fears that the current citizenship costs — $530 per adult, plus a $100 right of citizenship fee — are creating a growing underclass of newcomers who can’t afford the fee and hence are prevented from full integration and participation in Canadian society, according to a report published in the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

According to the latest government data, only 36,000 citizenship applications were received from January to June in 2016, just more than one-third of the number for the same period last year.

In 2015, a total of 130,000 citizenship applications were submitted to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, compared to an average of 200,000 received in previous years.

“The decline is so significant that it cannot be ignored,” said retired immigration department director-general Andrew Griffith, who obtained the government statistics for policy analysis for the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy.

“I had thought the citizenship fee increases would provoke a decline in applications, but I was surprised by the steepness of the decline.”

Griffith’s report came just as Canada is celebrating Citizenship Week that runs Oct. 10 to 16.

The former Conservative government raised the citizenship fee to $300 from $100 per adult in 2014, and again to $530 last year — to fully recover the processing cost of applications. The fee had been held constant at $100 for almost two decades.

Although immigration officials said at the time the fee hikes would have no impact on the number of immigrants applying to become citizens, Griffith said the data clearly shows otherwise.

Besides the fee hikes, the only major change to the citizenship program was the new requirement for applicants between the age of 55 and 64 to pass the knowledge test.

Griffith said the group only represents 6 per cent of the new citizen population and the current 2016 data provides a clear picture of the impact of the fee hikes on their own.

“As the government considers further increases to the number of immigrants, current fees mean that fewer will apply to become citizens. If the current 2016 trend continues, we will have 300,000 new immigrants and far less than 100,000 new citizens,” Griffith cautioned.

“This sets the stage for a growing portion of Canadian residents who are not citizens and are effectively disenfranchised. From both a social inclusion and social cohesion perspective, this risks the overall success of the Canadian model of integration.”

Griffith said the increase of the application fee to $530 from $300 appeared to be the tipping point as the full cost recovery puts the financial burden of the program on citizenship applicants.

“Citizenship isn’t just a private good. There are broader benefits to society,” he said. “When you have a larger share of the population that has little or no interest and ability to participate in political life, you run the risk of greater exclusion, less inclusion and less commitment to Canada.”

The Liberal government is currently reviewing Bill C6 to amend Canada’s Citizenship Act, but there is no mention of any adjustment to the citizenship fee.

Griffith said Ottawa should split the cost and reduce the fee to $300 or at least offer exemptions and support to groups who are most affected by the financial barrier.

To be eligible for citizenship, a permanent resident must have been physically present in Canada for at least 1,460 days during the six years prior to the application. Those between 14 and 64 must also provide proof of English or French proficiency, as well as criminal clearances and pass a knowledge test about Canada.

Comments (0)

Immigration detention of children and families must end

Posted on 13 October 2016 by admin

As a psychiatrist who works with children and families, I am not supposed to cry. As a researcher, I strive to engage but remain an observer.

Nevertheless, while sitting across from two parents incarcerated in an immigration holding centre, as they described the agony of being separated from their two young daughters, I felt my throat tighten and tears roll down my cheeks. Their pain filled the small interview room; my job could not insulate me.

The parents told me how they had tried to convince their girls the reason they had not seen them in a month was that the parents were both working overtime. But the Canadian-born children, who were staying with relatives so the girls would not be detained alongside their parents, knew something was wrong and were frightened. They had seen their parents taken away in handcuffs.

“We are never apart,” wept the girls’ mother. The father, defeated and hopeless, told me with shame that he thought of suicide because he could not bear what the family was living through and his feelings of powerlessness.

This was one of hundreds of families who face immigration detention in Canada each year. What happens to young children when their parents are sent to immigration jails? Luckier ones can stay with relatives. Some go into the child welfare system. Others join their parents in detention facilities.

Our research shows all these scenarios have negative consequences for children’s mental health. When separated from their parents, children — who have often lived through war and trauma in their country of origin — deteriorate. Being incarcerated alongside their parents is no better. Some children stop eating, others stop talking, and most have sleep difficulties and show signs of depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic symptoms.

Last month, the International Human Rights Program at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law (IHRP) released a comprehensive report, “No Life for a Child,” on the legal and psychological realities of immigration detention for children and families. The report proposes a way forward for Canada.

Canadians have the opportunity to lead the world, as we have done with our welcome of Syrian refugees, by ending immigration detention of children and families and making sure our own policies do not exacerbate the suffering of those who, in many cases, have already suffered more than most of us can imagine.

Immigration detention is a deeply flawed tool for securing our borders. Evidence shows that community-based alternatives to detention are effective, more fiscally responsible, and far more humane. These alternatives will serve families as well as adults, who, as the IHRP’s 2015 report illustrated, are often caught in a “legal black hole” of indefinite and unnecessary detention.

For these reasons medical, legal and community organizations from across the country endorsed a statement calling for the end of immigration detention of children and families.

The voices endorsing the cessation of this practice include the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Canadian Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists, The Office of the Ontario Child Advocate, the president of the Canadian Bar Association, and many other organizations. Hundreds of individual health care providers, lawyers, and child advocates have also endorsed this statement.

The message is clear: stop detaining children, and protect them from harmful separations from their parents or guardians. As François Crepeau, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants asked last month: “Would I accept that my child be treated thus?”

Most Canadians do not face the prospect that their own children will experience incarceration or damaging family separation. What we do face is the question of whether we will accept it for some children in Canada, inflicted in our name.

A growing chorus of organizations — and health care professionals like me who see the consequences of detention up close — believe it is past time for this practice to stop. We call on the government to move quickly to end immigration detention of children and families to protect them from further harm.

Rachel Kronick is a psychiatrist with the child division at Jewish General Hospital and an assistant professor with the department of psychiatry at McGill University.

Comments (0)

Eyes on this border crossing are 700 kilometres away

Posted on 21 September 2016 by admin

Morses Line is one of those places where the Canada-U.S. border is truly just an artificial stop on a country road.

In the late 1800s, it was a literal line established by a distant government that was crossed by villagers from the province of Quebec and the state of Vermont going about their business, which was mainly farming.

It has developed, but remains today as one of the smallest, most remote of the 117 crossing points along the 5,000-kilometre Canada-U.S. land border— one where populations on both sides share names, blood and a French mother tongue.

But after surviving threats of closure in Washington and absorbing budget cuts ordered by Ottawa, Morses Line has become ground zero for what could be the future of border management.

Where there was once a bucolic, white building welcoming people to Canadian soil and a century house next door that the head agent called home, now there is a state-of-the-art security structure loaded with cameras and defended by a guard located 700 kilometres away in Hamilton.

The Remote Traveller Processing program — a one-year pilot project — has been underway since February but the Canada Border Services Agency already has plans for similar operations at 19 other points-of-entry across the country if the program is deemed a success.

It works much like a high-tech drive-thru. Those seeking to enter Canada at Morses Line enter into a closed garage and park next to a kiosk that allows them to communicate with a border agent, show their passport and even pay duties on alcohol, tobacco or other goods with the swipe of a credit card.

“Are we letting our guard down?” said CBSA spokesperson Dominique McNeely. “The building was designed with enhanced security in mind. There are additional gates, there are many cameras and, compared to other border crossings nearby, there’s much more technology here to secure the border.”

That includes impact-resistant gates, a garage door that doesn’t open unless the border agent is satisfied there is no risk, and plenty of powerful cameras.

“We can see small writing on documents and we can actually zoom in very close and detect any type of signs,” McNeely said. “It’s like your classic interview at the border but it’s done remotely.”

If the agent has doubts, a traveller will be directed to the nearest staffed border crossing, which is 13 kilometres away. If there is something more nefarious, nearby agents are dispatched to conduct a more thorough search.

The potential national program is being tested at Morses Line for very local reasons.

In 2011, the United States Department of Homeland Security proposed the closure of its border post, which was built in 1934, processed about 40 vehicles each day and would cost $5.5 million (U.S.) to modernize.

Around the same time in Ottawa, the cash-strapped Conservative government decided to cut daily operating hours to between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.

On both sides of the boundary, citizens, local politicians and businesses warned about the potential ramifications.

It would split up families and friends, impede first responders who regularly dash across the border to help out with emergencies and imperil the local economy, Saint-Armand Mayor Réal Pelletier told a parliamentary committee in November 2010.

The Morses Line crossing was due for a renovation. The work was extensive and involved demolishing the old structure, digging out a new basement facility for the imposing new superstructure and paving a nearby field for parking and vehicle traffic.

The project was also in line with joint Canada-U.S. border infrastructure plans. An April 2013 document on the subject speaks about equipping such stations with radiation detectors and limiting remote inspection to one side of the border to make sure there are “officers present on the other side, should an incident occur.”

The changes are a bigger problem for Canadian border agents, who could find themselves increasingly going to work in the equivalent of distant call centres far from the physical crossing points if the pilot project is expanded to some of the 75 other posts defined as small and remote points of entry.

Comments (0)

Contractor wanted for surveillance of immigration detainees upon release

Posted on 04 August 2016 by admin

Wanted: An operator who can supervise migrants released from detention.

According to a tender notice posted on a government website by Canada Border Services Agency, the successful bidder must also be able to enforce bail conditions, offer substance abuse programs, provide accommodation and hook up clients with jobs and education.

“The CBSA has been engaged in discussion with stakeholders on program renewal for alternatives to detention,” said CBSA spokeswoman Line Guibert-Wolff. “Our goal is to identify non-government areas of interest and expertise that may be able to provide enhanced alternatives to detention in the form of community-based services and programming.”

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale has been under fire in recent months after a series of deaths of detainees held in immigration custody, including Chilean Francisco Javier Romero Astroga, 39, at Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton; Melkioro Gahungu, 64, a Burundian migrant at Toronto East Detention Centre, and an unnamed 24-year-old man in Edmonton Remand Centre.

More than 50 immigration detainees at Lindsay’s Central East Correctional Centre and Toronto East began a hunger strike on July 11 demanding a meeting with Goodale.

So far, Goodale has refused to hear from the inmates and said his office has been exploring other alternatives to detention and trying to reduce the use of maximum-security jail to hold immigration detainees.

However, he has been mum about the alternatives under consideration and the tender notice provides a glimpse into the minister’s vision.

While critics welcome the alternatives to detention, concerns have been raised over the broadening use of surveillance on migrants without status who are awaiting deportation.

“Though clearly better than detention, electronic monitoring remains an infringement of liberty and privacy. And I hesitate to embrace this alternative when the CBSA remains without independent oversight,” said Toronto lawyer Subodh Bharati, who has represented more than 50 immigration detention cases.

“What mechanisms will safeguard the potential for abuse and overuse, especially since it is easier to implement than detention? How will we ensure that vulnerable persons are not further stigmatized with electronic ankle bracelets currently reserved for criminals on parole?”

The End Immigration Detention Network has been asking Goodale to impose a 90-day limit on immigration detentions and an end to maximum-security imprisonment.

“The only alternative to detentions is freedom,” said Karin Baqi, the advocacy group’s spokeswoman. “Electronic monitoring or bail program assumes that detentions are legally fair and judicially rigorous. They aren’t. Minister Goodale must meet with the detainees now, not allow CBSA to go off and create a private out-of-jail prison system.”

CBSA runs three of its own immigration holding centres in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, but uses provincial jail facilities in the event of an overflow, or if an inmate is a flight risk, poses danger to others, has medical needs or is not likely to be deported anytime soon. On any given day, some 400 migrants are held in detention in Canada, including more than 200 in Ontario jails.

Currently, immigration detention is costing Canadian taxpayers $239 per detainee per day and alternatives to imprisonment will be at a fraction of that cost.

A study by the National Immigration Forum cited the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s own estimates of the alternatives as costing between 70 cents and $17 (U.S.) per person per day compared to the $159 detention cost.

However, critics note that finding an operator to monitor released migrants is a tall order, hence the CBSA had to issue a second procurement notice after an earlier call made in May yielded no results.

The challenge, said Canadian Council for Refugees’ Janet Dench, is securing a service provider that has a national reach as stipulated in the tender, which closes on Friday.

While immigration detainees can currently access the Toronto Bail Program as an alternative, it is only available to those in the GTA and the acceptance rate is low.

“We welcome any alternative to detention, but we are concerned more measures will be used to put constraints on the liberty of migrants, with more reporting requirements, more curfews and surveillance,” Dench said.

Comments (0)


Posted on 21 July 2016 by admin

The Hon. John McCallum, Minister for Immigration, refugees and citizenship had a meeting with all the MPs and stake holders of Brampton and discussed the most relevant issues with view to bring about essential changes as per the promise made by the liberal party of Canada during the election campaign last year.

The minister consulted the stakeholders regarding the number of new comers to be welcomed in 2017 and beyond and how best they can be supported to become successful members of the community. The minister also asked the participants about their views on priorities of stream for Canada’s immigration planning.

He emphasized the point that immigrants do help in bringing jobs, innovation and economic growth. They build many successful businesses and organizations. With aging population across Canada, immigration is a possible solution. He asked the views of participants about the role of immigrants in economic growth and innovation. What is the right balance between attracting global talent for high growth sectors on one hand and ensuring affordable labour for businesses that have historically seen lower growth, on the other hand? There was an active participation both from the members of parliament and the invited stakeholders.

Canada is a destination choice for students and workers from all over the world. There is need to integrate international students and temporary foreign workers who come here to study or work. After their successful innings, they should graduate to be the permanent residents ultimately becoming citizens thereby becoming integral part of the Canadian communities said – “MP Ramesh Sangha for Brampton Centre”.

The minister brought out that success of immigration system depends upon system we use to process the applications and service we provide in 21st century. There is a need for modernizing the system of processing in an efficient way. The minister sought the suggestions on this issue as well as assured the audience that the government working to address all these issues and by end of the year, will definitely come out with the programmes and technology that will meet the requirements of future in efficient ways.

Comments (0)

Couple rejected over South Asian ‘stereotypes’ caught in immigration appeals backlog

Posted on 15 June 2016 by admin

It took immigration officials 27 months to process — and reject — Rehnuma Yusuf’s spousal sponsorship, in part because the visa officer questioned the legitimacy of their marriage, because she is older and a divorcee. Now, the Toronto woman will have to wait 18 more months just to have her appeal heard.

Is it beyond belief that an older divorced South Asian woman could fall in love with a younger man?

Yes — at least in the eyes of one Canadian visa officer who questioned the legitimacy of their marriage and shattered their plans to be together.

In what their lawyer calls a case of cultural bias, Rehnuma Yusuf, 29, and her Bangladeshi husband, Munim Ahsan, 27, are now caught in a bureaucratic nightmare, fighting to reverse an immigration decision to reject their spousal sponsorship application — and facing another unbearable, lengthy wait.

“The officer had this old idea of cultural norms and based the assessment on the stereotypes of how the South Asian culture should work, but not based on the reality,” said lawyer Aadil Mangalji. “We need these prejudicial findings overturned.”

Yusuf, an administrative assistant, met Ahsan, a sound engineer, through relatives while Yusuf was visiting Bangladesh in March 2012. They got married at the end of that year, and she applied to sponsor him to Canada in May 2013.

It took immigration officials 27 months to process and reject Yusuf’s application on the grounds the marriage was not genuine, noting the bride is a divorcee and older than the groom — both presumably “against” the South Asian culture and tradition, according to Mangalji.

Recently, the Toronto woman was told she will have to wait another year and a half just to have her appeal heard at the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), an independent tribunal that reviews these cases and deals with disputes between applicants and immigration officers.

The reason: According to the Immigration and Refugee Board, the number of adjudicators handling such cases fell from 164 to 86 amid immigration reforms introduced in 2012 by the former Conservative government.

“We waited more than two years for a decision on our sponsorship. Now we have to wait 18 months for a hearing. It could take another year even if we win our appeal, and there’s no guarantee we’ll win,” said Yusuf, who came here from Bangladesh with her family when she was 11.

“We have been married for four years but we still haven’t been able to live a married life. It is causing a lot of problems in our relationship. My husband thinks that I’m not working hard enough to get him here.”

According to the IRB, which administers the appeals tribunal, the average processing time for these appeals now stands at 17.8 months nationally — 26.8 months in Eastern Canada, 16.4 in Central Region and 9.4 for British Columbia and the Prairies.

IRB spokesperson Anna Pape said a period of high intake for cases and a reduced number of decision-makers resulted in a growing backlog of unresolved immigration appeals, such as refused sponsorship applications and removal orders, along with an increase in average processing time.

“During this period, the IRB has been dealing with a backlog of refugee claims and had to assign more members to deal with those cases. As a result, there were fewer decision-makers available for assignment to the Immigration Appeal Division,” said Pape.

“The cases the IAD adjudicates have also become more complex. This has caused hearings to take longer than they used to. Wait times in the IAD are too long, but the division is addressing this problem.”

Mitchell Goldberg, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, said the backlog is not just a result of dwindling resources but a conscious political decision not to appoint enough independent adjudicators to fill the tribunal’s capacity.

As of March of this year, there were 10,400 cases in the backlog.

Although the IAD offers alternative dispute resolution to settle cases before a full hearing, Goldberg said it is a “mixed bag” — about 40 to 45 per cent of all appeals are resolved without going to a full hearing.

“Our clients are already separated from their spouses, and sometimes their children, while waiting over two years for their sponsorship processing. They wait to get a hearing for the appeal. Even if an appeal is accepted, they have to wait again for further processing of the sponsorship,” said Goldberg. “It’s just unacceptable.”

The IRB’s Pape said the tribunal would like to cut the processing time to 10 months by reducing the backlog to 7,000 by the end of next year. More adjudicators will be joining the tribunal, she said.

The tribunal will also pilot an “early informal resolution process” and electronic case filing system soon, as new ways of processing appeals, Pape noted.


Comments (0)

Gloomier future seen for Canadian immigration

Posted on 09 June 2016 by admin

With 35 per cent of male newcomers returning home and a growing middle class in developing countries less inclined to migrate, an internal government review is calling the future of Canadian immigration into question.

The report by Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada also points to the challenge of reconfiguring an immigrant-selection system in a rapidly changing labour market where a growing number of jobs are temporary and there’s “increasing mismatch” of available skills and the skills in demand.

“What changes, if any, does Canada want to make to its current ‘managed migration,’ ” asked the 23-page study, titled Medium-Term Policy: Balanced Immigration and stamped “for internal discussion only.” “To what extent is the current overall immigration level appropriate and/or necessary?”

With major changes made in the last decade under the former Conservative government, legal and immigration experts are calling on Immigration Minister John McCallum to have a “national conversation” on the future of Canadian immigration.

“Ottawa must take a step back to do a review of the whole immigration program and reach a national consensus in moving our country forward as a nation-building exercise rather than as an economic imperative,” said Debbie Douglas of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants.

“This is the most thoughtful brief (on Canada immigration) I’ve seen in 10 years,” said Queen’s University immigration law professor Sharry Aiken. “It’s asking all the right questions that are useful starting points for a wide-ranging discussion of the future of our immigration system.”

The internal report, obtained by the Star, also devotes attention to the estimated 2.8 million Canadian citizens — 9 per cent of the population — who live abroad, including a million people in the United States, 300,000 in Hong Kong and 75,000 in the United Kingdom.

Some 35 per cent of male immigrants to Canada return home, many within the first year. Between 1996 and 2006, the annual exit rate for citizens born in Canada was 1.33 per cent compared to 4.5 per cent for naturalized citizens.

“There has been a rather negative view of these expatriate Canadians, as they have been regarded as evidence of ‘brain drain,’ Canada’s lack of competitiveness in retaining high-skilled professionals and business leaders, and our insufficient success in integrating new arrivals,” the report noted. “Canada could choose to take a more proactive stance with expatriates.”

Measures implemented by other countries include: extending voting right to expats, providing non-resident representation in the national legislature, facilitating business and research networks, doing outreach to communities abroad to promote ties as well as creating tax treaties with other countries to facilitate work abroad.

The report also points to the greater emphasis the former Tory government put on selecting economic immigrants based on in-demand occupations in a so-called “project economy” marked by limited length of employment based on the duration of a contract or project.

“This environment makes it a significant challenge to target occupations and industries that are priorities for addressing through immigration,” it said.

While the report forecast does mean potentially lower immigration to Canada in the longer term, University of Toronto professor Jeffrey Reitz said global migration is still driven by “inequality” from poor to rich countries.

Although Ottawa introduced the Express Entry system in 2015 to let employers pick prospective immigrants from a pool of candidates to ensure newcomers are quickly employed, Reitz said the uptake of candidates outside the country has been small.

 “Anything that improves the employment situation contributes to immigrant retention, but there is an aspect of retention in the family class. When you lose your job and you have no family, you move. A support group gives people a reason to stay,” explained Reitz, the director of ethnic, immigration and pluralism studies at U of T.

Hence, the immigration report raised the question over the strict differentiation of “economic” and “social” immigration in the current system, which channels applicants into the skilled and nonskilled streams.

“Regardless of how their application was accepted, immigrants make many contributions to Canadian society; economic migrants make social contributions; social immigrants make economic contributions,” it said.

“Given the somewhat artificial distinction between social and economic immigration, there may be grounds for giving greater weight to ‘non-economic’ criteria and on criteria related to the success of subsequent generations.”

Ryerson University professor John Shields said recent immigrants are caught up in the same “new economy” faced by young Canadians entering the workforce.

“All immigrants including the refugee class contribute to the society economically. They pay dividends economically in five, ten years as integration is a long-term process that can take a lifetime,” said Shields, whose research focuses on labour markets and immigrants.

“Recent immigrants and young Canadians face a different kind of roadblock from those who are already established in Canada. The issue we need to deal with is creating higher quality employment in Canada and educate Canadian employers of the values of one’s work experience from somewhere else.”

McCallum’s office declined to comment on the study but said the immigration minister is committed to improving family reunification, humanitarian efforts, citizenship reforms and creating economic opportunities through immigration.

“The minister is always looking at ways to make the system more fair and compassionate while making improvements to client services,” said Camielle Edwards, McCallum’s spokesperson.

“At the end of the day, the aim is to have an immigration system that contributes to Canada’s overall strength as a country and society.”

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here