1 / 11

Removals

Removals. the most interesting things about removals are in the Regulations, procedural provisions are in IRPA ss 44-53 of the Act say: removal is for inadmissibility 2 processes: referral to Imm Div (for most PRs), or order s.48(2) must leave immediately + enforced ASPA

armani
Télécharger la présentation

Removals

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Removals • the most interesting things about removals are in the Regulations, procedural provisions are in IRPA • ss 44-53 of the Act say: • removal is for inadmissibility • 2 processes: referral to Imm Div (for most PRs), or order • s.48(2) must leave immediately + enforced ASPA • come into force: when made, when appeal period expires or appeal is rejected • against a refugee it is conditional (s 49(2)) • void if FN becomes PR in the interim • can extend to family members (reg 227) • provision to return at gov’t expense if error fnd in JR

  2. Stays s. 50, reg 230 • staying removal orders is bread and butter work for immigration lawyers • test for stays from Toth 1988: 1. serious issue to be tried; 2. suffer irreparable harm; 3. balance of convenience in app’s favour • 5 scenarios for stays: 1.if judicial dec wd be contravened 2.imprisonment 3.imposed by IAD or court 4.resulting from a PRRA (114(1)(b)) 5.imposed by the Minister

  3. a list of countries to which removals are suspended • this won’t apply to some people (reg 230 list + consent) • JR application stays removal order BUT not for serious criminality or for those from US and St Pierre and Miquelon • PRRA stays removal order • H&C considerations can stay

  4. 3 types of removal orders • Departure Order: least serious, no need to get a written authorization to return to Canada at any time, must leave with certificate w/in 30 days • Exclusion Order: need written authorization to come back w/in 1 yr (2 for misrep) • Deportation Order: need written authorization to ever return (ex. s.42(b)) • if ‘certificate’ removal, always need written

  5. Enforcement • a removal order never lapses due to passage of time • voluntary compliance or removal by Minister • a notional choice of country * (reg 241) • ultimately, the Minister can select any country that will authorize entry • a removed person owes the gov’t $750 for US or St.P/M, and $1500 for anywhere else, unless carrier sanctions apply (reg 243)

  6. Some examples of which circumstances lead to which orders • Deportation: ss.36 criminality, 40 misrep, 52 re-entry w/o authorization, 34 security, 35 rights violations, 37 organized crim, for anyone who was previously removed for same reason • Exclusion: s 41 failing to appear, 20 failing to have document, failing to leave at end of stay, failing to comply with any condition, s 38 health • Departure: PRs losing status bc of residency obligation, for refugee claimants who would otherwise get exclusion orders

  7. Chiarelli SCC 1992 • 2 main issues: is s. 7 of Charter infringed by deporting a PR? or by a ‘secret’ security process that limits appeal rights? No and no. • procedural changes to note: now no appeal! certificate process less complicated • the content of s. 7 is driven by context: “the most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in the country…” ( at para 24)

  8. analogy with extradition, but note that Kindler has been directly overturned • convicted PRs have violated an essential condition of their permission to remain • deportation is not imposed as a punishment (therefore not cruel or unusual, s. 12) • would it outrage stds of decency to allow him to remain • rules of natural jtc and pr fairness not fixed stds • national security interests also part of determining the content of s.7 • compassionate review never required

  9. Correia v Canada FC 2004 • ‘standard’ case: serious criminality • clear outline of how the removals procedure applies • discretion of officer to refer to the Minister is very constrained, ‘extremely limited’ • no analysis of h&c factors at any point, nor of rehabilitation…inquiry is to confirm that the conviction was in fact handed down • Minister also not bound to look at h&c issues • interview: IF held, should be earlier, procedural breach of no consequence

  10. Pancharatnam v Canada (S.G.) 2004 FC • elderly woman with diabetes being removed to Sri Lanka, h&c sponsorship pending • here a stay of removal is sought, test is: 1. serious issue, 2. irreparable harm, 3. balance of convenience • serious issue branch of test failed • stay proceedings not to consider h&c factors • deportation itself cannot be irreparable harm • burden on individual to provide more info if they want it considered • officer does have discretion to defer removal pending an h&c

  11. Sogi v Canada (S.C.) 2004 FC • funnelled out of the refugee process bc of security inadmissibility • central issue: what use of secret information can be made by the Immigration Division • leave to appeal to the SCC was denied in this case • presumable this ruling now affected by Charkaoui decision • good review of how standard of proof in s. 33 operates • key issue: is it appropriate to extend the power over secret info to the tribunal • held to meet the principles of fundamental justice • series of Sogi decisions, including ruling that discretion to deport to torture remains but t alternatives must be seriously considered

More Related