Trump’s plan to revoke visas of 200,000 asylum seekers should fuel action by Ottawa, experts say

2026/08/27 Leave a comment

Likely there is some planning going on but not necessarily in the direction immigration and refugee advocates would prefer until court case plays out:

Immigration experts say Canada should prepare itself for the arrival of asylum seekers at the border after the Trump administration indicated it is preparing a mass cancellation of visas issued over the past decade. 

This week, Washington signalled plans to revoke the tourist and business visasof up to 200,000 foreign nationals who have applied for or are actively seeking asylum in the United States. The move is expected to prompt legal challenges, but if it goes ahead it would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history.

Some immigration lawyers and academics researching migration in Canada are urging Ottawa to consider allowing those who face having their visas cancelled to enter Canada on a discretionary basis. 

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S., foreign nationals who have already claimed asylum in the United States are turned away at Canada’s border, with a few exceptions, including for those who have family in Canada.

But experts say the Trump administration has undermined the premise of the responsibility-sharing agreement between the two countries by eroding the rights of asylum seekers in the U.S. This latest plan to cancel visas issued between 2016 and 2026 further undermines the pact, they told The Globe and Mail, which is premised on asylum seekers being treated fairly in the United States…. 

Source: Trump’s plan to revoke visas of 200,000 asylum seekers should fuel action by Ottawa, experts say

Filed under Immigration, Trump administration Tagged with , , , ,

ICYMI – ‘A win on all fronts’: Federal Court quashes Ottawa’s attempt to stop legal challenge on cabinet secrets in Canada-U.S. refugee deal

2026/01/22 Leave a comment

Not all that surprised:

A Federal Court judge has rejected the Canadian government’s attempt to throw out a challenge by advocacy groups seeking greater transparency on how Ottawa decides to designate the United States as a safe country for refugees.

The legal challenge by the Canadian Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario asked the government to pull back the curtain on its internal reviews regarding the Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. In its application, the groups argue that Ottawa must be transparent about the process and ensure it complies with Canada’s Charter of Rights and its international legal obligations.

Under the bilateral refugee pact, which was introduced in 2004, most asylum seekers are required to claim protection in the first safe country they arrive in. This means Canada can turn back refugees arriving from the U.S. on the basis they should pursue their claims in the U.S.

The government brought forward a motion to strike the legal challenge last year, before the case could start. In a ruling on Monday, Justice Alan Diner rejected that request, saying the application was not “doomed to fail” and is strong enough to warrant a full hearing.

Diner wrote that at the core of the government’s argument is the question of what constitutes a decision when it’s required to conduct an ongoing review — “a legal question that should not be answered on a truncated record.”

The judge also granted the applicants “public interest standing,” while recognizing that the advocacy groups themselves are not “directly affected” individuals like refugee claimants.

While the government argued the challenge was filed too late, Diner granted an extension and agreed with the applicants in finding that the delay was reasonable because the legal pathway to challenge the review process only became clear following a 2023 Supreme Court of Canada decision.

Maureen Silcoff, a co-counsel for the refugee lawyer association, described the ruling as “a win on many fronts.”

The question of why the Canadian government is continuing to designate the U.S. a safe country is more pertinent now than ever, Silcoff told the Star. “All we have to do is look south of the border and we see that the current administration has essentially eradicated the asylum process,” she said….

Source: ‘A win on all fronts’: Federal Court quashes Ottawa’s attempt to stop legal challenge on cabinet secrets in Canada-U.S. refugee deal

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , ,

Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

2025/12/04 Leave a comment

No surprise. Reactions below:

…But some experts have warned that suspending the agreement could open the door to an unknown number of asylum claimants who are currently ineligible for protection in Canada, at a time when the federal government is striving to reduce immigration because of pressure on housing.

Fen Hampson, president of the World Refugee & Migration Council and a professor of international affairs at Carleton University, said Mr. Trump’s decision “puts our government on the horns of a real dilemma.”

“The U.S is no longer providing equivalent protection and Canada faces a significant moral and potentially legal obligation to offer asylum to those who cannot get protection in the U.S.,” he said.

“The Canadian government must now decide whether it wishes to exercise its authority to suspend the agreement, create a broader exemption or stick with the status quo,” he said in an e-mail. “With tens of thousands of asylum claims still pending in Canada and fears that suspending the [agreement] could lead to increased irregular border crossing, the government may prefer to do nothing.” …

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario have launched a judicial review of the Safe Third Country Agreement, seeking to declare it invalid. Maureen Silcoff, a lawyer who is representing plaintiffs in that case with lawyer Sujit Choudhry, said the agreement requires countries to follow the UN Refugee Convention, but the U.S. has chosen to stop adjudicating asylum claims. 

“The agreement itself anticipated that a situation may arise that requires a suspension,” Ms. Silcoff said.

“That day has arrived. The basis for the agreement has evaporated. It was predicated on the U.S. having a functional asylum system. The U.S. suspension of asylum determination means that the very foundation of the agreement has disappeared.”…

Lawyer James Yousif, who was policy director to former immigration minister Jason Kenney, said the U.S. government’s decision to halt all refugee claims would likely lead the Federal Court to strike down the Safe Third Country Agreement, which requires what he describes as a “functioning” asylum system.

“The extent of a President’s ability to halt asylum without legislation is unclear. But if asylum is halted and deportations begin, the consequences for Canada will be immediate,” he wrote in an e-mail.

If the pact is struck down, Mr. Yousif said, that would allow millions of people currently in the U.S. who are covered by the Safe Third Country Agreement to apply for asylum here.

“That would represent an existential threat to Canada’s immigration system,” he said.

Sharry Aiken, a professor at Queen’s University specializing in immigration and refugee law, said Mr. Trump’s latest edict on halting asylum claims is “the nail in the coffin” of the Safe Third Country Agreement.

She said other anti-migrant policies he has enacted should have already prompted the Canadian government to revisit whether it is still valid.

“If we had any doubts before, we shouldn’t now,” she said. “The agreement is predicated on responsibility sharing and that people have access to asylum in the U.S.”

Prof. Aiken predicted suspending the agreement is not going to lead to Mr. Trump being “upset with Canada” or a big influx of asylum seekers coming from the U.S.

“If necessary, we need to ensure that the IRB [Immigration and Refugee Board] is adequately resourced to deal with a potential increase in the number of claims,” she said.

Source: Trump’s halting of asylum claims prompts fresh calls to suspend Safe Third Country Agreement

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada 

2025/11/17 Leave a comment

Perhaps I am a bit thick, but parents of foreign-born adoptees have to commit to raising their adopted child in Canada and thus would most likely meet the residency requirement of 1,095 days within a five-year period.  

The direct route to citizenship for adoptees was in response to parental pressure to have a faster route than PR sponsorship. But making that choice meant the adopted child was considered the first generation born abroad, like any naturally born child born abroad.

Appears more a matter of identity and convenience rather than fundamental practicalities to me:

….Two lawyers specializing in citizenship have submitted a briefing paper to the Senate committee, which will consider Bill C-3 this week. They argue that the bill should exempt children adopted from abroad from the substantial-connection test. 

The paper’s co-author, Toronto lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who filed the successful constitutional challenge to the Citizenship Act on behalf of Lost Canadian clients, said it is “deeply unfair to the families of these children to treat them differently than children adopted domestically.”

“It also violates Canada’s international treaty obligations and the Charter,” he said in an e-mail. 

Its other author, immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff, suggested that unless Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada addresses the issue it could face a legal challenge. 

“IRCC is fully aware of the issue. Adoptive parents and MPs have been advocating on their behalf for years. We do not understand their reluctance to address this issue at this moment, when C-3 is before Parliament. Amending C-3 would avoid unnecessary litigation.”

Don Chapman, a leading advocate for Lost Canadians, who is giving evidence to the Senate committee this week, said, “I don’t want to leave any child behind.” 

But he expressed concern that amending the bill in the Senate may lead to it being held up when it returns to the Commons. …

Source: Senate urged to give children adopted from overseas the same citizenship rights as those born in Canada

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Family paid smugglers to reunite after separation by CBSA at Quebec border

2025/08/19 Leave a comment

Does appear to be an unnecessary disconnect:

A Haitian family was separated at the Quebec-U.S. border this spring due to what an immigration lawyer calls a “legal glitch” some fear could become a wider problem as more migrants flee the United States into Canada. 

The family attempted to enter Canada at the official land crossing in Lacolle, Que., in March, according to immigration documents. 

After reviewing their case, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers allowed only the father in because he has a close relative in Canada. His pregnant wife and seven-year-old daughter were turned away.

Three weeks later, facing pregnancy complications, the mother paid smugglers nearly $4,000 to get herself and her daughter across the border on foot through melting snow to reunite with the father. 

“The border agent should never have separated that family,” said Paule Robitaille, a Montreal-based immigration lawyer who has been working on their case. 

Advocates and lawyers fear family separation could become more common as more migrants in the United States seek asylum in Canada through exceptions outlined in a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Canada, and border services face pressure to limit the number of arrivals. 

Smuggling only option, says father

The father says the family decided to come to Canada after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to end a humanitarian program his predecessor Joe Biden created to prevent people from Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua from being deported due to turmoil in their countries. 

It’s under that program that the man’s wife and daughter arrived in the U.S. in 2024, three years after he claimed asylum there. 

CBC has agreed not to name the family due to threats the couple have faced in Haiti related to denouncing corruption and sexual violence through their work.

…Restricting access to asylum 

Typically, the close-relative exception to the STCA allows families to enter together; whichever person has the relative in Canada becomes their spouse and children’s anchor, said Maureen Silcoff, a Toronto-based immigration lawyer and former decision-maker at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB). 

“People who are turned back at the border in this type of circumstance are subject to what I would call a legal glitch,” Silcoff said, referring to the Haitian family’s situation. 

She believes the glitch is an oversight in the definition of anchor relative outlined in the Safe Third Country Agreement — which doesn’t include pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) applicants like the father. 

It’s a complicated technicality that could prevent people with valid reasons to seek protection in Canada from being able to have their cases considered, both Robitaille and Silcoff say….

Source: Family paid smugglers to reunite after separation by CBSA at Quebec border

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , , ,

Immigration advocates take Ottawa to court over refugee treaty with U.S. 

2025/05/27 Leave a comment

As was expected and they have a case, no matter how inconvenient, as it gets stronger day-by-day with clear incidents of USA and ICE over-reach and undermining protections:

The federal government is facing a legal challenge arguing that its oversight of a two-decade-old refugee treaty with the United States is “fundamentally flawed.”

The bilateral agreement is premised on both countries being safe for asylum seekers. It prevents refugee claimants passing through the U.S. from seeking protection in Canada and vice versa. 

Canada is legally required to regularly review its neighbour’s human-rights record and refugee protections as part of the treaty, the Safe Third Country Agreement, or STCA. Ottawa has not publicized its findings since 2009. 

In January, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a sweeping immigration crackdown that has heightened asylum seekers’ risk of detention and deportation. Immigration rights groups have asserted that migrants and asylum seekers have been held in “secret” detention at the northern border. 

In an application for judicial review, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) argue that the lack of publicly available information about Ottawa‘s refugee monitoring process shields the government from accountability − and could violate the Constitution.

“This is so crucial because what we see happening at the Canada-U.S. border is quite troubling,” said lawyer Maureen Silcoff, who is representing CARL in the legal challenge.

Advocates in Canada have long maintained that cracks in American refugee protections leave asylum seekers at risk, raising concerns about the legality of the STCA treaty. Executive orders issued by the U.S. President in January, which initiated drastic immigration changes, have heightened fears over detention conditions for asylum seekers and rapid deportation without due process. 

Sujit Choudhry, who is representing SALCO in the case, said that without detailed evidence of how Ottawa determines its neighbour is safe for asylum seekers, it is impossible to know if Canada is complying with its legal obligations to refugee claimants.

An inaccurate designation – one that results in refugee claimants at the Canadian border being returned to the U.S. and then deported to a country where they would face torture – would violate the Canadian Constitution, he added. …

Source: Immigration advocates take Ottawa to court over refugee treaty with U.S.

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Canada faces calls to suspend asylum agreement with U.S., saying Trump orders undermine migrants’ rights

2025/02/06 Leave a comment

Real dilemma for the government given that USA is becoming less safe and the risk of significant increases in asylum claimants from the USA without the STCA to help control and manage inflows:

The federal government is facing calls to suspend a long-standing agreement with the U.S. to return asylum seekers at the border, with immigration experts saying the United States should no longer be considered a safe place for people fleeing persecution.

They say U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive orders that make it easier to deport or detain migrants – including plans to hold 30,000 migrants accused of criminality in Guantanamo Bay – undermine their rights to such an extent that Canada should halt returning asylum seekers to the U.S.

Under the Safe Third Country Agreement, which came into effect in 2004, asylum seekers must make a claim at the first country in which they arrive. The agreement means that most asylum seekers arriving at the Canadian border are automatically returned to the U.S., with some exceptions such as people facing the death penalty.

Immigration lawyers and refugee advocates say Mr. Trump’s policies that make it easier to deport asylum seekers without a court hearing and increase detention may breach international law and should prompt Canada to rethink or suspend the agreement.

“The executive actions in the U.S. will materially impede access to asylum, and result in the routine imprisonment of refugees, contrary to UN standards,” says Erin Simpson, a partner at immigration law firm Landings LLP in Toronto.

“When Canada returns refugees to the U.S. under the Safe Third Country Agreement, they risk deportation to persecution and torture, and prison. Canada has the authority to suspend the agreement, and should exercise that authority until it is satisfied the agreement is not harming refugees.”

…But some experts warned that scrapping the agreement could lead to an influx of asylum seekers to Canada, who could not be turned back.

James Yousif, a Toronto-based lawyer who was director of policy to former Conservative immigration minister Jason Kenney, said the move would be “reckless” and “risk destabilizing Canada’s social and economic foundations.”

“Canada would face a surge in asylum claims from undocumented migrants in the United States, overwhelming public systems. Provinces and cities would be required to provide health care, social assistance, education and housing supports,” he said, adding they would be “severely strained.”

Source: Canada faces calls to suspend asylum agreement with U.S., saying Trump orders undermine migrants’ rights

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Trump’s executive orders on immigration could prompt rise in asylum claims in Canada, experts say

2025/01/22 Leave a comment

Changes do raise question regarding underlying premise of Safe Third Country Agreement along with specific implications for non-binary and trans persons. Monthly asylum claims data will provide confirmation or not, as well as extent:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s raft of policy changes on his first day in office, including rolling back rights of transgender people and ending citizenship as a birthright in the United States, are expected to lead to a rise in claims for asylum in Canada, immigration experts say.

He signed a suite of executive orders on Monday evening tightening up immigration rules, including to bolster the U.S.’s southern border. The White House confirmed that he plans to suspend refugee resettlement in the U.S., end asylum for illegal border crossers, and enhance vetting and screening of foreign nationals.

Among the slew of executive orders is one reversing a policy that means anyone born in the U.S. automatically becomes an American citizen. Citizenship as a birthright is guaranteed by a constitutional amendment and is one of the measures in the President’s program expected to prompt legal challenges. Speaking to reporters as he signed the orders Monday evening, the President said he thought the orders would withstand such challenges.

Canadian immigration lawyer Yameena Ansari said the change to the birthright rule, if implemented, would mean that some children born to immigrants in the U.S. may be stateless, which she said breached international law. She predicted that such a policy could lead to more minors turning up at the Canadian border to seek a safe haven.

“Trump is breaching the U.S.’s own international-rights commitments by making large swaths of the population stateless,” she said.

In his inaugural address on Monday, Mr. Trump said the U.S. government would also adopt a policy of recognizing only male and female genders. He signed an executive order on Monday night effectively reversing the gender-related policies of his predecessor, Joe Biden.

In 2022, the Biden administration permitted U.S. citizens to select a gender-neutral “X” on passports.

Mr. Trump is expected to direct the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that official government documents, including passports and visas, only recognize twogenders.

Canadian immigration lawyer David Garson said since Mr. Trump’s election victory he has received multiple inquiries from non-binary and transgender Americans, as well as U.S. parents of transgender children, about moving to Canada.

He said the policy changes are likely to spark more asylum claims at the Canadian border from anxious people, including transgender U.S. citizens fearful of infringement of their rights. He also predicted an increase in asylum claims from pregnant, undocumented migrants who fear not just deportation, but that their child could be stateless if born in the U.S.

Mr. Trump’s executive orders would mean “more people coming to Canada or the Canadian border over all,” Mr. Garson said.

Executive orders rolling back transgender rights and further tightening up asylum in the U.S. could also have an impact on its Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada, experts predict.

Under the agreement, most foreign nationals claiming asylum at the border are automatically returned to the U.S., but immigration experts say Mr. Trump’s policies may lead to a reassessment of whether the U.S. is now safe for particular groups.

The changes in the U.S. could lead to the consideration of more “carve-outs,” meaning that some groups – as currently with unaccompanied minors – are not sent back to the U.S.

Immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff said that under refugee law, Canada has an obligation to consider whether there are marked differences between Canadian and American standards of protection.

“Legally speaking. it could mean that the Governor in Council might decide to de-designate the U.S. as a safe third country,” she said….

Source: Trump’s executive orders on immigration could prompt rise in asylum claims in Canada, experts say

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Canada’s refugee system is overwhelmed by skyrocketing claims. What can Ottawa do to reduce backlogs?

2024/08/02 Leave a comment

It starts with reversing some of the visa waivers or relaxed requirements for source countries that are experiencing a major increase along with some of the post-arrival suggestions mentioned by lawyers. And while some will not like it, AI should be part of the triage process:

Canada’s refugee system has been the envy of the world. It’s recognized as being orderly, fair and efficient when compared to any other western country.

But as the number of asylum seekers keeps surging here — and with the queue and processing times getting longer, the beleaguered system is in desperate need of a rethink to save it from spiraling out of control and being clogged up in endless backlogs.

“It didn’t take long for me to realize with the team that we needed to maintain our ability to render fair decisions despite the growing intake,” Manon Brassard, who was appointed as the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board a year ago, told a Senate committee in June. “We need to do something about that.”

In 2023, the country’s largest independent tribunal received 138,000 new claims, up by 129 per cent from the year before and by 136 per cent in 2019, before the pandemic halted international travels and slowed the inflow. In the first three months of 2024, already 46,700 claims were lodged, with a total of 186,000 cases in the queue.

In the spring, the federal government tried unsuccessfully to ram through some much-needed changes to the asylum system through an omnibus bill that it said were necessary to streamline the process and tackle a growing backlog.

Those changes would have simplified the initial registration of a refugee claim; imposed “mandatory conditions” and timelines that claimants must follow to avoid their cases from being deemed abandoned; and allowed immigration officials to hold on to a file before referring it to the refugee board for hearing. 

Immigration Minister Marc Miller told the Star in a recent interview that the status quo is unsustainable.

“It was unfortunate,” he said of the foiled reforms carved out of the budget bill amid complaints by advocates for the lack of consultation. “Those amendments were fair in nature, and they were intended to accelerate some of the processing.”

Miller said he has some decisions to make in the coming months and is not ruling out reintroducing the proposed changes in a new bill.

The refugee board’s dilemma

Despite an extra $87 million in federal funding over two years — and new rules to crack down on irregular migration through U.S. land border — the refugee board only has the capacity to process 50,000 claims a year. With more than 186,000 cases pending, it would take almost four years to clear its inventory, even if new intakes were halted.

And the board is not going to get more money. As part of the federal budget cuts, the tribunal must reduce spending by $8.3 million this year, $10.5 million in 2025 and $13.6 million in 2026 and beyond.

Without the proposed legislative changes, the tribunal has few tools at its disposal.

“Money is part of the solution, but it’s not the only solution,” Brassard, who declined the Star’s interview request for this story, told senators in June. “We need to improve the way we do things.”

The board is developing a plan, known as “Horizon 26-27,” to streamline its operations and processes with the help of technology and automation, but few details are available. The aim is that by next March it will be able to process 80 per cent of claims within two years, as opposed to the current 37 months.

Critics urge for greater efficiency 

Critics say that while the board does need more decision-makers, it must also improve efficiency, and the government could help take some of the asylum seekers out of the queue by providing them with alternative pathways.

The tribunal already has policies to expedite less complex claims, such as those that appear to have solid evidence and are from clearly troubled countries.

Brassard told the Senate committee that the board has a task force to review cases — covering Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Venezuela — for quicker processing and about a third of the claims go through the screening.

However, immigration lawyer Robert Blanshay said even if an asylum seeker is selected for less complex screening, the case is still required to go before a refugee judge for a decision.

He said the board could hire trained administrative staff to review cases and interview claimants to make a record for the adjudicator to just sign off on, to save time and resources for formal hearings.

“On paper, it has been implemented, but it’s been severely underutilized,” said Blanshay, vice-chair of the refugee and litigation committee of the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration section.

Immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff, who served as an adjudicator on the refugee board in the 1990s, said there used to be refugee protection officers — neutral parties — tasked with interviewing claimants where credibility was the only concern.

“You had an opportunity to ask questions and get clarification about some points that might be troubling you and could be resolved,” she explained. “The member (adjudicator) who signed off on the decision did so with more comfort.”

Silcoff said it’s worth bringing back the eliminated administrative position and triaging cases into three streams based on complexity: those requiring a full hearing, an interview if there are a few questions, or just a paper review for the most solid claims.

Aviva Basman, president of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, said the current asylum process is complicated and cumbersome, and the online portal, launched in 2021, takes a long time to fill out, especially when a claim involves multiple applicants.

Currently, foreign nationals can seek asylum at port of entry or make an inland claim after entering the country. However, there continues to be inconsistent and confusing information, for example, about deadlines to file documents, depending on the entry point into the refugee system. 

The less complex file review process is also somewhat unclear, which discourages counsel from even making an attempt because it requires substantial resources to make a case.

“What you have is a complicated, cumbersome refugee claim process where a lot of people are having a hard time,” said Basman. “Having simpler, streamlined processes would be a good thing.”

Alternative pathways for refugees

In addition to adequately resourcing asylum processes, a recent international report recommends governments alleviate pressure on their refugee determination systems by providing safe, orderly alternatives through resettlement programs and regular immigration pathways.

“Narrow- or short-sighted policies that focus on only one piece of the puzzle are likely to merely push the problem elsewhere,” warned the report by Washington-based Migration Policy Institute and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, a German foundation. 

Silcoff said Ottawa could expand on initiatives that offer immigration status to asylum seekers employed in fields with labour shortages, such as a one-time program during the pandemic that granted permanent residence to asylum seekers working in health care and a current pilot that resettles skilled refugees abroad to fill in-demand jobs here. 

“That could be a win-win,” said Silcoff. “It meets our labour market needs and it helps relieve the pressure from the refugee board.”

Source: Canada’s refugee system is overwhelmed by skyrocketing claims. What can Ottawa do to reduce backlogs?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , , , ,

Palestinians in the GTA appeal to federal government to help loved ones flee Gaza

2023/10/24 Leave a comment

As always, the response will be judged in relation to other groups fleeing violence like Syria, Ukraine, Afghanistan and others. Also as always, there will be degrees of inconsistency, and, security concerns regarding possible Hamas supporters.

Largely academic for the moment until there is a corridor for civilians to flee, which likely will be a secondary priority compared to Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents:

A group of Palestinians living in the GTA are appealing to the federal government to bring family members living in Gaza to Canada faster than standard immigration policies allow.

Milton local and permanent resident Abdallah Alhamadni says they’re hoping Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) will create a humanitarian pathway for Palestinians fleeing from the Israel-Hamas war, similar to those implemented for people escaping violence in places like Syria and Ukraine.

“I have a great hope, it’s not impossible to do that,” said Alhamadni, adding Canada has a reputation for helping people around the world find safe haven in the country during times of crises.

Source: Palestinians in the GTA appeal to federal government to help loved ones flee Gaza – CBC.ca

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , ,

← Older posts