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 , , , , , , ,

Canada should pull out of refugee pact with U.S. over Trump policies, says former Liberal foreign minister [Axworthy]

2025/11/14 Leave a comment

Not surprising that Axworthy would make that call. Substantively correct, of course, on his assessment of USA Trump administration policies. But impact would be huge and already dwarf the immigration and asylum systems, already subject to backlogs and considerable strain:

Former Liberal foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy says Canada should pull out of a long-standing refugee pact with the United States that leads to most asylum seekers arriving at the Canadian border being turned back. 

Mr. Axworthy, who is standing down as chair of the World Refugee & Migration Council on Thursday, said in an interview that President Donald Trump’s erosion of the rights of migrants in the U.S. means the country should no longer be considered a safe country for Canada to return asylum seekers to.

The Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S. took effect in 2004 and was later expanded to include not just official ports of entry but the entire land border. Under its terms, asylum seekers must claim refugee protection in the first of the two countries they arrive in. 

Most asylum seekers will be sent back if they arrive at the Canadian border after having first gone to the U.S., although there are exceptions, including forpeople facing the death penalty. 

Mr. Axworthy said Canada no longer has shared values with the U.S. under Mr.Trump. He said that “evidence is produced daily on every American newscast” that it is no longer a safe country for asylum seekers to return to.

“I mean, massive deportations without any due process. Clearly, major restrictions on who can come, a system in which there is virtually no appeal. The whole process of law has been shelved, if not totally put in the dumpster,” he said. …

Source: Canada should pull out of refugee pact with U.S. over Trump policies, says former Liberal foreign minister

Filed under Immigration, Refugees 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 , , , , ,

Kang: We need an official policy prohibiting removal of at-risk trans and non-binary people to the U.S.

2025/07/30 Leave a comment

Predictable and understandable call:

…A temporary public policy, like a stay of removal, serves as a mechanism to delay or prevent deportation under specific circumstances. They can differ significantly in terms of their purpose, application and duration, but a temporary suspension-of-removal policy could offer a meaningful – albeit short-term – solution for trans and non-binary Americans who fear being removed to the U.S. Under this type of policy, the Canadian government can temporarily change or suspend certain immigration requirements in response to international crises, with targeted immigration measures for specific groups of people. Set for a limited timeframe, the Canadian government can reassess the policy and, if necessary, extend it until circumstances change…

Joycna Kang is a partner and Benjamin Merrill is an articling student at Battista Migration Law Group, an LGBTQ immigration firm based in Toronto.

Source: We need an official policy prohibiting removal of at-risk trans and non-binary people to the U.S.

Filed under gender Tagged with , , ,

Urback: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees? 

2025/06/07 Leave a comment

Valid question:

…Canada is now trying to make the process a little bit harder. This week, the Liberals tabled an omnibus bill that, among many other things, would render ineligible for asylum those who have been in Canada for more than a year (which addresses the spike in applications from international students who filed refugee claims after the government changed student visa rules in 2024), and would prohibit those who entered Canada via an irregular border crossing to file for refugee protection after 14 days. These are necessary changes that may help to bring Canada’s current four-year-backlog for refugee hearings down to manageable levels. But some people will still try….

But now, those without legal status in the U.S. are being picked up off the streets, thrown into detention centres and, in many cases, deported to third countries without a hearing. The Trump administration is doing that in defiance of court orders, as in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and resisting even the U.S. Supreme Court, which said that the government must “facilitate” the return of those deported in error. 

This matters for Canada because of the principle of non-refoulement under international law, which holds that refugees should not forcibly be returned to countries where they are likely to face cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

It used to be hard to argue that migrants sent back under the STCA would face that, but the case seems much easier to make now. Canada should prepare for another challenge to the STCA – and possibly, a different result. 

Source: Is the U.S. still a ‘safe’ country for refugees?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees 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 , , , ,

Immigration irrégulière: Dans les cahiers secrets des passeurs

2025/03/07 Leave a comment

Interesting insights into cross-border people smugglers and traffickers:

L’enquête sur ce réseau de passeurs d’une ampleur inusitée au Québec a bénéficié de la collaboration étroite entre les services frontaliers du Canada et ceux des États-Unis. Ironiquement, elle pourrait connaître son dénouement alors que le président Donald Trump accuse toujours le Canada de ne pas être assez proactif en matière de sécurité frontalière.

Les carnets saisis par l’Agence des services frontaliers du Canada (ASFC) sur deux dirigeants de l’organisation à Montréal se sont avérés une mine d’information inespérée. Dans des centaines de pages de documents judiciaires déposés devant les tribunaux, les enquêteurs dressent leurs constats sur les ramifications du réseau actif dans trois pays. Selon eux :

  • L’organisation criminelle mexicaine compte une dizaine de collaborateurs connus à Montréal, dont plusieurs ont des liens familiaux ;
  • Elle organise la traversée clandestine de la frontière dans les deux sens : du Québec vers les États-Unis et vice-versa ;
  • Elle collecte entre 5000 $ et 6000 $ par passage, ce qui lui a rapporté au moins 1 million de dollars en sept mois ;
  • Elle serait aussi active dans le trafic de stupéfiants ;
  • Elle est soupçonnée d’être liée aux cartels de la drogue.

Le dossier revêt une importance particulière pour l’ASFC, qui n’a pas l’habitude de se frotter à des réseaux de passeurs aussi prolifiques.

« Je serais porté à dire que c’est le plus gros, ou celui qui semble le plus structuré. Je vais faire attention, parce qu’on est encore en train d’enquêter, mais c’est dans les plus gros qu’on a eus dans la région du Québec », affirme en entrevue Tony Dos Santos, directeur adjoint responsable des enquêtes criminelles de l’ASFC pour le Québec.

Nouvelle réalité avec la fermeture du chemin Roxham

La Presse a obtenu des copies des précieux cahiers de comptabilité, déposées en preuve au tribunal de l’immigration. Tout y était soigneusement consigné : les noms des clients ayant eu recours aux services de l’organisation, leurs numéros de téléphone, les coordonnées d’un ami ou d’un membre de leur famille qui servait de « caution », les montants payés, la date de leur passage, la liste des recruteurs sur le sol mexicain et des complices du côté américain.

“C’est rare qu’on a de la preuve comme ça ! Je vais être franc, on ne voit plus ça, en 2024, des calepins de ce genre avec des inscriptions. C’est un cas vraiment old school.”

 Tony Dos Santos, directeur adjoint responsable des enquêtes criminelles de l’ASFC pour le Québec

L’agence constate une recrudescence du recours à des groupes de passeurs organisés depuis deux ans. Autrefois, les migrants pouvaient se rendre jusqu’au chemin Roxham, traverser à pied et demander l’asile au Canada sur place. La fermeture du chemin Roxham en 2023 a changé la donne. « Maintenant, ils doivent carrément entrer de façon illégale, attendre et se cacher 14 jours au Canada avant de lever la main et de demander le statut de réfugié, sinon on les renvoie aux États-Unis », explique M. Dos Santos. Le recours aux groupes de passeurs organisés a augmenté en conséquence.

« Ce type d’organisation criminelle est impitoyable et menace souvent les consommateurs s’ils ne payent pas, ou les place dans une situation vulnérable », précise un rapport de l’ASFC déposé en preuve…

Source: Immigration irrégulière Dans les cahiers secrets des passeurs

Filed under Immigration Tagged with , , , ,

Canada Curbed Illegal Migration to the U.S. Now People Are Heading to Canada.

2025/03/03 Leave a comment

Sort of inevitable that increased security patrols mean further persons found. No major uptick to date, February data should be out shortly:

…Canada has directed 1.3 billion Canadian dollars ($900 million) to enhance border security, adding two Black Hawk helicopters and 60 drones equipped with thermal cameras.

It also tightened requirements for temporary visas that some visitors used to arrive in Canada legally but then enter the United States illegally.

The Canadian government says its recent measures have driven down the number of unauthorized crossings into the United States: About 600 migrants were intercepted at the border in January, down from about 900 in January 2024, according to U.S. data.

“Whether or not some of the allegations about what is going on at the border are accurate or not, or credible or not, I don’t have the luxury not to take it seriously,” Marc Miller, Canada’s immigration minister, said in an interview on Thursday.

…The Opposite Direction

Canada’s focus on the border, against the backdrop of Mr. Trump’s domestic crackdown on migrants, is why the nine people walking into Alberta on Feb. 3 raised alarms: It was unusual to see a group this large crossing on foot in the heart of winter. The presence of young children made it all the more troubling.

The Canadian authorities say they have been intercepting more people arriving from the United States, but because of the schedule Canada follows in releasing data, no numbers are yet available for the weeks since Mr. Trump’s inauguration in January. But government news releases suggest the numbers are rising….

“This is the latest sign that Canada is sending people and families with children back to the U.S. with the full knowledge that they are at great risk of being detained and then returned to danger,” said Ketty Nivyabandi, a leader of Amnesty International’s Canada chapter, referring to the nine migrants Canada returned to the United States. 

“The Canadian government must not wait a minute longer to withdraw from the Safe Third Country Agreement,” she added.

But such a move would likely encourage more people to seek refuge in Canada, creating new pressures on the country’s already strained immigration system.

“It would almost certainly lead to a surge in unauthorized border crossings,” said Phil Triadafilopoulos, a political science professor at the University of Toronto.

Still, he added, by continuing to return asylum seekers to the United States, Canada is signaling that “it isn’t going to receive people who have lost their temporary protected status in the U.S. as hospitably as it did in the past.”

And as illustrated by the migrants who crossed in Alberta, those groups, he said, can “include small children in really dire conditions, with the full knowledge that the fate of those children and their families is highly uncertain.”

Mr. Miller, the immigration minister, insisted that Canada believes that the United States remains a safe country for asylum seekers.

“We need to have a proper, managed system at the border,” he said. “But it doesn’t mean that we’re naïve, or we’re not watching events that are currently happening in the U.S.”…

Source: Canada Curbed Illegal Migration to the U.S. Now People Are Heading to Canada.

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 , , ,

Michael Barutciski: With Trump’s deportations underway, what will Canada’s asylum policy look like? 

2025/01/30 Leave a comment

Useful reminder of limits. But Trump policies undermine the principles underlying the STCA:

In light of the Trump administration’s early moves to deport migrants without legal status in the U.S., there’s been heightened debate here in Canada about how we may (or may not) be positioned to handle a surge of claimants seeking refuge. Beyond the logistical capacity issues of handling high volumes of cases at our border, there are outstanding questions about Canada’s legal obligations to claimants and what, if any, policy and legal scope we have to manage the potential influx. The truth is it is greater than is often understood.

A key source of the confusion is that for years many in Canada have held a false assumption about the legal constraints imposed on our asylum procedures through a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1985, Singh v. Canada. The Globe and Mail’s editorial board recently repeated this mistake, asserting that Canada’s top court decided the Charter guarantees asylum seekers the right to a hearing as soon as they set foot in the country. This misreading of Singh has a real effect on our immigration predicament.

The Supreme Court did establish an important general rule in Singh: all persons who arrive at the border are covered by the Charter, regardless of their immigration status. Yet establishing that the Charter applies is not the same as interpreting the content of these Charter rights in various contexts.

In terms of refugee status determination procedures, the Supreme Court noted in Singh that the claimants, all Sikhs, were going to be sent by Canadian authorities back to their home country. For six of the seven claimants, this meant being returned to India, a country the Court considered dangerous for them given the violent internal tensions at the time. (The other claimant was to be returned to Guyana.)

However, the Supreme Court never generalized by saying that all claimants always have a right to a hearing. That is the exaggerated interpretation encouraged for years by activists and wishful-thinking academics. If claimants come to Canada via a safe third country, such as the U.S., then they can be returned to that country. This is the basic principle at the heart of the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA), which the Court accepted last year when it refused to declare the agreement unconstitutional (as activists and academics have been demanding for years).

In other words, dealing with asylum claimants coming from the U.S. is a different situation than the one addressed in Singh and the legal constraints are not the same. This nuance is recognized in both the 1951 Refugee Convention and Canadian legislation. The convention does not even mention anything about hearings. Its most basic protection is the principle of “non-refoulement,” which stipulates that refugees cannot be returned to a country where their “life of freedom would be threatened.” It allows claimants to be returned to safe countries, which is why the adoption of the STCA was possible in the first place.

Section 101 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act specifically includes eligibility clauses that should suggest caution to anyone who believes automatic access to a hearing is part of Canada’s system. There is an initial determination as to whether the migrant is eligible to make a claim, including various security-related grounds of inadmissibility.

Moreover, there is also a clause rendering claimants ineligible when they come “directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations.” This is the legislative provision that enables return to the U.S. Even a cursory reading of the act should make clear that an automatic right to a refugee hearing was never intended or established by Parliament.

Despite these legal provisions, the Liberals have spent years reinforcing the confusion regarding Singh, constantly asserting that asylum seekers trying to enter “irregularly” at Roxham Road had the right to a hearing. When the government’s inaction regarding the illegal crossings led to record numbers of asylum claimants and public anxiety over the lack of border control, the government eventually negotiated an amendment to the STCA that essentially closed Roxham Road. Nobody seemed to notice that the supposed right to a hearing in Canada disappeared.

It is ironic that Prime Minister Trudeau recently acknowledged in the French version of a YouTube video that asylum seekers at Roxham Road were actually abusing the system. This incoherent and unserious approach was again revealed when Immigration Minister Marc Miller repeated the false argument about a supposed unqualified right to a hearing during a press conference explaining the reimposition of visas on Mexican nationals (who he claimed were abusing the asylum system).

After many years of lax asylum policies, followed more recently by continual controversies, there now appears to be an attempt to debate the country’s genuine asylum dilemmas with the Globe’s editorial board suggesting “new thinking is needed.” Most reasonable Canadians realize that tightening the current asylum system in a manner that treats claimants fairly is sufficiently challenging; we do not need to make it even more difficult by inventing legal constraints.

Singh established that asylum seekers in Canada who risk being returned to a dangerous country benefit from a right to a hearing if they claim protection. The corollary is equally important if we are to explore creative solutions to Canada’s asylum problems: there cannot be a Charter violation if asylum seekers are sent to a safe country. Although it will disappoint activists, the future of a sustainable asylum system will inevitably involve extraterritorial procedures and an extension of the safe third-country idea. We need to properly grasp basic legal constraints to make sure these procedures are as fair and humane as possible.

Source: Michael Barutciski: With Trump’s deportations underway, what will Canada’s asylum policy look like?

Filed under Immigration, Refugees Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts