Pakistani refugee who returned to his homeland six times wins chance to keep Canadian status

Sigh, another overly permissive judgement by Judge Go:

A Federal Court judge set aside a ruling by Canada’s Refugee Protection Division (RPD), saying it failed “to engage with a critical piece of evidence” when it revoked a Pakistani man’s refugee status after he returned to the country on multiple occasions. …

The RPD, a division of the Immigration Refugee Board of Canada, found Ahmad “voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of Pakistan” and “had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption,” the judgment reads. The tribunal found Ahmad’s description “of the agents of persecution ‘evolved depending on his audience,’” shifting between fear of religious extremists and government authorities on different occasions. The RPD found his statements to be inconsistent.

On February 18, Justice Avvy Yao-Yao Go ruled in favour of Ahmad, arguing that the RPD found inconsistencies “where none existed.” The judge added that the tribunal “compounded this error by failing to consider a key precautionary measure that the applicant took against the religious extremists while in Pakistan,” when Ahmad avoided going to a mosque.

“While the RPD noted the applicant’s evidence that he did not attend mosque or engage with the broader community,” Go wrote in her ruling, “the RPD never engaged with this evidence when conducting its analysis on the applicant’s intention…Rather, the RPD focused on the fact that the applicant had a ‘large wedding,’ the duration of his visits, and the fact that the applicant brought his family to Pakistan, and found these factors to indicate a lack of subjective fear of persecution.

“By failing to engage with a critical piece of evidence that may rebut the intent to reavail, the RDP fell short of its heightened duty to provide justified, transparent, and intelligible reasons to explain its decision,” the justice continued.

Go granted Ahmad his request for a judicial review and sent his case back “for redetermination by a differently constituted panel of the Refugee Protection Division.”

Ahmad’s legal counsel, Daniel Kingwell, lauded the decision in a written statement to National Post on Thursday afternoon.

“We are very pleased with the judge’s ruling. The court recognized that Mr. Ahmad had provided a number of reasons for returning to Pakistan that were not adequately assessed by the Board – in particular to attend to essential family duties including his marriage, the birth of his child, and the illnesses and deaths of his parents,” Kingwell wrote, noting that the ruling was “consistent with a number of other decisions where the court has taken issue with an overly aggressive approach to refugee cessation.

Kingwell explained that Ahmadi mosques were the “primary targets” of religious extremists in Pakistan and that Ahmad’s conduct while in the country comported with this, taking necessary precautions that “were consistent with his ongoing need for refugee protection.”…

Source: Pakistani refugee who returned to his homeland six times wins chance to keep Canadian status

Immigrant who came to Canada using a false identity wins another shot at retaining citizenship

Sigh….:

…But in a Federal Court decision dated Feb. 12, Bapari successfully challenged the decision by a delegate of the immigration minister that refused him relief based on his personal circumstances.

“Mr. Bapari recognized that he had misled the authorities by relying on false identity when he first came to Canada, and then by not disclosing the misdeed when he claimed permanent residence and citizenship,” Roy said. “But he raised a number of issues that qualify as personal circumstances. The MD (ministerial delegate) had to address these in the reasons in writing he had to give.”

The MD found that Bapari “has obtained his Canadian citizenship by fraud or false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstances,” said the Federal Court decision.

“The failure to disclose the alternate identity and removal order prevented an accurate eligibility and admissibility assessment, thus allowing (Bapari’s) return to Canada without the required written authorization. The application for Canadian citizenship suffered from the same defect. That application was not true, correct and complete in spite of the attestation to that effect given by” Bapari.

“The MD found that Bapari “has obtained his Canadian citizenship by fraud or false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstances,” said the Federal Court decision.

“The failure to disclose the alternate identity and removal order prevented an accurate eligibility and admissibility assessment, thus allowing (Bapari’s) return to Canada without the required written authorization. The application for Canadian citizenship suffered from the same defect. That application was not true, correct and complete in spite of the attestation to that effect given by” Bapari.

The MD didn’t see the “circumstances surrounding the misrepresentations” as extenuating, or serving to lessen the seriousness of his actions, because Bapari didn’t have to use a false identity, said the decision. “Wanting a better life in Canada cannot be an excuse to undermine the integrity and fairness of Canada’s immigration system,” it said. “The misrepresentations constitute a very serious and intentional deception.”

“The MD emphasized that, as a previously deported person, Bapari “was banned from returning to Canada: a written authorization was required. Hence, the misrepresentations had the effect of circumventing the process. The admission of guilt and the remorse expressed by (Bapari) do not overcome the actions taken to circumvent immigration and citizenship laws.”

The MD examined Bapari’s social ties in Canada. “The decision maker notes in passing that (Bapari) has been living with his wife for 23 years without any trouble with the law. Good ties and roots have been established, including participating in community and religious activities. Stable employment is acknowledged; the loss of citizenship would result in an inability to work, which would put the couple in financial distress. The MD reckons that the revocation of citizenship could cause great emotional, psychological distress to (Bapari’s) wife, together with the financial stress resulting from his inability to work.”

Bapari also “now suffers from chronic diseases, which require medical treatment,” said the decision, which does not elaborate on his health condition.

“The MD considered Bapari’s “misrepresentations in and of themselves as being so grave that no personal circumstances appear to warrant special relief,” said the judge. “The integrity and fairness of the immigration system are put on a pedestal without engaging with the actual personal circumstances.”

Furthermore, the MD “puts the bar very high in requiring that (Bapari) demonstrate ‘extenuating circumstances that necessitated (his) misrepresentation to Canadian authorities.’ Without any explanation, the MD turns ‘special relief’ into a requirement that the misrepresentations be a necessity, perhaps even duress has become a must.”

No explanation was offered to Bapari “for such a restrictive view of what warrants ‘special relief,’” said the judge. “An explanation is needed for the reviewing court to assess its reasonableness.”

Roy concluded “that more and better is expected of a decision maker,” according to his decision. “The power over vulnerable persons brings with it the high responsibility to ensure that the reasons have duly considered the consequences of the decision when Parliament has instructed that personal circumstances be considered with a view to warrant special relief.”

“The MD’s reasons provided in this case “are not adequate to the task,” said the judge. “Whether or not the outcome might be reasonable is not relevant. It is the process leading to the outcome which is deficient, making the decision under review not reasonable.”

They’re “inadequate in view of the stakes,” Roy said. “As a result, the matter must be sent back to a different decision maker for redetermination.””

Source: “Immigrant who came to Canada using a false identity wins another shot at retaining citizenship”

Jamie Sarkonak: The federal judge determined to dismantle Canada’s immigration safeguards

Judicial appointments matter and have impact. Column would have been more balanced if it had more examples of rejections:

In 2013, Toronto lawyer Avvy Yao-Yao Go described herself as a “loudmouth activist for politicians to contend with.” She was an advocate of chain migration, a former member of the Ontario law society’s equity committee, a vocal critic of journalists and politicians, and once, she even tried to force the government to pay reparations to descendants of Chinese-Canadians impacted by the head tax (after losing one appeal in this process, her organization accused an appeal judge of racism; the complaint was tossed out).

Ideally, she wouldn’t be in charge of waving migrants into the country from a judicial seat. Nevertheless, Go was made a Federal Court judge in 2021 and much of her job is playing immigration gatekeeper. The results are what you’d expect, and they’re not favourable to Canadians….

Go doesn’t wave every single asylum seeker through; her record includes rejections, too. But her decisions in the last year alone show a pattern of leniency for rule-breakers, country-shoppers and, for lack of a better term, bulls–tters. Each instance takes state capacity away from cases that truly matter. It might be that Go feels the need to hold the door open for others, but it’s the rest of us who have to pay for the riff-raff who accept the invitation.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: The federal judge determined to dismantle Canada’s immigration safeguards

Palestinians living in Gaza lose lawsuits that would force Canada to process crisis travel visas

Of note (inability to leave Gaza for biometrics):

Palestinians in Gaza who applied to join relatives in Canada two years ago under Ottawa’s crisis immigration policy but haven’t received travel visas lost their lawsuits trying to force officials to act despite security problems in the war-torn region.

Four similar court actions asked the Federal Court to order officials with Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) to process their temporary resident visa applications.

Justice Henry S. Brown said the stories of applicants in Gaza were “heartbreaking” but he could not issue the orders they sought.

The court cases stem from Ottawa’s announcement of a “temporary public policy to facilitate temporary resident visas for certain extended family affected by the crisis in Gaza,” which took effect on Jan. 9, 2024.

It was supposed to provide quick refuge for Palestinians with relatives who are either Canadian citizens or permanent residents and willing to be an “anchor relative” in Canada.

The Gaza policy was capped at 5,000 visas. Court heard that almost two years later there are about 4,200 unprocessed applicants.

The policy was similar in purpose to emergency policies for Ukrainians fleeing Russia’s invasion, Afghans fleeing the Taliban’s return to power, and those in danger zones after an earthquake in Türkiye and Syria. The policies remove some criteria normally needed to enter Canada to speed things up in a crisis.

…He agreed with the applicants that the government has a legal duty to process visa applications made under the policy. He also agreed with the government that officers did not have a duty to process applications within a particular timeframe.

“I am satisfied the Applicant has a legitimate expectation to his application being dealt with in a timely manner. However, this expectation only arises when the Applicant meets all the conditions of the Policy and provides biometric information (which he is unable to do),” Brown wrote.

Brown found that Canada’s policy did not allow visa officers to override other regulations on immigration, and those regulations require a biometric check. The government argued that Ottawa has a duty to maintain the integrity of Canada’s immigration system and Brown agreed.

“The root cause of the Applicant’s failure to provide his biometric data is of course the changed operational context, namely the closure of the Rafah crossing which made obtaining and submitting biometrics impossible.”

He said because of that, the applicants did not meet the threshold for a court order forcing the government to act because that required all elements of a process to be complete before unreasonable delay can be determined.

All cases were denied.

Source: Palestinians living in Gaza lose lawsuits that would force Canada to process crisis travel visas

Judge halts non-binary person’s deportation to the U.S. as Trump dismantles trans rights

Conditions have changed and assessments need to be updated but with nuance:

A Federal Court judge halted a non-binary American’s deportation from Canada pending review. Advocates say the ruling sets “an important precedent” for 2SLGBTQ+ immigrants and refugees coming to Canada from, or through, the U.S.

…Jenkel was scheduled to be deported from Canada this month. But a Federal Court judge issued a stay of removal, arguing the immigration officer who examined their case failed to take into account their role in caring for their fiancé, or the “current conditions for LGBTQ, non-binary and transgender persons” in the U.S.

Advocates for 2SLGBTQ+ migrants say this could set a precedent for other cases like Jenkel’s, and help change the way Canada’s immigration system deals with applications from the U.S.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRRC) declined to comment on Jenkel’s case, citing privacy concerns.

…Deportation order ‘failed to reflect the current reality’

Jenkel was ordered to be deported on July 3 after an initial risk assessment determined they didn’t face a credible threat in the U.S.

But Justice Julie Blackhawk halted that deportation, pending review. In her ruling, she wrote Jenkel’s risk assessment was “flawed and unreasonable.”

That’s because the immigration officer conducting the review used outdated information — a government dossier on the United States that was last updated in January 2024, says Jenkel’s lawyer.

“It’s a marked recognition that the conditions have deteriorated … since the Biden administration has left office,” Sarah Mikhail, of Smith Immigration Law in Toronto, told As It Happens host Nil Kӧksal.

“These changes are significant enough that, when assessing trans and non-binary individuals’ circumstances in Canada, this is something that needs to be taken into consideration.”

Source: Judge halts non-binary person’s deportation to the U.S. as Trump dismantles trans rights

Court denies certification of $2.5-billion Black civil servants class action lawsuit

Successful in raising the profile and issue, but ultimately failed at court. And the plaintiffs assertion that “they deserve real change” discounts the overall improvement among Black public servants in terms of hirings, promotions and separations:

A Federal Court judge on Monday dismissed a motion to certify a proposed class action lawsuit that was launched by Black public servants in 2020 who alleged there was systemic racism within the public service.

In an “order and reasons” document, Justice Jocelyne Gagne said the case did not sufficiently meet the class action requirement that the claims raise common issues.

Gagne also said the scope of the plaintiffs’ claim “simply makes it unfit for a class procedure.”

Filed in 2020, the class action sought $2.5 billion in damages because of lost salaries and promotion.

The Black Class Action Secretariat, a group created as a result of the lawsuit, is seeking long-term solutions to address systemic racism and discrimination in the public service, including compensation and the appointment of a Black equity commission.

Gagne said the court acknowledges the “profoundly sad ongoing history of discrimination suffered by Black Canadians” and that plaintiffs have faced challenges in the public service.

However, she said the plaintiffs didn’t present an adequate litigation plan and that they failed to present a ground for the court to assert jurisdiction over the case.

The document also said there are several class actions against individual federal departments and agencies alleging racial discrimination, which “overlap significantly with the present action.”

Proposed class members, the judge said, “would therefore be included in the class definition of these other class proceedings.”

The Black Class Action Secretariat said in a news release Monday that the ruling was a “major disappointment, but it is not the end of our fight for justice.”

“For five years, this has been a David vs. Goliath battle, and while today’s outcome is frustrating, it only strengthens our resolve,” the organization said.

The news release said systemic anti-Black racism has long been recognized by the federal government and that the plaintiffs will meet with their legal team to “explore next steps.”

In 2023, a grievance ruling by the Treasury Board Secretariat found that the Canadian Human Rights Commission discriminated against its Black and racialized employees. In 2024, an internal report found that public servants working at the Privy Council Office were subject to racial stereotyping, microaggressions and verbal violence.

“For decades, Black public service workers have faced systemic discrimination, and today’s decision does nothing to change that reality,” Thompson said.

A Federal Court hearing took place last fall to help determine whether the class-action lawsuit could proceed.

At the time, the federal government filed a motion to strike, asking the judge to dismiss the case. The government argued that Black public servants could file grievances or human rights complaints.

The government also called to remove Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP members, as well as Department of National Defence and Correctional Service Canada employees as class members because of similar class action lawsuits against those departments.

Thompson says the government used procedural barriers to “avoid addressing the merits of this case, rather than standing on the side of fairness and accountability.” The government has spent around $10 million fighting the class action.

“Black workers deserve more than recognition of past harms — they deserve real change,” he said.

Source: Court denies certification of $2.5-billion Black civil servants class action lawsuit

Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

Two minds on this decision. On the one hand, the judge was emphasizing the welfare of children, on the other hand, clearly fraudulent refugee case. And will the family be actually deported once the school year is over?

…Ministers have the power to step in and block deportations — I have no problem with that — but the government shouldn’t be obligated to carry out lengthy procedures designed to give those here illegally every shot at staying. In a country with supposedly fixed borders and social supports, it shouldn’t take this much state capacity to remove those who aren’t cleared to be here.

On the criminal front, it’s just as bad. Due to court precedent, Canadian judges are obligated to consider “immigration consequences” when sentencing non-citizen offenders. In some cases, it results in a sentence discount: nightclub gropers and drunken burglars from abroad have received lighter sentences under this rule to give them a greater shot at remaining in Canada.

There are plenty more legitimate refugees, and otherwise law-abiding non-citizen newcomers who are eager to adapt to Canadian life and get on the path to citizenship. Let state resources go to supporting them, and not people who abuse our rules to harm others and extend their already illegal stays.

Canadians deserve a system that works for them, not outsiders. Let that be a change that graces us in 2025.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Immigration needs to work for Canadians, not rule-breakers from abroad

Courts warn of ‘critical’ budget pressures as immigration cases delayed in Canada’s 3 largest cities

Yet another example where high levels of immigration have contributed to pressures on government services, in this cases, the courts. IRCC has about 80 percent of cases against the federal government:

Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani is set to meet with the chief justices of Canada’s four federal courts on Friday, after they warned of a budgetary shortfall creating “critical” pressure on their operations, including efforts to clear a backlog of immigration filings in three major cities.

The Federal Court alone is estimating that it’s on track for an almost 50 per cent increase in the filings this year.

The four courts also said they have an estimated $35 million annual gap in funding impacting court operations. The National Post first reported about the budgetary issues faced by the courts on Thursday.

“At a minimum, cases will take longer to be heard, and modernization efforts will be slowed down or stopped, to the detriment of litigants and access to justice,” the Courts Administration Service (CAS) said in a statement to CBC News. The arm’s-length federal body serves the Federal Court and Canada’s three other federal courts, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada.

“Immigration cases are already being delayed and are not being heard within the statutory time limit,” the CAS said.

It noted that the Federal Court expects to reach 24,000 immigration and refugee case filings this year, an increase of 44 per cent over 2023, and quadruple the average number of filings it had in the pre-COVID days….

Source: Courts warn of ‘critical’ budget pressures as immigration cases delayed in Canada’s 3 largest cities

Court grants Ottawa four more months to fix unconstitutional ‘lost Canadians’ law

Expected. Original deadline totally unreasonable given legislative processes:

A court has granted the federal government more time to amend unconstitutional legislation concerning so-called “lost Canadians.”

The deadline extension — to Dec. 19 — is the second the courts have given Ottawa to amend the law, which prevents some Canadians born abroad from passing on their citizenship to children also born abroad.

Bill C-71, which introduces sweeping changes to Canada’s citizenship laws, is set to become law by Dec. 19. The federal government says the legislation addresses the court’s concerns about constitutionality.

In her decision to grant the extension, Ontario Superior Court Justice Jasmine Akbarali said the government was able to address concerns about the hardship Canadians could face if the amended legislation is delayed again.

“The mechanism in place to address urgent cases of hardship is sufficient to ensure that an extension of the declaration of invalidity will not undermine confidence in the administration of justice,” the judge said in the decision.

Justice Akbarali initially gave Ottawa until June 20 to amend the current Citizenship Act after the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in late 2023 that it violated the constitutional rights of some Canadians born abroad.

The Liberal government did not get the bill passed through the House of Commons before it rose for the summer a few days before the deadline.

The government appealed for a six-month extension. Justice Akbarali handed down a seven-week extension, to Aug. 9.

In granting the original extension, the judge said the government would only have until Aug. 1 to present arguments on why she should consider another extension until Dec. 19.

Justice Akbarali ordered the government to file a plan to address the hardship experienced by parents under the existing law during the extended period and to “ideally” file a report on the steps required to get the bill passed before mid-December.

Sujit Choudhry, the lawyer who represented the families challenging the law, estimates that the current law violates the rights of at least 1.48 million Canadians here and abroad.

An estimated 170,000 women born abroad who are in the age range when people often start families are still being affected by the current law, the judge said in her June decision.

Justice Akbarali added these are not “theoretical or minor constitutional violations” but ones that could lead to “children being stateless.”

“They can lead to women having to make choices between their financial health and independence on one hand, and their physical health on the other. They can separate families,” Akbarali said in the decision.

“They can force children to stay in places that are unsafe for them. They can interfere with some of the deepest and most profound connections that human beings both enjoy and need.”

Until Bill C-71 is passed, the government can grant citizenship to lost Canadians at Immigration Minister Marc Miller’s discretion.

Source: Court grants Ottawa four more months to fix unconstitutional ‘lost Canadians’ law

Ottawa prepares bill to reinstate citizenship rights of ‘lost Canadians’

Hard to see that bill will make it through both houses by the June 19 deadline, likely meaning no restrictions pending the Bill becoming law:

Ottawa is preparing a bill to reinstate rights for “lost Canadians” after an Ontario court ruled it is unconstitutional to deny citizenship to children born overseas to Canadians also born outside the country.

The bill is expected to require a Canadian parent born abroad to demonstrate substantial ties to Canada before they can pass on citizenship to a child born outside Canada.

The bill would reverse a change by Stephen Harper’s government in 2009 which stripped children of a Canadian parent born outside Canada of their automatic right to citizenship.

The 2009 change was designed to crack down on what Conservatives called “Canadians of convenience.” It followed an outcry after Canada spent more than $80-million to evacuate 15,000 Canadian citizens from Lebanon in 2006 during the Israel-Hezbollah war….

Source: Ottawa prepares bill to reinstate citizenship rights of ‘lost Canadians’