The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has announced that new regulations will come into place which will change the definition of what the government defines as a “bad faith” marriage or adoption. Currently the law states:
“… A foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner, conjugal partner or an adopted child of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership, conjugal partnership or adoption is not genuine and was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act.” (s.4 of Immigration Refugee Protection Regulations).
The Minister wants to change the “and” where bolded above to “or”. This will mean that even if the relationship between a couple or between a parent and an adopted child is genuine, the officer could refuse a sponsorship application if he/she feels that the sponsor married or adopted the child in order to obtain immigration status.
Take for example Jack and Jill Nimble. Jack and Jill are in love with each other and have a genuine relationship with each other. Jill does not have status in Canada so they decide to get married this year instead of a couple of years down the road so that Jack can sponsor her and they can be together sooner. According to the new law, their sponsorship could be refused because they got married to obtain immigration status even though the couple have a genuine marriage and relationship.
Take for example Mrs. Hubbard and her nephew Peter. Peter’s parents have died in an earthquake and Mrs. Hubbard adopted her nephew so that he can live together with her in Canada and be in her family. The adoption can now be refused because it was entered to obtain immigration status even though Mrs. Hubbard loves Peter and has a genuine parent-child relationship with him.
These new changes create disturbing restrictions on family reunification. People get married for all sorts of reasons – pregnancy, family pressure, to start a family. Why shouldn’t we allow people who get married so that they can stay together a chance to be together?
In addition, the officers who already have tremendous power to refuse applications, now will have even more power to refuse applications due to what they think was the purpose of your marriage or adoption. It’s hard enough to show that you have a genuine relationship. It would be almost impossible in many cases to obtain proof of one’s motivations.
One of our greatest Prime Ministers, Pierre Trudeau, once said “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. This new legislation attempts to do just that – regulate why people choose to get married or adopt. No state should be allowed to do this to its citizens.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
How the Balanced Refugee Reform Act is not so balanced: Chapter 1 – Elimination of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment
On March 30, the Minister of Immigration announced plans to enact the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, Bill C-11. This bill has passed second reading and is currently being examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee. In my opinion, this Bill would prioritise removal of failed refugee claimants over ensuring a free and fair legal process. Given the massive impact that this bill is likely to have on our system I will be focusing a series of blog entries on different aspects of the legislation and how they will change our current system.
The issue that I will be examining in this entry is Section 15 of the bill which prohibits any individual from making a Pre-Removal Risk assessment Application (PRRA) if less than 12 months have passed since their refugee claim was rejected. The purpose of the PRRA application is to ensure that the Government does not remove an individual to a country where they will face torture or a risk to their life. The bill in its current form would remove this safeguard and facilitate faster removal of individuals whose refugee claims have been deemed unsuccessful.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigrations maintains that a one year ban on the PRRA is unnecessary because a timely risk assessment is conducted in the context of the refugee claim. There are a number of problems with this position.
PRRA applications often include evidence that was not presented to the refugee Board to support a claim. Given that the bill also proposes to shorten the timeline of the hearing to sixty days, it is likely that applicants will not be able to collect the evidence in time. As such, it will be even more critical that a PRRA be conducted otherwise removals will occur before this crucial information can be reviewed.
The PRRA is also important because it serves as a safety net for the most vulnerable claimants. Often it is used to raise new risk grounds that the applicant could not raise at the hearing. For example, female claimants that live in situations of domestic abuse come to Canada with their abusive spouses who make claims on behalf of the entire family. Once in Canada these women separate from their abuser and seek their own legal advice because they fear returning with their spouse. Because these women have already made a refugee claim, the PRRA is the only application where she can tell her story.
A third consideration is that circumstances in a refugees country of origin can change significantly over a short period of time. Situations such as the collapse of a peace accord, a major terrorist attack or a political coup can drastically alter the risk for individuals being returned, even in a matter of days. The Federal Court has clearly stated that a timely risk assessment be conducted that considers the relevant circumstances that are present at the time of removal.
The current PRRA is purposefully designed to consider evidence that was not, or could not, have been considered by the Refugee Board. Any ban on PRRA would put refugees at greater risk of being deported to torture or death. This is too high a price to pay for the sake of expedient removals.
The issue that I will be examining in this entry is Section 15 of the bill which prohibits any individual from making a Pre-Removal Risk assessment Application (PRRA) if less than 12 months have passed since their refugee claim was rejected. The purpose of the PRRA application is to ensure that the Government does not remove an individual to a country where they will face torture or a risk to their life. The bill in its current form would remove this safeguard and facilitate faster removal of individuals whose refugee claims have been deemed unsuccessful.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigrations maintains that a one year ban on the PRRA is unnecessary because a timely risk assessment is conducted in the context of the refugee claim. There are a number of problems with this position.
PRRA applications often include evidence that was not presented to the refugee Board to support a claim. Given that the bill also proposes to shorten the timeline of the hearing to sixty days, it is likely that applicants will not be able to collect the evidence in time. As such, it will be even more critical that a PRRA be conducted otherwise removals will occur before this crucial information can be reviewed.
The PRRA is also important because it serves as a safety net for the most vulnerable claimants. Often it is used to raise new risk grounds that the applicant could not raise at the hearing. For example, female claimants that live in situations of domestic abuse come to Canada with their abusive spouses who make claims on behalf of the entire family. Once in Canada these women separate from their abuser and seek their own legal advice because they fear returning with their spouse. Because these women have already made a refugee claim, the PRRA is the only application where she can tell her story.
A third consideration is that circumstances in a refugees country of origin can change significantly over a short period of time. Situations such as the collapse of a peace accord, a major terrorist attack or a political coup can drastically alter the risk for individuals being returned, even in a matter of days. The Federal Court has clearly stated that a timely risk assessment be conducted that considers the relevant circumstances that are present at the time of removal.
The current PRRA is purposefully designed to consider evidence that was not, or could not, have been considered by the Refugee Board. Any ban on PRRA would put refugees at greater risk of being deported to torture or death. This is too high a price to pay for the sake of expedient removals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)