Archive for category: IRB

You are here: / IRB

Succès : Demande d’asile acceptée – Persécution politique

/in , , , /by

Chez Clarke Immigration Law (CIL), nous accompagnons des personnes confrontées à des situations extrêmement graves dans leur pays d’origine, notamment des cas de persécution politique, d’arrestations arbitraires et de violences étatiques.

Les demandes d’asile nécessitent une préparation rigoureuse. Les autorités canadiennes examinent attentivement la crédibilité du demandeur, la cohérence du récit ainsi que les éléments de preuve. Sans une présentation solide, plusieurs demandes peuvent être refusées, même lorsque les risques sont réels.

Dans ce dossier, nous avons assisté un ressortissant fortement impliqué dans des activités syndicales et politiques d’opposition, qui faisait face à des risques sérieux pour sa vie. Grâce à une préparation approfondie, nous avons obtenu une décision positive en avril 2026. Nous sommes très heureux d’avoir pu sécuriser la protection de notre client.

CONTEXTE & PERSÉCUTION POLITIQUE

Notre client est un titulaire d’une licence en Gestion Administration. Il a grandi et étudié dans la capitale avant de s’engager activement dans des activités syndicales et politiques.

Les éléments clés de son dossier incluaient :

  • Nomination en tant que délégué des motos-taxis ;
  • Implication active au sein du parti d’opposition depuis mai 2020 ;
  • Rôle central dans la mobilisation, l’organisation de manifestations et la coordination syndicale ;
  • Représentation de plusieurs milliers de travailleurs du secteur des motos-taxis ;
  • Participation à plusieurs manifestations contre le régime en place;
  • Agressions ciblées, incluant des tentatives d’enlèvement et le vol de sa moto (source de revenus) ;
  • Témoignage direct de la mort de collègues militants lors de manifestations ;
  • Arrestations, détentions, tortures et violences policières ;
  • Participation à la manifestation, marquée par une répression extrêmement violente (plus de 200 morts selon plusieurs sources) ;
  • Fuite après une arrestation et vie en clandestinité ;
  • Incapacité des autorités à assurer sa protection, celles-ci étant impliquées dans les persécutions.

Notre client était clairement identifié comme un opposant actif et visible, ce qui augmentait considérablement le risque de persécution en cas de retour.

COMMENT NOUS AVONS AIDÉ – PRÉPARATION DU DOSSIER D’ASILE

Chaque client chez Clarke Immigration Law bénéficie du soutien d’une équipe expérimentée. Dans ce dossier, nous avons accompagné le client à chaque étape de sa demande d’asile.

Notre intervention comprenait :

  • Une analyse approfondie de son profil politique et des risques ;
  • La rédaction d’un récit détaillé, structuré et cohérent ;
  • La mise en évidence des persécutions subies et du ciblage personnel ;
  • L’explication des événements majeurs, notamment la répression d’octobre 2022 ;
  • La documentation du contexte politique et des violations des droits humains au Tchad ;
  • La préparation du client en vue de son audience devant la Section de la protection des réfugiés.

Dans les demandes d’asile, la crédibilité est essentielle. Il est crucial de répondre clairement aux préoccupations potentielles et de présenter un dossier complet.

CHRONOLOGIE

  • Mai 2020 – Intégration au parti d’opposition
  • Avril 2021 – Décès du président et début d’une instabilité politique accrue
  • Novembre 2021 – Nomination comme délégué des motos-taxis et agression avec vol de la moto
  • Janvier 2022 – Participation à des manifestations politiques
  • Mai 2022 – Manifestations et tensions accrues
  • Juillet 2022 – Tentative d’enlèvement après une manifestation
  • Août 2022 – Violences lors de manifestations, décès de collègues militants
  • Octobre 2022 – Manifestation violemment réprimée et arrestation et fuite lors du transfert vers la prison
  • Novembre 2022 – Vie en clandestinité
  • Début 2023 – Fuite avec assistance
  • Décembre 2023 – Consultation avec CIL et rétention des services
  • Septembre 2025 – Audience initialement prévue mais reprogrammée
  • Mars 2026 – Audience tenue
  • Avril 2026 – Décision positive (asile accordé)

RÉSULTAT & IMPACT

La demande d’asile a été acceptée, reconnaissant que notre client faisait face à un risque sérieux de persécution en raison de ses activités politiques et de son profil public.

Ce résultat lui permet :

  • De vivre en sécurité au Canada ;
  • D’échapper aux menaces graves dans son pays d’origine ;
  • De reconstruire sa vie dans un environnement stable ;
  • D’exercer ses libertés fondamentales.

Notre client a exprimé un immense soulagement après cette décision.

POINTS CLÉS DU SUCCÈS

CIL a obtenu ce résultat grâce à :

  • Un récit crédible, détaillé et cohérent ;
  • Une démonstration claire du risque personnel et ciblé ;
  • Une contextualisation des violations des droits humains ;
  • Une préparation rigoureuse pour l’audience.

À RETENIR

Chaque demande d’asile est unique et évaluée selon ses propres faits.

Chez CIL, nous assistons les clients dans des dossiers complexes incluant la persécution politique, les arrestations arbitraires et les risques graves en cas de retour.

Une préparation sérieuse et une présentation structurée peuvent faire toute la différence dans l’issue d’un dossier.

Les résultats dépendent toujours des faits propres à chaque situation et des critères établis par les autorités canadiennes.

Succès : Demande d’asile acceptée – l’article 1F(a)

/in , , , /by

Le parcours de notre client illustre à quel point une vie peut basculer en quelques semaines, et comment un dossier bien préparé peut faire toute la différence. Ce demandeur, ancien lieutenant technicien au sein des forces aériennes, a été placé au cœur d’un conflit de pouvoir qui aurait pu lui coûter la vie.

Grâce à une préparation rigoureuse et à la présentation structurée des faits et des preuves, la Section de la protection des réfugiés a rendu une décision positive en 2025.

Un militaire pris malgré lui dans un conflit dangereux.

À son arrivée dans les forces aériennes, notre client occupait un poste strictement technique. Il assurait l’entretien d’aéronefs utilisés par l’armée. Son service a été relativement court et ne comportait aucune participation à des opérations offensives ou à des actes contraires au droit international. Ses activités militaires ont soulevé une question complexe au sens de l’article 1F et ont ajouté une difficulté supplémentaire à sa demande d’asile.

Sa vie a basculé lorsqu’un membre de sa famille a été agressé par un officier étroitement lié au régime en place. Lorsque la famille a exigé justice, cet officier a été brièvement arrêté, mais libéré rapidement et blanchi de toute accusation.

MENACES DE MORT ET FUITE HORS DU PAYS

En tentant de rassembler des documents pour appuyer une procédure devant la cour martiale, notre client est devenu une cible directe. L’officier impliqué dans l’agression lui a adressé des menaces de mort explicites.

Ne pouvant compter ni sur la protection de son unité ni sur des autorités compromises, il a dû se cacher, changer de lieux fréquemment, puis organiser son départ du pays grâce à des contacts de confiance au sein de l’armée.

Dès son arrivée au Canada, il a présenté une demande d’asile.

ALLÉGATION D’EXCLUSION 1F(A) – UNE ANALYSE MINUTIEUSE

Ce dossier comportait une complexité importante : une possible exclusion en vertu de l’article 1F(a) de la Convention, disposition qui peut empêcher la reconnaissance du statut de réfugié en cas de participation à des crimes internationaux.

Après  examen approfondi, la Section de la protection des réfugiés a conclu qu’aucun élément ne démontrait que notre client avait participé, directement ou indirectement, à des actes répréhensibles.

Les facteurs déterminants :D’EXCLUSION 1F(A)

Rôle strictement technique dans l’entretien des avions, absence d’autorité décisionnelle, service de courte durée, absence de participation ou de contribution significative à des opérations pouvant contrevenir au droit international

Cette analyse a permis d’écarter toute possibilité d’exclusion.

NOTRE INTERVENTION & SÉQUENCE DES ÉVÈNEMENTS :

Notre cabinet a travaillé étroitement avec le client pendant plusieurs mois afin de :

  • Organiser une version détaillée, cohérente et chronologique des événements
  • Recueillir et présenter des pièces justificatives cruciales
  • Obtenir des lettres de soutien confirmant les faits et le contexte familial
  • Démontrer la cohérence globale du récit et la crédibilité du demandeur
  • Les documents liés à l’incident familial, les menaces reçues, ainsi que les explications relatives à ses fonctions militaires ont été essentiels pour établir le risque réel et personnel en cas de retour.

Voici un résumé des principaux événements qui ont abouti à une décision positive :

2023/SEPT – Le client entre au Canada et dépose immédiatement sa demande d’asile.

2023/OCT– Premier contact avec notre client pour une consultation

2023/NOV– Notre client a retenu nos services et l’équipe CIL a commencé à travailler étroitement avec lui afin de réunir tous les documents et éléments de preuve nécessaires pour constituer un dossier solide pour sa demande d’asile.

2023/ 2024/2025 – Collaborer avec le client pour obtenir, rédiger et envoyer les épreuves. Soumission du dossier avec preuves et lettres de support.

2025/OCT – Audience

2025/OCT – Décision positive.

Nous sommes heureux d’avoir obtenu une issue favorable pour ce demandeur et de lui avoir permis d’avancer vers une vie plus sécurisée.

* Cet article a été écrit par Ghislene Mezili. Bon travail !

 

 

CBA Conference: Updates from IRCC

/in , , , , , , , , /by

As noted, Alastair Clarke moderated a session at the CBA National Immigration Conference in Victoria, BC. The conference hosted more than 600 immigration lawyers and it was sold out. For certain sessions, the rooms were packed, standing room only. This is an indication of the many changes at IRCC, at CBSA and at the IRB. Many rules have changed. Many policies have expired or been amended. We welcomed Officers from many different programs who provided updates on the changes and they provided tips for professionals.

We cannot provide all the information from the multi-day conference. Each session was extremely focused and we covered many different scenarios. During the conference, Alastair Clarke was able to speak with IRCC Managers at different programs to provide guidance for our clients.

Here are a few key points from various areas of immigration and refugee law:

Changes to Study Permits

  • IRCC has made many changes to Study Permits and these changes have had a significant impact on int’l students as well as DLIs
  • IRCC is focused on reducing the population of temporary residents to below 5% of the population in Canada
  • Int’l students who change DLIs must submit a new SP from inside Canada
  • Study Permits will continue to be DLI specific based on changes in 2024 and Study Permits that include regions (eg. “Any DLI – MB”) are affected by the changes
  • IRCC will continue with the PAL system

Changes to Work Permits

Humanitarian and Compassionate applications

AI Tools and AI-Generated Content

  • IRCC Officers repeated that AI is not making final decisions on applications
  • The Federal Court provided guidance to counsel on the use of ChatGPT and other AI tools
  • NOTE: At CIL, we do not use AI tools, including ChatGPT, at our office

Refugee Claims

  • IRCC is focused on reducing access to the RPD
  • The Strong Borders Act may ban international students who have been in Canada for more than one (1) year from filing a refugee claim
  • There is a significant and growing backlog of cases at the RPD and all regions are affected
  • IRCC did not expect to see such a large increase in refugee claims made by international students

Inadmissibility and Misrepresentation

  • IRCC has seen a significant increase in misrepresentation (A40) and they have issued many PFLs
  • IRCC is sharing information with the USA and other members of the Five Eyes alliance to catch applicants who are not honest

There were many other topics covered at the conference, including LMIA applications, criminality issues, detention reviews and advocacy. We will use all the information covered to benefit our clients and help them navigate our complex system.

Success: Warning Letter

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Everyone makes mistakes. In some cases, we deal with situations where our client has made a serious mistake or many mistakes. In other cases, our client has made a minor mistake. In these types of situations, depending on the mistake and the consequences, it may go to an IRCC Officer or a CBSA Officer to review. These Officers have broad discretionary powers to take various types of action against the individual. In some cases, the entire family may be punished. In other cases, the individual may simply get a warning.

Today, we will share a case that involved a mistake by our client that occurred many years ago. She used a shady agent to apply for a Study Permit to Canada based on fraudulent financial documents. The shady agent did not tell her that he added these fraudulent documents to her application. She had no idea. She never got a copy of the package. She didn’t ask questions. She trusted the agent. And she got her Study Permit.

Based on the work of the shady agent, our client got the Study Permit and came to Canada. She finished her studies and she got her PGWP. She was successful with her studies and her career. She got married and had children. She was granted PR status. Everything was going smoothly and, even after many years, she had no idea that the actions of that shady agent may come back to bite.

CBSA caught the shady agent and reviewed all his past applications – going back years. They launched an investigation into many applications and contacted our client regarding her past Study Permit. During an interview with a CBSA Officer in July 2023, our client was served with an A44 Report based on allegations of misrepresentation. The Officer explained Section 40(1)(a) (Misrepretation) of IRPA:

Misrepresentation

40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation

    • (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;

As you can read from the above, Section 40(1)(a) (Misrepretation) of IRPA is extremely broad and it may include any mistakes made by a shady agent. The potential punishment for a person who has violated A40 of IRPA:

(2) The following provisions govern subsection (1):

  • (a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of five years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1) or, in the case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced

This means that our client was at risk of losing her PR status, being removed from Canada, being banned from Canada for 5 years and being separated from her family in Winnipeg. Very serious consequences.

She immediately came to CIL for help. Over a 3 month period, we were in contact with the CBSA Officer. We reviewed her documents. We researched the shady agent. We prepared her defence, with reference to relevant caselaw from Federal Court.

In the end, our client got a “warning letter”. You can see a redacted version of this document. This was the best possible result. Our client’s PR status is no longer at risk. She clearly regrets using a shady agent to do her Study Permit. She now knows that was a big mistake. The Officer accepted her explanation and he accepted that her regret is genuine. The agent has been punished.

I wish I could tell you that these cases are rare. They are not. I cannot even count the number of A44 Reports that we have dealt with over the years. Individuals may get a A44 Report for any of the IRPA sections for inadmissibility. Typically, we look at sections 33 through 43 of IRPA in these types of cases. The most common sections that we deal with are misrepresentation (A40), medical inadmissibility (A38), and criminal inadmissibility (A36). 

In every case, we want to give our client the best chance at a warning letter. If the Officer is not satisfied, then the case is referred to the tribunal for an Admissibility Hearing. They can then give testimony and call witnesses. This can take a lot of work and it can be costly – both in terms of money and stress. In certain cases, the individual may appeal to the IAD for an appeal. Finally, if the IAD is not available for an appeal, we may have to go to Federal Court to fight for our clients. 

CIL has handled all the situations noted above, many times. If you are dealing with this type of situation, give us a call and we will do our best to guide you through the process. 

MB Legal Aid

/in , , , , , , , /by

CIL WILL NOT ACCEPT MORE LEGAL AID – UNTIL THINGS CHANGE

We regret to announce that CIL has made the difficult decision to not accept any more legal aid certificates for the foreseeable future. We do not take this action lightly. We know that many clients will be disappointed. Clients regularly come to us as they have heard we are the best. They have been told to come seek our help. Communities rely on our services. Unfortunately, Legal Aid Manitoba (LAM) has failed to provide sufficient compensation for this work, despite increasing fees for other areas of law. This is simply not fair so we have been compelled to make this difficult decision.

WHY ARE WE SUSPENDING LEGAL AID?

In Oct 2022, the Government of Manitoba increased LAM tariffs for Criminal Law matters. They increased tariffs for Family Law matters. Increase for Immigration? No. Increase for Refugees? ZERO. Clearly, LAM considered the tariffs and decided they were too low. They decided to increase the moneys paid for many legal matters and made the decision not to increase tariffs for immigration and refugee matters. Is this fair?

Mr Clarke has spoken to the management at LAM and they have repeatedly promised to make things fair. We have been patient for more than 1 year. They have failed to act on their promises. Inflation has been increasing our costs of doing business. Workers are getting 9.5% wage increases. 

Based on the MB Legal Aid website, the maximum fees for a refugee hearing (from start to finish) is CAD $1,315. That is the maximum. It is extremely low. If a lawyer has a complex case, they can request a “discretionary increase”. That request goes to a committee and they review the work. How many requests for a “discretionary increase” (DI) are approved? At CIL, we have submitted many DI requests over the years and they have ALL been denied by LAM. This means that CIL is paid at a low rate for some work, and not paid at all for any additional work that may be required.

The only conclusion is that the current model is not sustainable. If we continue to accept LAM clients at unfair rates, we are supporting and condoning an unfair system.

BACKGROUND

We love helping our clients. Families. Workers. Students. Business Owners. Corporations. Refugees. We serve all our clients equally, regardless of their background. Access to justice is one of our motivating principles. We know that legal fees can be expensive so we offer payment plans. We also know that, in some cases, even our payment plans are outside the means of certain clients. Every year, we spend many hours doing pro bono work for clients and we regularly offer additional services at no additional charges. Unlike the vast majority of law firms, we publish our fees online for anyone, in any country, to review so they can make an informed decision. We have published detailed explanations regarding our one-time Administrative Fee and we have been regularly audited by the Law Society. We love the fact that we have helped so many clients win at the RPD, win at the IAD, win at Federal Court, and we have helped so many clients come to Canada as students or workers or as separated family members.

CIL is a business. We have to keep the lights on. We have to pay our bills. We have to pay salaries and bonuses to Team Members. We do not receive any grants or funding from either the provincial government or the federal government. We rely on fees paid for our work – 100%.

In Manitoba, there are 2 potential sources of fees: 1. Clients; or 2. Legal Aid Manitoba. Most law firms in Manitoba do not accept legal aid certificates. When Alastair Clarke founded CIL many years ago, a senior lawyer said:

“My best advice is to not accept legal aid. If you do, you will not be able to feed your family.”

Mr Clarke did not take that advice. CIL has accepted legal aid certificates every year and we are actively involved with the legal aid community. Mr Clarke has also been volunteering for many years at the Legal Help Centre to provide free legal advice on immigration matters.

After many years of practice, it is clear that refugees are good for Manitoba. They pay taxes. They perform valuable work during a labour shortage. Based on research from the University of Manitoba, they are a net positive for our economy, notwithstanding the fact that helping refugees is the right thing to do.

CARL WILL NOT HELP

In 2022, Mr Clarke had a meeting with lawyers in Ontario and other provinces to discuss legal aid. The meeting was organized by the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL). We talked about calling on the Federal Government to establish a nationwide plan and, in the end, we could not agree on a unified message. Why? One of the reasons is that Legal Aid Ontario pays lawyers much more than other provinces. In addition, unlike Manitoba, the Ontario government has recognized the importance of refugee protection so their fees increased in 2023 and they will increase again in 2024 and again in 2025. 

The refugee lawyers in Ontario do not want to risk those tariffs coming down to match the tariffs paid by Legal Aid Manitoba. This makes sense. I certainly would not want to negatively impact my colleagues in Ontario based on the lack of fairness in Manitoba.

WHAT ARE FAIR RATES?

This is a tough question. Mr Clarke regularly lets his staff know that we are in the business of saving lives. There is no price tag on that service. The average doctor in Manitoba is paid $310k for their work. Is that a fair comparison? No, not really. We want to be fair. We want to be just. We currently charge a minimum of $3,500 to assist with a refugee claim from start to finish. These procedures generally take 12 to 18 months and we work with the claimant, supporters, witnesses and members of the community to prepare the case. We need to spend enough time on each and every file to make sure our clients have the best chance at success.

Clearly, the LAM tariff of CAD $1,315 is not fair.

A Canadian law firm in Ontario charges CAD $11,250.00 for a refugee claim and hearing (minimum). I am not including a link to that law firm as I do not want to give them any web traffic. In my view, charging CAD $11,250.00 for a refugee claim is outrageous and not fair to the claimant.

 

Most people would agree the above rates are too high. Charging CAD $11,250.00 is not defensable, although I did not contact that law firm to see what justification, if any, they have for such high fees.

Our fees start at CAD $3,500 and most of our refugee claimants on private retainers pay that amount. We have not raised our fees for refugee claims since 2015. In 2020, we did a review of our fees and we noticed that law firms in Canada were raising their fees. We made the decision not to raise ours because of clients were suffering. 

 

Canadian Lawyer Magazine published the 2020 Legal Fees Survey online. Legal fees in 2021 went up. Here are the numbers for 2021. Average fees for a refugee claim in Ontario in 2021 was $5,000, for example. Based on our research, they did not publish fees for 2022 or 2023.

Based on the above, we know that we could charge more than $3,500 per claim. I know that our services are among the best in Canada. Since David Matas decided to limit his practice, Alastair Clarke is arguably the most experienced refugee lawyer in Manitoba. He was contracted by Kinbrace in BC as the Canadian expert in refugee law to oversee and draft the guide from refugee claimants across Canada. In 2023, he accepted a position as an IRB Representative for the Canadian Bar Association (CBA). Currently, he has more than 50 hearings scheduled at the RPD and he is booked until Spring 2024. Do we want to raise our fees? No.

$1,315? $3,500? $5,000? $5,750? $11,250? What is fair?

Based on 15 years of practice, I believe $3,500 CAD is fair for a refugee lawyer to charge to represent a refugee claimant at the RPD. To be frank, this should be the minimum for this type of work. I can understand how refugee lawyers in Ontario charge $5,000 and how the average fees across Western Canada is $5,750.

Alastair Clarke recently spoke with a junior immigration lawyer who is starting out. She asked about different areas of practice and LAM. Mr Clarke described the work involved and let her know that LAM pays $1,315 for this work. Her reply:

That’s it? Are you joking? How could I feed my kids? No, that can’t be right.

She is correct. It is not right. It is not fair.

THE LAST STRAW

As you have read from the above, this has been an issue that has been burning for a long time. What prompted this decision? I can share this story. In NOV 2023, we accepted a LAM to accept a family from Turkey. They have truly suffered, although this is not straightforward situation as they are relying on “generalized risk”, which is difficult in the context of a A96/ A97 determination. Regardless, we accepted the LAM file. Then we learned that the sister of the principal claimant is a physician in Manitoba. She is getting paid CAD +$300,000.00 by the Government of Manitoba to provide health care to residents in Manitoba. Could she support her brother and his family? Yes. Is she? No. She helped them apply to LAM.  It could be said that she expects to get paid CAD +$300,000.00 by the Government of Manitoba to save lives but she does not want to pay anything for us to save her brother’s life. That was the last straw.

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

We are calling on the Government of Manitoba to match the tariffs paid by the Government of Ontario for refugee services. That is all. A refugee lawyer in Kenora, ON should be paid the same as a refugee lawyer in Winnipeg. If that happens, we will accept more work from LAM

WHAT HAPPENS IF LAM FAILS TO ACT?

We will continue to represent refugee claimants on private contracts. Our fees are published online. Based on the above, I hope you agree that our fees are fair. Our clients are on payment plans. We do our best to be as flexible as possible. If you need help, we would love to work with you.

Success: Admissibility Hearing @ Immigration Division

/in , , , , , , /by

Clients come to CIL for all types of situations. We help clients apply for Passports. We help them apply for Police Clearance Certificates and Work Permit. We handle many applications for temporary status. Typically, those files are, relatively straightforward and the work is predictable. Then, there are complex, messy cases that take turn after turn. This was one of the latter cases.

Our client came to us more than one (1) year ago, after his Post Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) was refused. As you may have read from our Google Reviews, we have been successful with many international students who have had their PGWP refused and we were able to get them back on track to PR status. At the beginning, we thought that was one of those cases. We did the PGWP and Restoration application. Soon thereafter, CBSA got involved and the situation became serious. CBSA made the determination that our client was inadmissible based on A38 – Medical Inadmissibility:

  • 38 (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition

    • (a) is likely to be a danger to public health;

    • (b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or

    • (c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.

In legal terms, we call the above test the “excessive demand” test. At that time, we got the disclosure package from CBSA and we knew this was going to be a tough case.

At the same time, our client let us know that he got married to a Canadian citizen. They had been living together and they seemed to have a genuine relationship but they were reluctant to get legally married with everything going on. They decided to make their commitment to each other, to try to ensure that our client would not be removed/ deported from Canada.

We then assisted them with an SCLPC Class application and submitted the package to IRCC. As per above, CBSA has already referred our client to the IRB based on A38 – Medical Inadmissibility. So our job was to give the IRCC Officer as much time as possible to make a decision on the SCLPC Class application. We needed to ensure our client was not removed from Canada. SUCCESS! We got a positive decision from the Immigration Division!

We have provided a rough timeline of events below. I want to give credit to Naomi for spending hours (upon hours, upon hours) on this file, making sure the client and his family understood every step.

Date Action

 
1 SEP 2022 Client met Alastair for consultation regarding PGWP refusal

 
8 SEP 2022 Client retained our services for PGWP and Restoration

 
12 OCT 2022 Our office submitted application for PGWP and Restoration

 
2 NOV 2022 Client met Alastair for consultation regarding Admissibility Hearing and Spousal application

 
21 NOV 2022 Client retained our services for Spousal application

 
6 DEC 2022 Client retained our services to post-pone and represent Admissibility hearing scheduled for 19 DEC 2022

 
7 DEC 2022 Our office submitted a request to the ID to post-pone client’s admissibility hearing

 
7 DEC 2022 The ID responded with alternative Hearing dates and we re-scheduled for 8 FEB 2023 @ 11:00 am CST

 
23 JAN 2023 Submitted SCLPC application

 
8 FEB 2023 Admissibility postponed to 25 APR 2023 @ 10:30 AM due to not having enough time for witnesses

 
21 FEB 2023 IRCC provided temporary application number for SCLPC application

 
1 MAR 2023 IRCC sent Medical Examination instructions

 
28 MAR 2023 IRCC sent a letter confirming Sponsor meets the eligibility requirements as a Sponsor

 
5 APR 2023 IRCC sent a letter about reassessing clients eligibility requirements

 
12 APR 2023 Our office submitted a webform to IRCC to put PR application on hold

 
14 APRIL 2023 IRCC sent a letter confirming PGWP and restoration application was transferred to IRCC office in Edmonton

 
25 APR 2023 Admissibility hearing postponed due to member availability

 
13 JUN 2023 ID reached out to our office to re-scheduled Admissibility Hearing for 11 SEP 2023 @ 10:30 CDT

 
29 JUN 2023 IRCC sent a letter confirming client meets eligibility requirements as a Principal Applicant but still needs to pass the medical, security and background checks to become a PR

 
6 JUL 2023 IRCC sent a letter to confirm his PR application is being transferred to the IRCC office in Etobicoke for further assessment

 
8 AUG 2023 IRCC refused clients PGWP and Restoration application

 
9 AUG 2023 Client retained us to submit a Spousal Open Work Permit based on SCLPC application in process

 
10 AUG 2023 Our office submitted Spousal Open Work Permit via the Representative Portal

 
11 SEP 2023 Date of Admissibility Hearing

 

Our office and the ID did not know if client is a member of the Family class and resumption of Admissibility Hearing was scheduled for 2 NOV 2023

 
20 SEP 2023 Our office submitted a webform requesting if client has been determined to be a member of the Family Class

 
3 OCT 2023 Our office sent an email to CBSA requesting if they know if client has been determined to be a member of the Family Class
5 OCT 2023 CBSA provided GCMS notes and let us know that he sent 2 emails to IRCC

 
5 OCT 2023 Our office provided a copy of the SCLPC and OWP application to the ID and CBSA for their consideration by email and portal

 
19 OCT 2023 Our webform that was submitted on 20 SEP 2023 was added to the file

 
19 OCT 2023 Clients received a cold call from IRCC – Interview regarding genuine marriage

 
26 OCT 2023 Received VERY GOOD NEWS! IRCC Officer provided confirmation that client is a member of the Family Class

 

Success: IAD appeal

/in , , , , , /by

Parents are so important to many families in Canada. Our clients pay their taxes, they work hard to make Canada a better place and they would like to be here with their parents. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to sponsor parents to come to Canada. Many of these applications are refused for many reasons, including the minimum necessary income requirement, medical requirements, or other elements to this application. Thankfully, we have won many, many cases at the IAD. We love appeals.

Visa Officers around the world scrutinize these applications. They may refuse an application based on minor mistakes. Many sponsors try to do the applications by themselves and they may get refusals. The IRCC refusal can be stressful for the family. They have already waited for a long time and the decision can be a shock.

In this case, our client has been trying to sponsor his parents. He has been working 3 jobs to bring up his income. As you may be aware, Visa Officers are focused on line 150 from the CRA Notices of Assessment. Every year, the MNI calculation changes, depending on the macroeconomic situation of residents in Canada. Our client’s application was refused and he came to us for help.

We were retained to help. We reviewed the application and GCMS notes. We redid many key parts of the application. We negotiated with Minister’s Counsel who defended the Officer’s decision. In the end, our appeal was allowed.

As you can see from the decision, the IAD was able to make its decision “IN CHAMBERS”. This means that we did not have an IAD hearing for this case. We were able to get a positive decision for our clients without oral evidence.

Our fees are based on the work involved, so our client’s fees for this case were very low. We did not charge for the testimony preparation or for the oral hearing. This makes sense, of course, but there are many lawyers out there who will charge exorbitant fees that are not based on the work they have actually done.

Success: IAD Appeal

/in , , , , , /by

I could have opted for many titles to this post. I could have written, “Success: Study Permit” or “Success: Spousal Sponsorship” or “Success: LMIA” or “Success: PGWP”. All these titles would have been accurate and worthy of publishing. We have previously posted past successful decisions of these types. We have been extremely busy at CIL and we have had many positive decisions to end 2022. As you may know, the team at CIL are the best immigration professionals in Manitoba (possibly Canada) and we have been busy trying to help our clients.

We may provide details on the positive LMIA application at a later date. We may also provide details on the Study Permit. That client had previous refusals and she is a mature student who is not a typical Study Permit applicant; however, our package addressed the issues and followed the CIL principles to success.

The basic facts of the IAD appeal:

  • Sponsor was convicted in Canada in 2018.
  • Sponsor submitted Spousal Sponsorship application for his wife in 2019.
  • Visa Officer expressed concerns re R133 in a PFL in 2019.
  • Sponsor retained CIL to reply to PFL and, if refused, appeal to IAD.
  • As expected, PR application was refused and we submitted Notice of Appeal.
  • CIL prepared and submitted +400 pages of evidence to the IAD.
  • Minister’s Counsel objected to our arguments and defended Visa Officer’s refusal.
  • On 14 SEPT 2022, CIL called 6 witnesses and provided extensive legal submissions.
  • In a decision dated 11 DEC 2022, IAD Member Daniel Tucci agreed with our arguments and granted the appeal.

Our clients are extremely happy, of course. We have many reasons to celebrate. I have often opined that Canadian citizens with criminal convictions should be allowed to sponsor their family members if they have properly served their time in prison. Criminal proceedings should remain in the criminal courts. Immigration proceedings are separate and apart. If the Sentencing Judge (on the criminal side) believed the sentence was not sufficiently punitive, that judge had the power to amend the sentence. Once that sentence has been ordered, however, the individual should not face additional repercussions. They should not be separated from family members. They need to be able to move on and learn from their past mistake(s).

I have to be honest. I was quite worried that IAD Member Tucci was going to refuse our appeal. Minister’s Counsel was extremely unsympathetic to our client’s situation. In past IAD appeals, Minister’s Counsel has been more agreeable to our legal arguments and the family’s circumstances. During the hearing Member Tucci asked many questions of the Sponsor, the Applicant and all the witnesses. He was actively engaged in the proceedings. Based on his questions, it was not clear whether he was sympathetic to the separation of this family.

In more than 15 years of IAD appeals, I have still not yet lost an appeal. I know that I will eventually lose an appeal. I do not know whether this refusal will be in 2023, 2024 or 2030. We will continue to fight for our clients.

The IAD has just announced changes to the IAD Rules. We are currently reviewing the changes and we may be reporting our thoughts in this space.

Refugee Lab: 2021 Refusal Rates

/in , , /by

Professor Rehaag and his team at the Refugee Law Laboratory have published the refusal and approval rates from the IRB, based on decisions in 2021. This research and data is a huge benefit for both individual refugee claimants and representatives. This data represents decisions across Canada and it breaks down decisions by individual RPD Members (judges) as well as by countries of origin. We have used this data for years to gauge how adjudicators compare and to see how approval rates may change from year to year and from country to country.

The Refugee Law Laboratory is a huge project. I had dinner with Sean Rehaag when he came to Winnipeg to discuss his research. As an aside, he is a great guy and he is extremely passionate about transparency and consistency in the legal system.

Prof Rehaag notes:

As usual, there is lots of variation in recognition rates. At the RPD, the recognition rate range is from 0% (D Mungovan) to 100% (K. Bugby, D. Coyne & H Savageincluding). And at the RAD, the appeal allowal rate range is from 1.1% (L. Mokhtar) to 71.7% (J. Corry).

To be clear, a 0% recognition rate at the RPD means the decision maker refused every case heard by that person. Every refugee claimant who appeared before RPD Member Mungavan was denied. We do not want to single out any particular adjudicator; however, this data paints a compelling picture and raises serious questions. RPD Member Mungavan heard more than 30 refugee claims from countries including Iran, Nigeria and Colombia. He refused every claim.

In contrast, the refugee claimants who were lucky (and, I hesitate to use “luck” as it relates to such a serious matter; however, in this case, the selection of the RPB Member with the claimant is pure luck, as far as I am aware) may have had their claims decided by a different RPD and they would have had a much better chance as a positive decision. Based on the data, that is a fact.

In the future, Prof Rehaag and his team will be making this information easily searchable and available:

Also, I am excited to report that my Refugee Law Lab will soon be launching a web portal to share this sort of data in a more accessible format with better visualizations – and the portal will have constantly updated Federal Court data as well. If you’d like to see what the RPD portion of the portal currently looks like (and if you have any feedback for us), you can check out a video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNF4Sv8qlzw

As you can see from above, this future project/ portal is designed for the public, not only lawyers and trained legal professionals. The YouTube video provides a guide to how we will be able to find decisions from different countries of origin and from different RPD Members.

We look forward to using the web portal at the Refugee Law Lab as soon as it becomes available.

Success: Tribunal appeal

/in , , , /by

Tribunal appeals are entirely dependent on the facts and the decison under review. We have handled appeals where the Officer or Decision-Maker has clearly made a mistake in law and/or fact. In some cases, we need to fix a mistake made by the tribunal. These cases still require significant work to lay out all the issues in a clear and concise manner for the appeal to succeed; however, these have a good chance at success. Other cases are more complex and when we submit our package for the appeal, we cross our fingers and hope that our arguments are strong enough for a positive decision. This case fell in the latter category and we are very pleased to report our tribunal appeal was granted.tribunal appeal

Tribunal Appeal to the RAD

The RAD deals with decisions made by the RPD. In this case, we represented this family at the RPD and their claim for protection was refused. Based on the documentation and testimony at the tribunal, this was a complex case; however, in my view, they met the definition per section 96 or 97 of IRPA. The RPD Member disagreed and refused their claim.

We submitted significant legal arguments to the RAD and we were successful upon appeal. In the decision, the RAD Member Jennifer Moore clearly agreed with our arguments:

[15] The Appellants argue that the RPD misinterpreted the evidence about adoption in Igbo culture, and that it failed to sufficiently consider the actual risk faced by the Appellants based on their particular circumstances. I agree and find that the suggestion made by the RPD, that the Appellants could simply adopt a child from one of their siblings to be confusing and is not supported by any of the evidence. Even if a sibling was prepared to supply a child, the Appellants provided evidence that adopted children are not considered the same as biological children in Igbo culture.

The decision by the RAD is extremely detailed and analyses the country condition evidence as well as the documents and testimony for this particular case.

Alastair Clarke has appeared before the tribunal hundreds of times over the past 13 years. He has also given numerous training sessions for lawyers and advocates. Of note, the IRB has made requests for Mr. Clarke to give advice to lawyers in Manitoba to raise the level of representation in our province. He has also presented alongside representatives from UNHCR to give training to lawyers. Tribunal appeal work is not easy; however, positive results are extremely rewarding.

When we told our clients of the RAD decision, they screamed with joy. We are happy to help.