He’s been in Canada for 27 years. Now a former refugee faces deportation over trips back home

Well, if you have gone back repeatedly to your country of origin, hard to claim still being a refugee. Time should count less than behaviour:

…An obvious response is that permanent residence is not citizenship. Legally, that distinction matters. Permanent residence can be lost on statutory grounds that generally do not apply to Canadian citizenship.

Yet that does not make time irrelevant. One year of residence compared to 27 years of residence may be connected to the same immigration status, but they’re not socially or emotionally equivalent. Over decades, people become embedded in families, communities and workplaces in ways immigration categories alone cannot capture.

Slepcsik’s case is also striking because some of the conduct considered in the reavailment analysis involved family obligations. A journey undertaken to care for an injured sibling or attend a funeral can become part of the evidence considered under refugee law, while the person making that journey may understand it primarily as an obligation to someone they love.

Migration does not require people to stop caring about where they came from in order to become attached to somewhere new. People can sustain relationships and responsibilities across borders.

None of this means permanent residence should be treated as citizenship, or that the conditions attached to refugee protection should cease to matter with time. But when legal rules point one way and nearly 30 years of work, family and attachment point another, what weight should each carry?

Slepcsik’s case does not provide an easy answer. It asks something more basic: when immigration law decides whether someone may remain after decades of residence, how much should time count?

Source: He’s been in Canada for 27 years. Now a former refugee faces deportation over trips back home

Ottawa ends permanent residency exemption for refugees with undeclared family

Of note (H&C approval rates are about 50 percent according to latest public data):

…A department spokesperson said in an emailed response that affected people can now apply instead for an exemption on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. The spokesperson said this is an “appropriate” way to provide accommodations that ensures the integrity of the immigration system.

The policy was last extended in September 2023. A memo drafted for the immigration minister at the time said about 2,000 applications had been received and that there was “minimal risk” to program integrity. The memo reported a 90 per cent approval rate.

Most of the applications received over the first two years of the policy found family members were not declared “through no fault of the clients,” according to the memo.

Jamie Liew, a University of Ottawa law professor, co-authored a 2017 study on the gaps that existed before the exemption was created. She said the end of the policy came as a shock and she was under the impression it was working “pretty well.”

“Now, this avenue has been pulled. And it will leave a lot of families separated indefinitely and possibly permanently,” Liew said.

Liew said humanitarian and compassionate applications are not sufficient remedies because their estimated processing time currently stands at more than 10 years. 

“The wait period for these applications (is) unforgiving, and then the grant rates themselves are very low. Humanitarian and compassionate applications are not known for being very easy to get status with,” Liew said.

Sreenivasan said the Canadian Council for Refugees was informed of the policy’s end on Wednesday. The organization sent a letter to Immigration Minister Lena Diab Friday saying they are shocked and deeply dismayed by the lack of consultation.

Sreenivasan said she wants Diab to reconsider the decision, release information to show whether there were problems with the program, and launch consultations aimed at fixing any problems….

Source: Ottawa ends permanent residency exemption for refugees with undeclared family

Barutciski: The UN’s Refugee Convention finds itself at a crossroads 75 years later – because of how it’s being interpreted

Sort of inevitable that conventions get reinterpreted over time but always useful to assess that reinterpretation and the impact of these changes. But yes, empathy and understanding required in both directions:

…The 75th anniversary of the Refugee Convention offers a critical opportunity to change this unsustainable trajectory. Today, the greatest threat to refugee dignity is not domestic xenophobia, though societies must remain vigilant against it. It may be a maximalist and activist reading of the historic treaty pushed by open-border advocates that has stifled candid, pragmatic debate. 

Refugee protection can only survive if it retains the democratic support of host populations. Without it, public goodwill will continue to dry up, leaving governments to scramble with short-sighted, improvised burden-shifting schemes. 

Crucially, sovereign states are not permanently bound by expansive judicial decisions, even if it is reasonable for the interpretation of international treaty law to evolve. National parliaments possess the authority to amend domestic legislation to clarify ambiguous legal terms. By codifying precise thresholds for asylum, most legislatures can effectively override a judiciary and restore the structural parameters originally intended by the treaty.

The central predicament is that few political leaders in the West possess the courage to confront the contradiction characterizing modern refugee law. Instead, mainstream politicians maintain a facade of humanitarian concern, failing to recognize that sustainable policy requires empathy in both directions – toward needy foreigners, and toward the citizens asked to absorb them. 

Source: The UN’s Refugee Convention finds itself at a crossroads 75 years later – because of how it’s being interpreted

Nicolas | Tiers pays sûr, vraiment?

Hard to see the STCA surviving the court challenge:

…Empêcher les demandes d’asile de personnes ayant transité par les États-Unis est décrié comme un problème majeur par les défenseurs des droits de la personne depuis des années. Mais avec Trump et la violence politique de l’ICE, la situation s’est lourdement encore aggravée. Lorsque le statut de protection temporaire pour les Haïtiens prendra effectivement fin, et que les expulsions massives reprendront malgré la gravité de la situation à Port-au-Prince, comment Ottawa pourra-t-il se justifier de toujours considérer les États-Unis comme un « pays sûr » ? Et sinon, ces personnes devraient aller où, au juste ? Quelle avenue, quel avenir leur restera-t-il, encore ?”

Source: Chronique | Tiers pays sûr, vraiment?

… Preventing asylum applications from people who have passed through the United States has been decried as a major problem by human rights defenders for years. But with Trump and the political violence of the ICE, the situation has worsened even more. When the temporary protection status for Haitians actually ends, and mass expulsions resume despite the seriousness of the situation in Port-au-Prince, how can Ottawa justify still considering the United States as a “safe country”? And if not, where exactly should these people go? What avenue, what future will they have, again?”

Michael Barutciski: Gruesome beheading attempt in Belfast a warning against fast-track asylum processes

Valid concern but even thorough vetting will not catch everything and everybody:

…This is somewhat similar to the “file review” policy adopted by Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which was recently criticized by The Globe and Mail’s editorial board. This expedited process does involve a background check, which could result in these individuals being found in security databases, and brief interviews with immigration officers and Canada Border Services employees still occur, but experts suggest the questioning during these interviews isn’t sufficient. They believe that in-person hearings are required to probe for inconsistencies in their application details or any connections an applicant may have to terrorist groups.

Contrary to Canada, the U.K. dropped its fast-track process on July 2. British politicians appear to now recognize it was naive to establish a hearing-free process. The Canadian Parliament, on the other hand, continues to allow the IRB to maintain its distinct approach, which the UN considers a gold standard, even though critics see it as a major pull factor which makes it attractive to asylum seekers. Legislation will be needed to limit the IRB’s independence and its tendency towards overly generous procedures.”

“As western countries reform the institution of asylum, the Belfast situation should warn us of the dangers when governments tolerate porous borders and allow their generosity to be abused. The unacceptable violence of extremist protesters in response to the attempted beheading should be dealt with by police and not provide cover for ignoring legitimate concerns that were left unaddressed for too long.

Moreover, we need to stop the cosmopolitan naiveté masquerading as moral superiority: it is not xenophobic to suggest that asylum seekers who have barely been vetted could represent a potential security risk. The challenge is to develop appropriate procedures that balance humane treatment with prudence in a way that reassures local populations.”

Michael Barutciski is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and a professor at York University’s Glendon School of Public and International Affairs.

Source: Michael Barutciski: Gruesome beheading attempt in Belfast a warning against fast-track asylum processes

ICYMI: The Trump administration is deporting a million migrants. Here’s what it means for Canada

Hard to see that the STCA will survive the court challenge:

…Aisling Bondy, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, believes the U.S. court decisions will further strengthen the pending legal challenges against the Safe Third Country Agreement before Canadian courts.

“The U.S. Supreme Court decision shows just how bad the situation for refugees and migrants is getting in the United States, and just how much Canada is breaching our human rights obligations by not allowing people to make refugee claims at the Canadian border,” she said.

Aiken of Queen’s said this is the moment for Canada to suspend the bilateral agreement. If not, she added, Ottawa should at least amend the proposed regulations of Bill C-12 to build in more exceptions so that people could retain access to asylum based on appropriate circumstances.

Source: The Trump administration is deporting a million migrants. Here’s what it means for Canada

More Haitians will try to come to Canada after U.S. court decision, advocate says

Likely. Open data will allow tracking the numbers:

A Montreal-based advocate for asylum seekers says Canada should expect a new wave of Haitians trying to enter from the United States after a court decision allowing the Trump administration to end legal protections for migrants fleeing violence and natural disasters in Haiti and Syria.

Frantz André says he knows of several people who are making the journey north from the United States after learning of the U.S. Supreme Court decision that exposes hundreds of thousands of people to potential detention and deportation.

André says some of the new arrivals will be allowed to stay and file an asylum claim because they have close family in Canada.

Source: More Haitians will try to come to Canada after U.S. court decision, advocate says

Canada gave these former refugees a chance. Now they’re pushing back against anti-refugee claims

Of note:

…While success stories like hers are common, she said they have been overshadowed by narratives in recent years that portray refugees as a drain on Canada, rather than contributors. The surge of refugees in the country is just a reflection of the rising global displacement as a result of wars and unrest, she noted.

A 2024-25 public opinion poll by the Immigration Department found that just a third of Canadians felt that the impact of refugees on Canada was positive. Forty-eight per cent of respondents said Canada was admitting too many asylum seekers, while 41 per cent said the country was resettling too many refugees from abroad. Just over half agreed that “accepting refugees is part of Canada’s humanitarian tradition.” 

“The more you feed into this negative narrative, the more fearful society and the politicians become, and the more restrictive these policies become,” said Faizi, who was a corporate lawyer specializing in intellectual property rights, before switching to refugee law in 2021. 

That’s why the council has launched a week of action to highlight refugee contributions and show solidarity across Canada with them, leading up to the World Refugee Day on Saturday. It comes in the wake of Ottawa’s new law to restrict eligibility for asylum and rules to limit health-care coverage for refugees

The campaign — including an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, highlighting local events organized by its 200 member organizations across Canada and a tool kit to promote the message “We are Better Together” — also followed a report released by UNHCR Canada in early June that looked at the social and economic benefits of welcoming displaced people in need of protection….

Source: Canada gave these former refugees a chance. Now they’re pushing back against anti-refugee claims

Critics say Canada’s new immigration and border law puts LGBTQ+ people in danger

Of note:

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Mark Carney and MPs from other political parties came together to raise the Pride flag on Parliament Hill.

But an advocacy group that helps LGBTQ refugees come to Canada and the U.S says the federal government’s new border law is putting people at risk of being sent back to countries where they face persecution.

Devon Matthews, Rainbow Railroad’s chief program officer, said her organization is concerned about its working relationship with Ottawa as the federal government reduces the number of refugees it admits and cuts the organization’s funding.

She said it’s also alarmed by a new law requiring that refugee claims be made within a year of the claimant’s first arrival in Canada.

“It has nothing to do with the reasons why someone may have waited or why someone doesn’t meet the one-year bar,” Matthews told The Canadian Press

Source: Critics say Canada’s new immigration and border law puts LGBTQ+ people in danger

Surprising drop in refugees and forcefully displaced people worldwide, UN reports

Of note:

Forced displacement from wars and persecution around the world fell for the first time in a decade, according to the United Nations refugee agency.

The latest data showed the number of people who were forced to leave their homes and remained displaced at the end of 2025 dropped by four per cent to 117.8 million from 123.2 million a year ago, the UNHCR said in a report released Thursday.

The decline reflected a sharp increase in the number of international refugees and internally displaced individuals who returned home last year in some of the countries with the largest displacement such as Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan and Syria.

In 2025, almost 5.4 million people had to flee and seek safety across borders, predominantly in neighbouring countries. The majority came from eight countries: Sudan (952,700), Ukraine (788,100), Venezuela (455,300), South Sudan (232,800), Burkina Faso (221,300), Afghanistan (191,400), Mali (177,200) and Myanmar (165,400).

Meanwhile, returns of both internationally and domestically displaced people rose by 50 per cent, reaching 14.7 million, the second highest level since records began 60 years ago. Returnees to the Democratic Republic of Congo (3.6 million), Sudan (3.6 million), Syria (3.3 million), Afghanistan (two million), Ukraine (718,300) and Myanmar (415,200) accounted for 92 per cent of all returns.

But in many cases, there’s little to celebrate….

Source: Surprising drop in refugees and forcefully displaced people worldwide, UN reports