Docstoc

Citizenship and Immigration

Document Sample
Citizenship and Immigration Powered By Docstoc
					Citizenship and Immigration
   CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SECTION / SECTION DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L’IMMIGRATION




                            Advisory Committee on the Immigration
                            Consulting Industry
Volume 6, No. 1
November / novembre         RandyHahn*
2002
                            As most readers will know the Minister       The National Executive of the Immigra-
In this Issue:              has taken steps to set up an advisory com-   tion Section of the CBA has asked Irma
                            mittee on the Immigration Consulting In-     Faul of Calgary to draft a report on be-
                            dustry.                                      half of the CBA. Members should have
Advisory Committee on the
Immigration Consulting                                                   recently received an e-mail request from
                            The members of the committee are from        Irma asking for input.
Industry
                            the NGO, consultant, and legal communi-
                            ties and are as follows:                     This minister says he is interested in doing
An Editor Writes...
                                                                         something about immigration consultants
                            Ben Trister (Co-Chair)                       though exactly what remains to be seen.
H & C Sub-Committee
                            Rivka Augenfeld (Co-Chair)                   Members should make their views known
                            Charles Pley                                 to Irma so as to ensure that the report that
Beware Section 64
                            John Ryan                                    is submitted on behalf of the CBA is re-
                            Jill Sparling                                flective of the general views of the mem-
IRB Liaison
                            R.K. Dheer                                   bership.
                            Lawrence Woo
Perfected Applications:
                            Sharryn Aiken                                * Randy Hahn,The Law Office of Gary Segal,
An Imperfect Attempt
                            Christiane Ouimet                            (416) 967-5400, rhahn@garysegal.com.
                            Patrice Brunet
OBA Port of Entry
                            Stephen Green
Sub-Committee
                            Frank Marrocco
                            Nadja Polleart
Changes to the Arranged
                            Francisco Rico-Martinez
Employment Application
                            There was a meeting in Montreal at the
                            end of October and a second meeting is
                            scheduled for December 2. Representa-
                            tives of Citizenship and Immigration
                            Canada, the Department of Justice, the
                            RCMP and the Quebec immigration au-
                            thorities have been invited to the next
                            meeting in order to communicate their
                            points of view.
An Editor Writes…
RandyHahn*

Welcome to the first newsletter of the Citizenship        can look forward to exciting and thought-provoking
and Immigration Section of the Ontario Bar Asso-          articles.
ciation. Having said that let me add the first lawyerly
qualification.A very long time ago (last century, in      Included in this edition are reports from some of the
the early mid-nineties) there was previously a news-      representatives of the various executive sub-com-
letter of the Citizenship and Immigration Section of      mittees. Marshall Drukarsh describes his long-stand-
the Ontario Bar Association. But circumstances have       ing role as OBA Liaison with the IRB. David Garson
been of such a nature that for the past number of         reports what the Port of Entry Sub-Committee is up
years the newsletter was not published. So in some        to.And Shoshanna Green and Robin Seligman pro-
ways this edition can be considered an inaugural pub-     vide an outline of the H & C Sub-Committee efforts.
lication.
                                                          We’re fortunate as well, to have some contributors
Inaugural publications often include some kind of         who share their general perspectives on a few of the
statement from the editor suggesting that the publi-      many issues that are resulting from the implementa-
cation will give voice to important issues of the day     tion of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Our
and that the reader can look forward to exciting and      correspondent in Dubai, Carter Hoppe, ponders the
thought-provoking articles that will serve some pre-      vagaries of trying to perfect an immigration applica-
viously unfulfilled need. The readers, of course, gen-    tion under imperfect regulations and guidelines.And
erally avoid taking such platitudes at face value and     Hart Kaminker highlights some of the serious con-
prefer to reach their own conclusions.                    sequences of IRPA’s section 64 and points to some
                                                          of the legal issues that may emerge.
I am mindful then of letting this newsletter speak for
itself, so to speak.                                      I expect this publication to appear every few months.
                                                          If readers have any suggestions they should feel free
The genesis of this newsletter was that the executive     to contact me directly. I can be reached at (416) 967
members of the Citizenship and Immigration Sec-           5400. Letters to the Editor are welcome and will likely
tion of the Ontario Bar Association decided that a        not be edited with a view to brevity or for syntax.
newsletter might be a useful way for information and
ideas to be communicated to the membership at large.      * Randy Hahn, The Law Offices of Gary L.Segal, (416)
The regular luncheon meetings provide a good back-        967-5400, rhahn@garysegal.com.
drop for discussion of specific topics, as well as the
opportunity for announcements to be made. The
Listserve is a useful vehicle for the inevitable ca-
cophony that can ensue from lawyers collectively
mulling over complicated rules that are interpreted
and applied in all kinds of strange and bizarre ways.
And e-mails can serve as a useful way to get impor-
tant messages into the ether.

All this being so, the executive decided that there is
some usefulness in having a regular publication where
ideas can be explored,information can be imparted,
and the membership at large can know what their
executive is or is not doing on their behalf. I suppose
one could say that it is a publication that will give
voice to important issues of the day and that readers




 2                                                          Citizenship and Immigration • Volume 6, No. 1
H & C Sub-Committee
ShoshanaGreenandRobinSeligman*

We have been meeting periodically with Ontario Re-         * Shoshana Green, Green & Spiegel, (416) 862-7880,
gion to discuss issues relating to all inland processing   shoshana@gands.com. Robin Seligman, Barrister & So-
and how the local CIC offices can improve their serv-      licitor, (416) 967-7878, robin@seligmanlaw.com.
ices.The next meeting is set for November 20, 2002.
Currently there is a tremendous backlog of H & C
cases including both in and out of status spousal ap-
plications which is causing problems.The lack of the
H & C Manual for Inland Processing is also making
the situation worse.We hope to communicate the
frustration of the members dealing with these types
of applications and hopefully provide useful advice
to the Department which will alleviate the growing
problems.




Beware Section 64
HartKaminker*

One of the most significant changes as a result of         Appeal Division forum. Section 70(5) did provide an
the implementation of the Immigration and Refugee Pro-     individual an opportunity to make written represen-
tection Act (“IRPA”) is section 64(2). Section 64(2)       tations before a final decision on the danger designa-
strips the right of appeal of permanent residents or       tion.
foreign nationals from orders of deportation if the
individual has received a term of imprisonment of          One of the clear implications of section 64(2) is in-
two or more years, that is a sentence in a federal         forming our colleagues who make up the criminal
penitentiary as opposed to a provincial facility. For-     bar of the effect of this section on their clients and
eign nationals would encompass protected persons           that it must be taken into consideration when making
who have not been granted permanent resident sta-          submissions on the issue of sentencing.This is espe-
tus. Previously, under the former Act these individu-      cially so in light of the fact that some offenders opt
als would have had a right of appeal from order of         for two-year sentences because of better programs
deportation to the Immigration Appeal Division, ex-        available in the federal system and the view that fed-
cept for those who had been declared a danger un-          eral facilities are generally better than provincial fa-
der section 70(5) of the former Act.                       cilities.

The effect of section 64(2) is to deny access to indi-     Section 64(2) has a retroactive effect. Section 196 in
viduals facing deportation to the forum where hu-          the transitional provisions of IRPA states that any-
manitarian and compassionate considerations can be         one who made an appeal under the former Act, but
raised. These could be matters such as family in           could not now make an appeal of a deportation or-
Canada, length of residence in Canada and evidence         der to the Appeal Division because of section 64(2),
of efforts towards rehabilitation. Under the former        and who was not granted a stay under the former
Act an attempt to designate an individual a danger         Act, shall have their appeals discontinued. It has been
under section 70(5) could be thwarted by strong evi-       the practice of the Minister in these transitional cases
dence of rehabilitation thus ensuring access to the        to write to the Appeal Division asking that cases be




Citizenship and Immigration • November 2002                                                                      3
discontinued and citing sections 64(2) and 196. The         ister of Employment & Immigration)[1992] 1 S.C.R.711
Appeal Division’s response has been to discontinue          stated that deportation is not punishment, the ques-
the appeal without the opportunity for oral represen-       tion of whether deportation of an individual amounts
tations as to the jurisdiction of the Appeal Division.      to cruel and unusual treatment still remains open.
In these cases arguments can be raised on judicial
review in the Federal Court whether based on poten-         Issues could be raised under section 7 of the Charter.
tial Charter violations or even interpretation of the       There may be questions of fundamental justice as it
transitional provisions themselves.                         relates to section 64(2) and this of course would have
                                                            to be tied back to whether the deportation is depriv-
The guidelines in Chapters 5 & 6 of the Enforce-            ing the individual of his right to life, liberty and secu-
ment Manual appear to provide for some possibility          rity of the person. Under the previous regime of
of consideration of humanitarian matters before an          dealing with so called “dangerous” individuals (sec-
Immigration Officer decides to write an inadmissibil-       tion 70(5)) there was an opportunity to at the very
ity report under section 44(1) of IRPA. Chapter 5 at        least provide written submissions relating to issues
8.6 and Chapter 6 at 19.2 appear to allow for some          of humanitarian nature and as stated at the outset
consideration by the Immigration Officer of matters         strong evidence of rehabilitation could thwart a pro-
such as the individual’s length of residence in Canada,     posed danger opinion. The present regime provides
age at the time of landing, degree of establishment         no such opportunity, except at the very early stages
in Canada, family in Canada, conditions in the indi-        of the removal process.Again, we do not know how
vidual’s home country and parole or psychiatric re-         effective this will be and as stated previously this
ports.These last two reports could go to the indi-          opportunity is not available to those caught by the
vidual’s current attitude and may also be helpful in        section 196 transitional provision.
counteracting the effect of a serious crime. It re-
mains to be seen whether these guidelines will be ef-       For protected persons section 64(2) has obvious seri-
fective in saving permanent residents from the auto-        ous implications as it could lead to the individual be-
matic removal that section 64(2) entails.                   ing removed to a country where persecution and harm
                                                            is feared.There are further protections in IRPA for
In connection with the guidelines in Chapters 5 & 6 it      these individuals. Section 115(2) of IRPA states that
should be noted that individuals who had a pending          such an individual could only be refouled if there is
appeal when IRPA came into force, and are caught            serious criminality and the person has been declared
by section 196 as outlined in the previous paragraph,       by the Minister as a danger to the public. Such a
would not get the benefit, if there is any, of the con-     person would also have access to a Pre-Removal Risk
siderations outlined in the Enforcement Manual.             Assessment (PRRA) where issues of risk to torture
These considerations are only made at the time of           or cruel or unusual treatment or punishment are con-
writing the report, that is at the front-end stage when     sidered. It is noted that permanent residents, who
the removal machinery is put into motion and of             have not had Convention refugee or protected per-
course those caught by section 196 are well past that       sons determinations,will also have access to the PRRA
stage.                                                      procedure before removal. However, presumably it
                                                            will be difficult for permanent residents who did not
Section 64(2) itself could be challenged either on a        leave their country due to a fear of persecution to
general basis that it is unconstitutional and thus should   make out a successful case under PRRA.
be struck down or even on a case by case basis that
section 64(2) violates a particular individual’s consti-    Undoubtedly challenges to section 64(2) will be made
tutional rights given that individual’s particular cir-     and indeed have already been made. At this time we
cumstances. In the case of the latter one could re-         can only wait and see whether the drastic effect of
quest a constitutional exemption.                           section 64(2) will be watered down or even struck
                                                            down altogether as various challenges make their way
Arguments could be raised under section 12 of the           through the Courts.
Charter, the section protecting the right not be subject
to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. Al-           * Hart Kaminker, Kranc & Associates, (416) 977-7500,
though the Supreme Court in Chairelli v.Canada (Min-        hkaminker@migratecanada.com.




  4                                                           Citizenship and Immigration • Volume 6, No. 1
IRB Liaison
MarshallDrukarsh*

I have been asked to give a brief report on IRB           an excellent lawyer. In this format we had several
liaison for a newsletter. The regional IAD Commit-        meetings which produced results, or at least influ-
tee has not actually met in a while, and there isn’t      enced events such as, the records in Appeals that
much to report. The national CCPP will meet in            used to take 14-16 months average, now are rou-
Ottawa on Nov. 15, and recently I put out a call for      tinely in hand in under 6 months after we file an
agenda items. But I promised an item, so let me tell      appeal. We have had meaningful consultations on an
you a story. In the beginning (sounds biblical,doesn’t    ongoing basis on most policy and procedural issues
it?) before there was an IRB, there was an Immigra-       that arise.
tion Appeal Board, and the chairperson was Dorothy
Davey, wife of Senator Keith Davey. The Board             I am very proud of the role we played in becoming
was not, however, merely a sinecure for patronage         the ADR Committee. Your reps took ADR training
appointments. It was then,and is now in my opinion,       with the first IAD staff, and have been offered a lot
a place where people take their roles seriously. Such     of latitude in shaping and evaluating the pilot pro-
was Mrs.Davey. She knew our senior colleague Gary         gram, which is now entrenched and national. ADR is
Segal and trusted him as a lawyer of impeccable in-       usually good for the clients and we are a large part of
tegrity. Mrs. Davey allowed Gary and I to meet with       how it got to be. We haven’t met for a while because
her informally occasionally to discuss systemic issues    the IAD was spinning too fast in it’s reconstitution
that we noted in practice at the Board. The question,     under new legislation and couldn’t talk publicly about
for example, of scheduling of hearings; trying to find    where they were going, (probably didn’t know half
a fair workable system, has been a part of every          the time themselves) and was too busy to talk about
meeting for about 28 years; we haven’t been able to       much else.
make everybody happy yet. These meetings, really
more conversations over a light breakfast, were in-       In the meantime, several years ago, there came the
frequent and ad hoc. They were useful in those times,     great public relations machine the IRB to encompass
probably because they were not institutional and bu-      the IAD, refugee determination, and the poor cousin
reaucratic. I have been a member of the executive         Adjudications. They wanted and established a Con-
of the Association of Immigration Lawyers, and, since     sultative Committee on Practices and Procedures
we took it over (he dreams!) the Citizenship and Im-      which at various times from time to time has included
migration Section of the CBAO, (now OBA), and             representatives of all kinds of refugee industry groups,
always reported on whatever was discussed and             lawyers, consultants and such folks. I was honoured
brought the concerns of fellow practitioners to the       to have been chosen as our representative. I do re-
table. Then there was a year or two of silence. Then      port to the section executive and usually report both
came Paul Aterman to the post of Acting Assistant         the call for issues and the aftermath at our section
Deputy Chair, or something (don’t quote me on his         lunches. These meetings got tricky a few years ago
title); and we spoke to each other because the Board,     when sensitive information went directly to the press,
probably by then the Appeal Division of the IRB,          and the ground rules now, or at least the last time I
wanted a Consultative Committee and I was a sitting       heard them articulated are that the CCPP is com-
exec. of the CBAO and the guy who had done it             prised of invited individuals (not group representa-
before. The PR geniuses at the IAD wanted to see          tives) who agree to allow the minutes of the meet-
one member of the CBA, one person from the Con-           ings to be widely disseminated, but who are not obliged
sultants’ new club OPIC, and the Minister’s Rep Of-       to blab every trial balloon discussion or reference to
fice. We were high and mighty then about not digni-       potential problem areas put up for consideration in-
fying consultants with our joint participation; but the   discreetly to all the members of a group that sent
IAD held the cards and were going to do what they         them. There is no secret handshake, but I think I go
wished. I held out for two CBA, if one consultant,        to the CCPP now as an invitee not because the OBA
and we are entitled to two (but somehow it’s usually      sends me.
just me) and OPIC is represented since the outset by



Citizenship and Immigration • November 2002                                                                     5
Of course, if this newsletter gets of the ground, I’ll    * Marshall Drukarsh, Green & Spiegel, (416) 862-7880,
try to have a report for you after the CCPP; and who      marshall@gands.com.
knows, maybe the IAD Committee will ride again.

I hope this article was of some interest, and thank
the editor for the opportunity.




Perfected Applications: An Imperfect Attempt
Carter Hoppe*

The Perfected Application:Version One                     of the perfected application, CIC attempted without
                                                          success to standardize the documentary requirements
Canada Immigration first trotted out the concept of       needed to establish eligibility. Under the current
the“perfected application”for permanent residence         processing system, CIC has also failed to provide an
applications by skilled workers in the early nineties.    appropriate standard for documentary requirements.
They attempted to put the perfected application idea
into practice, but the experiment never actually got
off the ground, and was abandoned — but only tem-         The Perfected Application:Version 2002
porarily. Now, a modified version of the perfected
application is being implemented, and is partly sanc-     Section 10 of the Regulations sets out the basic ele-
tioned by Section 10 of the IRPA Regulations. How-        ments of an application. The application must be in
ever, several elements of the perfected application       writing on the correct application form, must be
are set out in the Immigration Manual and the Visa        signed, must be accompanied by the correct fee,
Office Specific Instructions, which are not part of       must specify what visa is being applied for, in-
the Regulations.                                          cluding the class of visa, must include a declara-
                                                          tion that the information provided is complete
The idea of a perfected application makes perfect         and accurate   , must identify who is the principal
sense — in principle. In a perfect processing regime,     applicant,   must include name, birth date, address,
the applicant would present herself at the Visa Of-       nationality, immigration status of the applicant
fice with ALL of the documents necessary to enable        and all dependents whether accompanying or
an immigrant visa to be issued — on the spot! But         not, a statement whether the applicant or any family
that would necessitate the ability of the applicant to    member is the spouse/partner of another person,
access the medical and security/criminality approval      and, finally, must include all information and docu-
systems independently,to be in a position to present      ments required by the Regulations or the Act.
medical and security/criminality approvals along with
the application forms and supporting documentation        Section 79 of the Regulations requires an applicant
demonstrating eligibility under the selection criteria.   to have language proficiency in one or both offi-
That would put the visa officer in a position to con-     cial languages assessed by an approved lan-
clude the application without interview and issue the     guage testing service or other written evidence
visa straight away, or schedule a personal interview      of proficiency.
if an interview were required.
                                                          Section 80 (5) requires the applicant to specify in the
Of course, since CIC will not allow applicants to         application the four-digit code of the NOC that
obtain approvals from Immigration Medical and             corresponds to each of the occupations engaged
Canadian Law Enforcement authorities ahead of             in by the applicant and that constitutes the ap-
time, the purpose of the so-called perfected applica-     plicant’s work experience    .
tion is defeated at the outset. In the earlier version




 6                                                          Citizenship and Immigration • Volume 6, No. 1
So, that would appear to be all that is required,          ments have to be notarized? Further question — why
right? Wrong!                                              do these documents have to be submitted at all? There
                                                           are no points awarded for Professional Qualification
                                                           Certificates.
Take the Perfected Application Challenge


CIC is requiring a lot more in the way of documen-         Work Experience Documents
tary requirements. First, be aware that “other writ-
ten evidence of language proficiency” is being             This section of the Checklist, Section 7, contains many
interpreted very strictly by the visa office in Buffalo.   surprises. The first is that work experience docu-
One must make a comprehensive submission explain-          ments are required for both spouses. But why would
ing one’s high proficiency in English, backed up by        that be? The work experience of the spouse of the
documentary proof of education and work experi-            applicant cannot add to the points of the principal
ence in English.                                           applicant.

The Visa Office Specific Instructions (Appendix            The next surprise: CIC wants “original and up to
A — Checklist) set out additional requirements, and        date letters of reference from your past and cur-

these requirements are not authorized by the Regula-       rent employers”.    In the first place, the lead state-
tions. Here is how to find these Instructions. On the      ment to the Checklist requires only photocopies, but
CIC website, on the English Home Page, click on            more surprisingly, how is one supposed to obtain an
Applications and Forms from the top Menu Bar, then         up to date reference from a past employer?

click on Immigration Applications for Persons Out-
side Canada, then click on Permanent Resident Ap-          Next problem. Reference letters must be written on
plications for Skilled Worker Class, then click on Fill    company letterhead and show the company’s full ad-
Out the Forms for Your Visa Office. Then click on          dress, telephone and fax numbers (OK, so far) and
any Visa Office and you will see a PDF document            be stamped with the company’s official seal. Offi-
called Application for Permanent Residence Visa            cial seal? Admittedly, in many countries,including the
Office Specific Instructions.Turn to Appendix A.           countries in the Middle East, companies have Offi-
                                                           cial Seals, and usually stamp their employees’ refer-
The Instructions in Appendix A are virtually               ence letters with such seals. But in North America,
impossible to understand and virtually impossi-            do companies even have an official seal?
ble to comply with.   The lead statement to Appen-
dix A states that photo copies should be submitted                   ,
                                                           Further all employer reference letters must in-

of all documents that are required, that originals         clude all of the following information:

are required only for police certificates.                         the specific period of employment (OK,

                                                           fair enough)

                                                                   the positions held during the period of em-

University Documents                                       ployment and the time spent in each position

                                                           (unrealistic)

However, in section 6 of the Checklist, College or                 total annual salary plus benefits (unreal-

University Documents, the applicant is required to         istic in many cases)

provide: “original transcripts of all degrees must                 the signature of the immediate superior

be submitted in university-sealed envelopes”.              or personnel officer of the company (so, if the

But what if the applicant’s university will not            CEO of the company signs the letter, but the

co-operate?                                                CEO is/was not the applicant’s immediate su-

                                                           perior, the reference is unacceptable?)

Contrast that mandatory language regarding Univer-                 a business card of the person signing

sity Documents with the permissive language regard-        (??!!)

ing Professional Qualification Certificates: “Notarized
professional qualification certificates should be sub-     The instructions do have some leeway. If a refer-
mitted if available”. Question — why do these docu-        ence from the present employer cannot be provided,




Citizenship and Immigration • November 2002                                                                     7
you must provide a written explanation. This                requirements. Obviously, CIC would like to make
reflects a realization that one’s current employer may      decision-making standardized and make the rules
not be willing to comply with CIC’s requirements,           “transparent”. A laudable objective. But, the fact of
and that the applicant may be unwilling to request          the matter is that the world is a diverse collection of
such a detailed reference, which would indicate to          countries and regions, and foreign employers and
the employer that the applicant is seeking to leave         universities are a diverse collection of companies and
the company for better prospects in Canada. But,            educational institutions. The idea that one set of
why is this leeway extended only to current                 narrowly defined, mandatory rules could be estab-
employment? In most cases, a former employer,               lished by Canada for assessing the veracity of all edu-
even if the former employer is still in existence,          cation and work experience documentation is sheer
may not be willing to comply with CIC’s require-            folly.
ments.

                                                            * Carter Hoppe, a member of the Law Society of Upper
                                                            Canada,residesinDubai,UAEwherehepracticesunderthe
What’s the Bottom Line?                                     firm name Carter Hoppe Legal Consultants.

It’s still early days yet with IRPA. We have not seen                             A
                                                            Sources:Section10,IRP Regulations;ImmigrationManual
how strictly CIC officers may interpret these often         OP 6; Visa Office Specific Instructions.
logically inconsistent or totally unrealistic application




OBA Port of Entry Sub-Committee Report
DavidGarson*

The Port of Entry Sub-Committee met with Citizen-           Also, CIC has been very amenable to meeting with
ship and Immigration Canada on October 17, 2002             the sub-committee and addressing concerns that we
at 11:30 a.m. to discuss various topics that are of         have.
concern to the bar and to Canada immigration port
of entry.                                                   Shortly, minutes from the OBA Port of Entry Sub-
                                                            Committee will be released on the Listserve. You
The Port of Entry Sub-Committee (the “sub-com-              will note that there are several pieces of information
mittee”) was formed in order to address concerns            that are worthwhile to the bar in these minutes.
that the Ontario Bar Association (“OBA”) Citizen-
ship and Immigration Section may have with regard           Specifically, CIC has agreed not to seize returning
to processes and procedures at ports of entry. When         resident permits from individuals who still hold these
the sub-committee was initially formed adjudications        documents. CIC has agreed that these documents
at ports of entry were extremely unpredictable and it       are valuable and under the new law applicants who
was not unusual for officers to treat clients in a less     maintain returning resident permits are treated as if
than cordial manner.                                        they were residing inside in Canada for the purposes
                                                            of maintaining permanent resident status.
To the credit of Citizenship and Immigration Canada
(“CIC”) this has changed remarkably in the last two         CIC, on a case-by-case basis, will adjudicate tempo-
or three years. Ports of entry, sometimes, are much         rary resident permits at ports of entry for minor
more reasonable than Canadian Consulates in adju-           convictions. If counsel wishes to have a case adjudi-
dicating straightforward cases.                             cated at port of entry,in this regard,it would behoove
                                                            counsel to notify port of entry prior to the applicant
                                                            attending,as these adjudications will be discretionary.




  8                                                           Citizenship and Immigration • Volume 6, No. 1
In the past we have attempted to solicit issues from      Our next meeting with CIC is scheduled to occur on
the membership of the OBA Citizenship and Immi-           Thursday, January 23, 2003.
gration Section prior to meetings with CIC port of
entry. We have not been that successful in obtaining      If anybody has any questions or concerns that they
any meaningful general issues that members feel are       wish to address, please do not hesitate to contact me.
important. If you have an issue that you feel has not
been addressed, and that does not involve a specific      * David Garson, Guberman Garson, (416) 363-1234,
case then we would urge you to contact one of the         david@gubermangarson.com.
members of the sub-committee (Asher Frankel,
Suzanne Bailey, Gary Segal, David L.P. Garson) and
advise us as to your issue. We would be most happy
to bring these to the attention of CIC.




Changes to the Arranged Employment Application
Nadine Heaslip*

Please be advised that a few changes have been made
to the “Arranged Employment Application”:

1.     The title of the application has been changed
to “Arranged Employment Application for Skilled
Workers”.

2.     The question “Does the prospective employee
have any financial interests, in or other attachments
to the business?” has been removed.

3.    The questions under “Rationale for Request”
have been removed.

4.     On the instruction page of the application, a
correction has been made to point 3 under “Fill out
this application if”section. (to reflect the wording of
regulation 82(2)(c). Point 3 now reads:“the foreign
worker does not intend to work in Canada until his/
her application for permanent residence is approved
and he/she has a permanent resident visa”.

The updated form is available on the HRDC website:
http://www.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/hrib/lmd-dmt/fw-te/
common/forms/emp5275e.pdf.

* Nadine Heaslip, Regional Consultant, HRDC Ontario,
(416) 954-7268.




Citizenship and Immigration • November 2002                                                                   9
                              The articles, which appear in this publication,
     Upcoming Luncheon        represent the opinions of the authors. They do

     Programs
                              notrepresentorembodyanyofficialpositionof,or
                              statement by the OBA except where this may be
                              specifically indicated; nor do they attempt to set
     December 11, 2002        forth definitive practice standards or to provide
     January 15, 2003         legaladvice. Precedentsandothermaterialcon-
     February 19, 2003        tainedhereinareintendedtobeusedthoughtfully,
     March 19, 2003           as nothing in the work relieves readers of their
     April 16, 2003           responsibility to consider it in the light of their
     May 21, 2003             ownprofessionalskillandjudgment.
     June 18, 2003

     Topicstobeannounced.




10                          Citizenship and Immigration • Volume 6, No. 1
                For Sale
                Audio Tapes
    Arranged Employment and Beyond:

    Understand the New Role of HRDC

    under IRPA

    September 18, 2002
    Speaker: Nadine Heaslip
    Audio tape code S-02-300
    Price: $20 + GST + PST

    IRPA — Ready or Not —

    Here It Comes

    June 12, 2002
    Speakers: Ben Trister, Robin Seligman and
    Stephen Green
    Audio tape code S-01-307
    Price: $20 + GST + PST

    From CPC Vegreville to Ontario Inland

    Processing

    May 8, 2002
    Speakers: Jeff Titterington and Jim
    Campbell
    Audio tape code S-01-306
    Price: $20 + GST + PST

    Southern Exposure: U.S. Immigration

    Post 9/11

    April 10, 2002
    Speakers: Hugh Williams, Robert Callard,
    Mitch Scoggins, John Smarsh, Henry
    Chang and Heather N. Segal
    Audio tape code S-01-305
    Price: $20 + GST + PST

            ,
    To order please complete and return the order
    formincludedinthismailingtotheOntarioBar
    Association along with your payment. For fur-
    therinformation,pleasecontactthePublications
    Departmentorvisitourwebsite: www.oba.org.

    GST Registration #R100760495.




Citizenship and Immigration • November 2002         11
                                                                                    Editor:
                                                                                    Randy Hahn
                                                                                    Copy Editor:
                                                                                    Vickie Rose
Section Executive 2002 - 2003

Chair: Joel S. Guberman                     Member-At-Large: Marshall E. Drukarsh
Guberman, Garson (416) 363-1234             Green & Spiegel (416) 862-7880
joel@gubermangarson.com                     marshall@gands.com

Past Chair: Robin L. Seligman               Member-At-Large: David L. Garson
Barrister & Solicitor (416) 967-7878        Guberman, Garson (416) 363-1234
robin@seligmanlaw.com                       david@gubermangarson.com

1st Vice Chair: Gabriela Ramo               Member-At-Large: Betsy R. Kane
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP                   Capelle Kane (613) 230-7070
(416) 367-6215                              bkane@capellekane.com
gramo@blgcanada.com
                                            Member-At-Large: Sergio R. Karas
1st Vice Chair: Joseph R. Young             Karas & Associates (416) 506-1800
Barrister & Solicitor (416) 969-8887        skaras@hirson.com
jryoung@globalmigration.com
                                            Member-At-Large: Peter A. Rekai
2nd Vice Chair and Program Coordinator:     Rekai & Johnson (416) 960-8876
Shoshana T Green
          .                                 info@rekaijohnson.com
Green & Spiegel (416) 862-7880
shoshana@gands.com                          Member-At-Large: Gary L. Segal
                                            Law Offices of Gary L. Segal
Secretary (Sections): Victoria B. Cowling   (416) 967-5400
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP                   immigration@garysegal.com
(416) 367-6136
vcowling@blgcanada.com                      Member-At-Large: Felix Semberov
                                            Blaney McMurtry LLP (416) 593-1221
Newsletter Editor: Randy Hahn               fsembero@blaney.com
The Law Offices of Gary L. Segal
(416) 967-5400
rhahn@garysegal.com

AGR Liaison: David Morris
Bell, Unger, Morris (613) 238-1599
davidmorris@bellungermorris.com

Member-At-Large: Evelyn L. Ackah
Donahue LLP (416) 943-2285
evelyn.ackah@ca.eyi.com

Member-At-Large: Suzanne Bailey
Blaney McMurtry LLP (416) 593-3903
sbailey@blaney.com

Member-At-Large: Janet L. Bomza
Barrister & Solicitor (416) 598-8849
jbomza@canadausvisas.com

				
DOCUMENT INFO