A delegate of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued an exclusion order to the Applicant pursuant to section 228 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 for attempting to enter Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit.
Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
This is an application under s 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act] for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer, dated November 6,
2014 [Decision], which refused the Applicant’s application for a work permit.
Gahir Law is one of the top law firms in Mississauga, Ontario, Brampton, Toronto, Hamilton in Canada. In our law office, get assistance from our lawyer to help you in licence appeal tribunal law, administrative law, professional regulation disciplinary law, commercial land development mediator arbitrator law, corporate law, Immigration related cases. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
The document discusses Canada's temporary resident visa (TRV) refusal process. It states that while there is no formal right of appeal for TRV decisions, an applicant can reapply and may seek judicial review through the Federal Court of Canada if they believe the visa refusal process was unfair or unlawful. The Federal Court review involves a two-stage "leave" and "application" process where the applicant must show an error was made and the Court can intervene in a visa officer's decision if certain grounds are met, such as if the officer acted without jurisdiction, failed to observe natural justice, or made an unreasonable decision. Specific examples of grounds where the Court has intervened include if the officer inappropriately considered an applicant's dual
This document discusses misrepresentation provisions under Canadian immigration law. It provides context on key court decisions that have interpreted misrepresentation, including that intent is not required for a finding of misrepresentation. It examines provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that can lead to a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation by a permanent resident or foreign national. Specific issues are analyzed, such as what constitutes a material fact, direct vs indirect misrepresentation, and the requirement that the misrepresentation could induce an error in administering the Act. Examples are given of types of misrepresentations that courts have found to be material.
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, applied for a temporary visitor visa to Canada for business exploration purposes. The visa officer refused the application because she was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, citing limited evidence of his ties to China and questionable bank documents. The applicant sought judicial review. Key issues were whether the officer erred in refusing the visa and whether she breached her duty of procedural fairness by failing to notify the applicant of concerns with his evidence.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Shrivastava against the Central Information Commission. Some key points:
1) The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information about a case registered against him by CBI and related departmental proceedings.
2) The CIC rejected the appeal citing an exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding information that could impede an investigation.
3) The court dismisses the writ petition, noting the petitioner failed to disclose serious allegations and criminal proceedings against him in the petition. The court also finds the CIC order was correctly decided and Section 8(
The court heard a bail application for 7 Bangladeshi nationals who were arrested for violating laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court granted interim bail to 5 applicants and held the 6th applicant's request pending extension of their expired visa. Strict conditions were imposed, including adherence to visa terms and regular reporting. The Ministry of External Affairs was directed to facilitate the applicants' participation in their trial and discuss their cases with Bangladesh to possibly decide the matter without trial.
Sadiq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
This is an application under s 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act] for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer, dated November 6,
2014 [Decision], which refused the Applicant’s application for a work permit.
Gahir Law is one of the top law firms in Mississauga, Ontario, Brampton, Toronto, Hamilton in Canada. In our law office, get assistance from our lawyer to help you in licence appeal tribunal law, administrative law, professional regulation disciplinary law, commercial land development mediator arbitrator law, corporate law, Immigration related cases. For more details visit here - https://www.gahirlaw.com
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
The document discusses Canada's temporary resident visa (TRV) refusal process. It states that while there is no formal right of appeal for TRV decisions, an applicant can reapply and may seek judicial review through the Federal Court of Canada if they believe the visa refusal process was unfair or unlawful. The Federal Court review involves a two-stage "leave" and "application" process where the applicant must show an error was made and the Court can intervene in a visa officer's decision if certain grounds are met, such as if the officer acted without jurisdiction, failed to observe natural justice, or made an unreasonable decision. Specific examples of grounds where the Court has intervened include if the officer inappropriately considered an applicant's dual
This document discusses misrepresentation provisions under Canadian immigration law. It provides context on key court decisions that have interpreted misrepresentation, including that intent is not required for a finding of misrepresentation. It examines provisions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that can lead to a finding of inadmissibility for misrepresentation by a permanent resident or foreign national. Specific issues are analyzed, such as what constitutes a material fact, direct vs indirect misrepresentation, and the requirement that the misrepresentation could induce an error in administering the Act. Examples are given of types of misrepresentations that courts have found to be material.
The applicant, a Chinese citizen, applied for a temporary visitor visa to Canada for business exploration purposes. The visa officer refused the application because she was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, citing limited evidence of his ties to China and questionable bank documents. The applicant sought judicial review. Key issues were whether the officer erred in refusing the visa and whether she breached her duty of procedural fairness by failing to notify the applicant of concerns with his evidence.
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Shrivastava against the Central Information Commission. Some key points:
1) The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information about a case registered against him by CBI and related departmental proceedings.
2) The CIC rejected the appeal citing an exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding information that could impede an investigation.
3) The court dismisses the writ petition, noting the petitioner failed to disclose serious allegations and criminal proceedings against him in the petition. The court also finds the CIC order was correctly decided and Section 8(
The court heard a bail application for 7 Bangladeshi nationals who were arrested for violating laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court granted interim bail to 5 applicants and held the 6th applicant's request pending extension of their expired visa. Strict conditions were imposed, including adherence to visa terms and regular reporting. The Ministry of External Affairs was directed to facilitate the applicants' participation in their trial and discuss their cases with Bangladesh to possibly decide the matter without trial.
The court heard a bail application for 7 Bangladeshi nationals who were arrested for violating laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court granted interim bail to 5 applicants and held the 6th applicant's request pending extension of their expired visa. Strict conditions were imposed, including residing at their visa address, not seeking trial adjournments, and surrendering before visa expiration. The Ministry of External Affairs was directed to assist in securing the applicants' participation in their trial before their visas expire.
Dealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration courtUmesh Heendeniya
This document summarizes key issues related to the unlawful presence bars under INA sections 212(a)(9)(B) and 212(a)(9)(C). It discusses a recent Ninth Circuit decision that impacted the accrual of unlawful presence pre-IIRIRA. It also examines whether Section 245(i) can help those with unlawful presence to adjust status in the U.S. without having to depart. Finally, it analyzes three scenarios to determine if time spent in the U.S. can count towards satisfying the 3-year or 10-year unlawful presence bars.
Steven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of CanadaGuy Boulianne
This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Health to quarantine asymptomatic Canadians in federal facilities without due process. The applicants, Steven Duesing and Nicole Mathis, seek an interlocutory injunction suspending mandatory confinement in federal facilities and releasing those currently confined. They also seek declarations that the decision violates sections of the Charter and is unreasonable as it does not balance rights and freedoms. The grounds for the application are that the federal government has not ensured there are no reasonable alternatives to detaining Canadians in facilities against their will.
The document provides information about COVID-19 related updates to criminal law, immigration, and refugee processes in Ontario.
For criminal law, courts have adjourned dates by 10 weeks and trials are suspended until May 29. Sureties can participate remotely in bail hearings.
For immigration, interviews and citizenship ceremonies are cancelled. Deadlines for documents have been extended 90 days and removals postponed. Testing and healthcare are available regardless of status during the pandemic.
Judicial reviews and federal court deadlines are suspended until May 5. Overall, proceedings are delayed and conducted remotely where possible during the public health crisis.
United States and Citizenship Services (CIS), agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision in Shalom Pentecostal Church v. Acting Secretary DUS that its 2008 regulation was ultra vires, released a new policy memorandum (memo) stating that it will no longer require that the qualifying religious work experience for the 2-year period preceding submission of a Form I-360 special immigrant religious worker petition be acquired in lawful immigration status if gained in the United States.
Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014MacGregor Kufa
1. The document discusses South Africa's Immigration Act and recent changes to regulations regarding changing one's immigration status or conditions from within the country.
2. It outlines categories of visa holders who can and cannot apply for a change in status or conditions according to the Act and regulations.
3. The document also discusses relevant court cases that have found prohibiting certain categories of visa holders like spouses of citizens from changing their status within the country to be unconstitutional.
Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
The Applicant challenges a decision made on April 3, 2014, denying his application for a temporary work permit. The Applicant is an actor who sought to enter Canada to work on the set of a movie production. The basis of the decision was a finding that the Applicant had misrepresented his background, pertaining specifically to two serious
criminal charges in India
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdfKatrina Sriranpong
The evidence for atrocities in Gaza, especially in regards to children, is increasingly alarming, while the war shows no signs of dissipating. The needs of the children in Gaza are overwhelming, with Save the Children’s Director for Palestine Jason Lee reporting unimaginable conditions on the streets, with growing malnutrition rates and devastating effects on mental health, as well as life-long physical tolls on the body. UN reports contain testimonies of children, as well as hospitals and aid workers, being targeted in military situations, prompting international calls to the ruling Likud party to immediately put an end to this practice. The damage to the children of Gaza is incalculable, but the following organizations are on the ground doing whatever they can to help:
Save the Children
Defense for Children Palestine
UNICEF
UNRWA
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...Katrina Sriranpong
The Labour Market Opinions were sought in respect of the hiring of foreign nationals, pursuant to the
Temporary Foreign Worker Program [TFWP], as food counter attendants at two restaurant locations operated by the Applicants under the “Fatburger” banner. One of those locations is in Lougheed, British Columbia, while the other is located in Seton, Alberta.
The decision that is the subject of Court file IMM-2996-14 pertains to the Lougheed location, while the decision that is the subject of Court file IMM-2997-14 pertains to the Seton location.
The Applicants seek to have the officer’s decisions set aside on the following grounds:
A. The officer’s assessment was unreasonable, including as it relates to the conclusions that the Applicants: i. should have made a greater effort to recruit part-time workers to fill the
vacant positions; ii. failed to demonstrate the existence of a labour shortage; and
2015 FC 27 (CanLII), iii. had not met the minimum advertising requirements for the positions they
were seeking to have filled.
B. The officer failed to provide an opportunity to address her concerns regarding the authenticity of certain advertisements that were posted in respect of the restaurant in Seton, Alberta.
C. The officer fettered her discretion in assessing their applications, by not taking their particular circumstances into account and by relying on operational guidelines issued by the ESDC in refusing those applications.
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
Frontline Framing Ltd. seeks judicial review of an Employment and Social Development Canada Officer’s refusal to issue a positive Labour Market Opinion on the grounds that the company had not demonstrated the existence of a labour shortage for experienced carpenters able
to provide framing services for residential properties. A positive Labour Market Opinion would
have allowed the company to hire a non-Canadian under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeal Division, dismissing his appeal from a finding by a Visa Officer that his marriage was not genuine within the meaning of subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 and accordingly, that his wife is not a member of the family class as defined in paragraph 117(1)(a) of the Regulations.
Katrina Sriranpong has supported numerous humanitarian causes through her career as a lawyer focusing on vulnerable populations. The document recommends supporting several non-profit organizations, including Soi Dog Foundation which works to improve animal welfare in Asia and ended dog meat trade in Thailand, Elephant Nature Park which rescues elephants from abuse, and The Orangutan Project which funds forest conservation and rehabilitation of orphaned orangutans. It also recommends supporting UNICEF, which works in over 190 countries to protect children's rights, and Save the Children, established in 1919 to improve children's lives through education, healthcare, and opportunities.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Frameworkdevaki57
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MEANING
Corporate Governance refers to the way in which companies are governed and to what purpose. It identifies who has power and accountability, and who makes decisions. It is, in essence, a toolkit that enables management and the board to deal more effectively with the challenges of running a company.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
The court heard a bail application for 7 Bangladeshi nationals who were arrested for violating laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court granted interim bail to 5 applicants and held the 6th applicant's request pending extension of their expired visa. Strict conditions were imposed, including residing at their visa address, not seeking trial adjournments, and surrendering before visa expiration. The Ministry of External Affairs was directed to assist in securing the applicants' participation in their trial before their visas expire.
Dealing with the unlawful presence bars in immigration courtUmesh Heendeniya
This document summarizes key issues related to the unlawful presence bars under INA sections 212(a)(9)(B) and 212(a)(9)(C). It discusses a recent Ninth Circuit decision that impacted the accrual of unlawful presence pre-IIRIRA. It also examines whether Section 245(i) can help those with unlawful presence to adjust status in the U.S. without having to depart. Finally, it analyzes three scenarios to determine if time spent in the U.S. can count towards satisfying the 3-year or 10-year unlawful presence bars.
Steven Duesing, Nicole Mathis v. The Attorney General of CanadaGuy Boulianne
This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Health to quarantine asymptomatic Canadians in federal facilities without due process. The applicants, Steven Duesing and Nicole Mathis, seek an interlocutory injunction suspending mandatory confinement in federal facilities and releasing those currently confined. They also seek declarations that the decision violates sections of the Charter and is unreasonable as it does not balance rights and freedoms. The grounds for the application are that the federal government has not ensured there are no reasonable alternatives to detaining Canadians in facilities against their will.
The document provides information about COVID-19 related updates to criminal law, immigration, and refugee processes in Ontario.
For criminal law, courts have adjourned dates by 10 weeks and trials are suspended until May 29. Sureties can participate remotely in bail hearings.
For immigration, interviews and citizenship ceremonies are cancelled. Deadlines for documents have been extended 90 days and removals postponed. Testing and healthcare are available regardless of status during the pandemic.
Judicial reviews and federal court deadlines are suspended until May 5. Overall, proceedings are delayed and conducted remotely where possible during the public health crisis.
United States and Citizenship Services (CIS), agreeing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision in Shalom Pentecostal Church v. Acting Secretary DUS that its 2008 regulation was ultra vires, released a new policy memorandum (memo) stating that it will no longer require that the qualifying religious work experience for the 2-year period preceding submission of a Form I-360 special immigrant religious worker petition be acquired in lawful immigration status if gained in the United States.
Change of Conditions and Change of Status under the Immigration Act 19 of 2014MacGregor Kufa
1. The document discusses South Africa's Immigration Act and recent changes to regulations regarding changing one's immigration status or conditions from within the country.
2. It outlines categories of visa holders who can and cannot apply for a change in status or conditions according to the Act and regulations.
3. The document also discusses relevant court cases that have found prohibiting certain categories of visa holders like spouses of citizens from changing their status within the country to be unconstitutional.
Bundhel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1147 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
The Applicant challenges a decision made on April 3, 2014, denying his application for a temporary work permit. The Applicant is an actor who sought to enter Canada to work on the set of a movie production. The basis of the decision was a finding that the Applicant had misrepresented his background, pertaining specifically to two serious
criminal charges in India
Similaire à Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (CanLII) (7)
If there is a Hell on Earth, it is the Lives of Children in Gaza.pdfKatrina Sriranpong
The evidence for atrocities in Gaza, especially in regards to children, is increasingly alarming, while the war shows no signs of dissipating. The needs of the children in Gaza are overwhelming, with Save the Children’s Director for Palestine Jason Lee reporting unimaginable conditions on the streets, with growing malnutrition rates and devastating effects on mental health, as well as life-long physical tolls on the body. UN reports contain testimonies of children, as well as hospitals and aid workers, being targeted in military situations, prompting international calls to the ruling Likud party to immediately put an end to this practice. The damage to the children of Gaza is incalculable, but the following organizations are on the ground doing whatever they can to help:
Save the Children
Defense for Children Palestine
UNICEF
UNRWA
Frankie's Burgers Lougheed Inc. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)...Katrina Sriranpong
The Labour Market Opinions were sought in respect of the hiring of foreign nationals, pursuant to the
Temporary Foreign Worker Program [TFWP], as food counter attendants at two restaurant locations operated by the Applicants under the “Fatburger” banner. One of those locations is in Lougheed, British Columbia, while the other is located in Seton, Alberta.
The decision that is the subject of Court file IMM-2996-14 pertains to the Lougheed location, while the decision that is the subject of Court file IMM-2997-14 pertains to the Seton location.
The Applicants seek to have the officer’s decisions set aside on the following grounds:
A. The officer’s assessment was unreasonable, including as it relates to the conclusions that the Applicants: i. should have made a greater effort to recruit part-time workers to fill the
vacant positions; ii. failed to demonstrate the existence of a labour shortage; and
2015 FC 27 (CanLII), iii. had not met the minimum advertising requirements for the positions they
were seeking to have filled.
B. The officer failed to provide an opportunity to address her concerns regarding the authenticity of certain advertisements that were posted in respect of the restaurant in Seton, Alberta.
C. The officer fettered her discretion in assessing their applications, by not taking their particular circumstances into account and by relying on operational guidelines issued by the ESDC in refusing those applications.
Frontline Framing Ltd. v. Canada (Social Development), 2014 FC 941 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
Frontline Framing Ltd. seeks judicial review of an Employment and Social Development Canada Officer’s refusal to issue a positive Labour Market Opinion on the grounds that the company had not demonstrated the existence of a labour shortage for experienced carpenters able
to provide framing services for residential properties. A positive Labour Market Opinion would
have allowed the company to hire a non-Canadian under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
Momi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 50 (CanLII)Katrina Sriranpong
The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeal Division, dismissing his appeal from a finding by a Visa Officer that his marriage was not genuine within the meaning of subsection 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 and accordingly, that his wife is not a member of the family class as defined in paragraph 117(1)(a) of the Regulations.
Katrina Sriranpong has supported numerous humanitarian causes through her career as a lawyer focusing on vulnerable populations. The document recommends supporting several non-profit organizations, including Soi Dog Foundation which works to improve animal welfare in Asia and ended dog meat trade in Thailand, Elephant Nature Park which rescues elephants from abuse, and The Orangutan Project which funds forest conservation and rehabilitation of orphaned orangutans. It also recommends supporting UNICEF, which works in over 190 countries to protect children's rights, and Save the Children, established in 1919 to improve children's lives through education, healthcare, and opportunities.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Frameworkdevaki57
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MEANING
Corporate Governance refers to the way in which companies are governed and to what purpose. It identifies who has power and accountability, and who makes decisions. It is, in essence, a toolkit that enables management and the board to deal more effectively with the challenges of running a company.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
Receivership and liquidation Accounts
Being a Paper Presented at Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) on Friday, August 18, 2023.
Integrating Advocacy and Legal Tactics to Tackle Online Consumer Complaintsseoglobal20
Our company bridges the gap between registered users and experienced advocates, offering a user-friendly online platform for seamless interaction. This platform empowers users to voice their grievances, particularly regarding online consumer issues. We streamline support by utilizing our team of expert advocates to provide consultancy services and initiate appropriate legal actions.
Our Online Consumer Legal Forum offers comprehensive guidance to individuals and businesses facing consumer complaints. With a dedicated team, round-the-clock support, and efficient complaint management, we are the preferred solution for addressing consumer grievances.
Our intuitive online interface allows individuals to register complaints, seek legal advice, and pursue justice conveniently. Users can submit complaints via mobile devices and send legal notices to companies directly through our portal.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
Safeguarding Against Financial Crime: AML Compliance Regulations DemystifiedPROF. PAUL ALLIEU KAMARA
To ensure the integrity of financial systems and combat illicit financial activities, understanding AML (Anti-Money Laundering) compliance regulations is crucial for financial institutions and businesses. AML compliance regulations are designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities by imposing specific requirements on financial institutions, including customer due diligence, monitoring, and reporting of suspicious activities (GitHub Docs).
Paranych v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 158 (CanLII)
1. Date: 20180209
Docket: IMM-2962-17
Citation: 2018 FC 158
Ottawa, Ontario, February 9, 2018
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
SERHII PARANYCH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] A delegate of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness issued an
exclusion order to Mr. Paranych pursuant to section 228 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 for attempting to enter Canada to work without first
obtaining a work permit.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
2. Page: 2
[2] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is allowed and the
exclusion order is set aside.
[3] Mr. Paranych is a 23 year old citizen of the Ukraine. He first came in Canada in October
2015, on a study permit and a work permit, valid until December 2016. He subsequently
obtained a further study permit valid until March 2017. He studied English from November
2015 to December 2015, and later studied at Greystone College of Business from January 2016
to December 2016.
[4] On June 14, 2017, he was issued a visitor permit valid until June 25, 2017. The permit
noted that his temporary resident status was restored pursuant to subsection 182(1) of the
Regulations, which allows an officer to restore the status of a visitor, worker, or student if they
apply within 90 days of losing their temporary resident status.
[5] On June 19, 2017, because his permit was about to expire, and because Mr. Paranych
wanted a work permit, he engaged in “flagpoling” at the port of entry in Surrey, British
Columbia. Flagpoling is a process whereby one applies for the renewal of a work or study
permit by leaving Canada at a border crossing with the U.S.A., and re-entering, usually
immediately. Apparently, this process is commonly used as it saves a lot of time when compared
to the process of making an application in writing or electronically.
[6] Upon re-entry to Canada, Mr. Paranych made an application for a work permit and was
interviewed by Border Service Officer Trainee Leone [BSOT Leone] and Border Service Officer
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
3. Page: 3
Arkwright. The duration of the interview is in dispute, but the result was that Mr. Paranych was
required to return for further examination on June 26, 2017, as BSOT Leone suspected that he
had worked without authorization at the Coquitlam Milestone Restaurant from March 2017 to
June 2017.
[7] On June 26, 2017 after a further interview, BSOT Leone created a “Report Under
Subsection 44(1)” of the Act stating his belief that Mr. Paranych was inadmissible to Canada.
The Minister’s delegate Officer Antonio [the Officer] reviewed the report, interviewed Mr.
Paranych, and issued an exclusion order pursuant to section 228 of the Regulations. The order
states that the Officer was satisfied that on the balance of probabilities Mr. Paranych was a
foreign national described of the subsection 41(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, SC 2001, c 27 and was thus inadmissible for failing to comply with the Act.
[8] Specifically the Officer references paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act, which requires “[e]very
foreign national … who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish … to become a
temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations”.
The Officer also observed that section 8 of the Regulations states that a “foreign national may
not enter Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit.”
[9] Following the issuance of the exclusion order, Mr. Paranych returned to the Ukraine on
July 6, 2017.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
4. Page: 4
[10] The application raises two issues. The first relates to the reasonableness of the decision,
and the second is a question of procedural fairness.
[11] The procedural fairness issue rests on the affidavit evidence of Mr. Paranych. He submits
that the statements he made that he had been working without a valid permit were not voluntary,
and thus should not have been relied on by the Officer. He says that he suffers from type 1
diabetes, and was held and questioned for approximately 7 hours. He did not have his
medication on him as he did not anticipate he would be held for questions for such a long period
of time. He swears that four to five hours into the interview he began to suffer from
hypoglycemia and advised BSOT Leone that he required insulin. He swears that BSOT Leone
responded that it was “not my problem if you didn’t bring your insulin with you” and that he was
not offered food or a sugary drink. The statement that he had been working without a valid
permit was made after the refusal to provide him with medical assistance.
[12] The others involved in the two interviews dispute the evidence offered, both as to the
duration of the interviews, and the request for medical assistance. However, in light of my
finding on the first issue, these differences need not be reconciled.
[13] As to the first issue, it is submitted that the decision was unreasonable because the
Officer was not authorized to make an exclusion order for the reasons, and on the basis, that he
did.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
5. Page: 5
[14] Mr. Paranych submits he was not in violation of paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act or section
8 of the Regulations as he had temporary resident status as a visitor to Canada. He submits he
was not seeking to enter to Canada to work without a permit, but rather presented himself at the
border in order to apply for a work permit. He submits this is the same error this Court
recognized in Yang v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FC
383 [Yang].
[15] The Minister submits that the Officer was authorized to make the exclusion order because
Mr. Paranych contravened the Act by failing to obtain a work permit before he started working at
Milestones in March 2017.
[16] I have concluded that Mr. Paranych’s position is correct. He was not in violation of
paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act or section 8 of the Regulations. Moreover, the Officer was without
authorization to make an exclusion order for the alleged violation of working without
authorization.
[17] The Officer relied on section 228 of the Regulations to issue the exclusion order. That
section provides a limited number of grounds on which the Minister may make a removal order
rather than referring a report to the Immigration Division, as set out in subsection 44(2) of the
Act. Although the Officer does not state which specific ground he relies on, the Officer
references both sections 20 and 41 of the Act, indicating he is relying on sub-paragraph
228(1)(c)(iii) of the Regulations. That provision provides that an officer may issue a removal
order, and need not refer the matter to the Immigration Division, if the inadmissibility is under
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
6. Page: 6
section 41 of the Act on grounds of “failing to establish that they hold the visa or other document
as required under section 20 of the Act.”
[18] In the circumstances of this case, the document required of Mr. Paranych under section
20 of the Act was “the visa or other document required under the regulations.” Mr. Paranych,
when he first approached the border, was in possession of a valid visitor’s permit. Pursuant to
that permit, he had every right to enter Canada.
[19] At the hearing, counsel for the Minister took the position that Mr. Paranych’s exit from
Canada to the U.S.A. created a situation such that he could no longer validly enter Canada under
his visitor permit. I note that this was not the basis on which the removal order was made. In
any event, I agree with counsel for Mr. Paranych that he was authorized to travel to the U.S.A.
and return to Canada. This is permitted pursuant to 190(3)(f) of the Regulations, which provides
as follows:
190 (3) A foreign national is exempt from the requirement to
obtain a temporary resident visa if they are seeking to enter and
remain in Canada solely
…
(f) to re-enter Canada following a visit solely to the United
States or St. Pierre and Miquelon, if they
• (i) held a study permit or a work permit that was
issued before they left Canada on such a visit or
were authorized to enter and remain in Canada as
a temporary resident, and
• (ii) return to Canada by the end of the period
initially authorized for their stay or any extension
to it.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
7. Page: 7
[20] The visitor’s permit authorized Mr. Paranych to enter and remain in Canada as a
temporary resident, and he returned to Canada before the end of the period it authorized.
[21] The Minister further submitted that the Officer’s exclusion order was reasonable as Mr.
Paranych had overstayed his permit by June 26th
when he returned for a second interview and the
order was issued. I agree that had he arrived at the border for the first time on June 26th
, it would
have been open to the Officer to issue such an exclusion order under subparagraph 228(1)(c)(iv)
of the Regulations.
[22] However, that is not the case before the Court. Rather he returned on June 26 th
as
required by the Officer. It would be manifestly unreasonable for an officer to require an
individual to return after the expiry of their permit, and then use that as the grounds to issue an
exclusion order. In any event, as noted, this is not the provision the Minister’s delegate relied on
to issue the exclusion order. The record is clear that reason for the exclusion order was for
working without authorization.
[23] Because Mr. Paranych did have the documents required by section 20 of the Act, namely
a visitor’s permit valid until June 25, 2017, when he arrived at the border, he was not attempting
to enter Canada to work without a work permit, as the Officer stated. Rather, rather he appeared
at the border for the purposes of obtaining a work permit. This case is analogous to Yang, where
this Court held at paragraphs 19-20:
As for s. 20 of IRPA, it was necessary that Ms. Yang held the
required visa or other document. She held a study permit. Counsel
for the Minister makes much of the fact that the permit did not
allow her to leave Canada and return. However, that was not the
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
8. Page: 8
reason she was written up. Furthermore, a great deal of evidence
would have to be led with respect to the practice of "flagpoling"
before it could be said that Ms. Yang was in violation of s. 20.
Regulation 8 provides that "A foreign national may not enter
Canada to work without first obtaining a work permit." The
officers completely mischaracterized the situation. She was at the
border in order to apply for a work permit, not to enter Canada to
work without a work permit.
[24] As in Yang, the actual alleged violation was not seeking to enter Canada to work without
a work permit, but rather previously working without a permit while already in Canada. This
Court in Yang did not provide further analysis of the appropriate mechanism for dealing with this
alleged violation. However, this issue was considered by Justice Locke in Gupta v Canada
(Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 1086 at paras 23-24:
The applicant also argues that an exclusion order is not the
appropriate sanction in these circumstances. He asserts that
concerns about alleged violation of a work permit should instead
be referred to the Immigration Division for consideration and, if
necessary, sanction. The applicant points to subsection 228(1) of
the IRPR which provides for various grounds of inadmissibility.
Some grounds of inadmissibility can lead to an exclusion order,
whereas others cannot and must instead be referred to the
Immigration Division. The applicant notes that the list of grounds
in paragraph 228(1)(c) (which concern inadmissibility under
section 41 of the IRPA and which can lead to an exclusion order)
is limited to matters that are quite straightforward to determine,
e.g. whether a person failed to appear, failed to leave Canada, or
failed to obtain an authorization. Other matters are not dealt with
by an exclusion order. The applicant notes also that this list of
grounds that can lead to an exclusion order includes subparagraph
228(1)(c)(iii) which refers to "failing to establish that they hold the
visa or other document as required under section 20 of the Act."
The applicability of this provision in the present situation is at the
center of this section of my analysis.
The applicant argues that the determination of whether the holder
of a work permit has contravened or will contravene the terms of
that permit is far from the kind of straightforward determination
that is contemplated in the rest of paragraph 228(1)(c) of the IRPR.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
9. Page: 9
For example, there may be issues of doubt as to the meaning of
certain conditions, as discussed in Brar v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship & Immigration), 2006 FC 1502 (F.C.). In the absence
of any jurisprudence on this question, and recognizing the
important consequences the Exclusion Order would have for the
applicant, I am inclined to agree with the applicant. I do not
conclude that any issues of doubt about the applicant's
contravention of the conditions of his work permit necessarily exist
in the present case, but the possibility of such issues does serve to
demonstrate that this type of situation (concern about alleged
violation of a work permit) should be referred to the Immigration
Division, and was not intended to be dealt with by means of an
exclusion order. It is certainly possible, based on the facts on the
record, that the applicant knowingly acted in violation of his work
permit (and even that he intended to continue working in violation
of his work permit), but that is a matter that should be addressed in
a forum other than a decision leading to an exclusion order.
[emphasis added]
[25] I agree with Justice Locke’s analysis. Working without a permit is not a breach of the
Act or Regulations for which the Officer had authorization to issue a removal order. The Officer
was instead required to refer a report to the Immigration Division, as set out in subsection 44(2)
of the Act.
[26] As the Officer was without authority to issue an exclusion order in these circumstances,
there is no need to determine whether Mr. Paranych’s right to procedural fairness was violated.
[27] What does require a determination is the use that might be made of the alleged
admissions made by Mr. Paranych and others, both in this case, and in the future. Because the
actions of the officers were without foundation, Mr. Paranych’s application for a work permit
ought to have been properly processed when he first appeared at the border crossing. There was
no requirement that he return, and that is especially so after the expiry of his visitor’s permit, as
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
10. Page: 10
happened in this case. In light of my findings, I shall issue an order that nothing stated by Mr.
Paranych or others may be used in any future application he may bring or proceeding relating to
him.
[28] Given that he has returned to the Ukraine, the appropriate remedy is to quash the
exclusion order.
[29] Counsel proposed that the Court certify as a question of general importance, dispositive
of this matter, the question of whether the definition or “work” under section 2 of the
Regulations includes unpaid work. I agree with the Respondent that this question is not
appropriate for certification given the basis for my decision.
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
11. JUDGMENT in IMM-2962-17
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. This application is allowed;
2. The exclusion order issued against Serhii Paranych is quashed;
3. No statement made by Serhii Paranych, during his interviews with border officers on
June 19, 2017 and June 26, 2017, or any statement made as a consequence of questioning
him regarding his work activities during his period of residence in Canada may be
considered or used against him in any future application or proceeding; and
4. No question is certified.
"Russel W. Zinn"
Judge
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)
12. FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2962-17
STYLE OF CAUSE: SERHII PARANYCH v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC
SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 24, 2018
JUDGMENT AND REASONS: ZINN J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 9, 2018
APPEARANCES:
Shivani Sidhu FOR THE APPLICANT
Francois Paradis FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Katrina Sriranpong
Barrister & Solicitor
Richmond, B.C.
FOR THE APPLICANT
Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice Canada
British Columbia Regional Office
Vancouver, B.C.
FOR THE RESPONDENT
2018
FC
158
(CanLII)