Immigration lawyers fear unfair rulings amid foreign interference concerns – National | 24CA News
Even because the dialog round overseas interference continues to centre on efforts to disrupt Canadian elections, the federal authorities is routinely deporting folks suspected of participating in espionage or terrorism – or barring them entry to Canada.
Lawyers who work inside the immigration system say they count on safety officers to ramp up these efforts amid the heightened consideration on different international locations’ meddling makes an attempt. Some concern they may go too far.
Athena Portokalidis, an immigration lawyer primarily based in Markham, Ont., stated there appears to be a rising variety of such circumstances.
“What I’m kind of starting to notice is that whether it’s explicit or not, they can be politically motivated,” she stated. “There might be a trend here. It may be too early to tell, but that’s something that I’ve noticed and something that I’ve heard.”
The federal authorities was unable to supply information on the variety of associated circumstances in time for publication.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada Border Services Agency and the Immigration Department are all concerned within the safety screening course of. None of them supplied remark in time for publication, together with information on the variety of associated circumstances.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act permits officers to bar everlasting residents or overseas nationals from getting into Canada if they’re engaged in terrorism or in espionage opposite to Canada’s pursuits. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada is the unbiased administrative tribunal that hears functions.
When folks submit apply for visas, they’re topic to background and safety checks earlier than being admitted to the nation. If there are purple flags, CSIS and CBSA could make experiences to the board, which then decides what to do with an software.
“It is next to impossible to challenge the advice that security intelligence agents offer to the department,” stated Sharry Aiken, a professor of regulation at Queen’s University.
Many individuals are screened out primarily based on secret proof that may’t be reviewed, which “often leads to egregious injustices,” she stated.
“It’s really about how we interpret what constitutes a risk, and what sort of association actually renders someone inadmissible,” Aiken added. “What I would say is that in the immigration domain, it is pretty much a Wild West.”
People deemed inadmissible have the correct to enchantment their circumstances in Federal Court.
Earlier this yr, Portokalidis efficiently fought for a former Canadian citizen who had been denied everlasting residency and deemed inadmissible on the idea that he allegedly taught English to Chinese spies and is perhaps concerned in espionage himself.
The allegations towards Liping Geng, a 68-year-old Chinese citizen, had been contained in a report ready by the CBSA’s National Security Screening Division, which cited data from a CSIS report.
Court information present that as a younger man, Geng was a member of China’s People’s Liberation Army. After finishing college, he labored as an English instructor at an army-operated division that skilled college students in overseas languages.
Canadian officers argued that everybody who attended the college was “in or was linked to Chinese military intelligence,” and that the academics had been actively participating in espionage.
Geng spent 9 years finishing grasp’s and doctoral levels on the University of Toronto, the place he went on to show, paperwork say. His household was accepted for everlasting residence standing in Canada and have become residents in 1995.
When Geng returned to China in 2007, he renounced his Canadian citizenship as a result of China doesn’t acknowledge twin citizenship. Still, the court docket paperwork say, Geng commonly visited household in Canada within the years that adopted. He selected to return completely in 2019 after his retirement.
Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley discovered that the CSIS and CBSA experiences used to accuse Geng of espionage had been by no means disclosed to him, and that this was problematic as a result of the paperwork “drove the decision-making process.”
Moreover, safety officers had been criticized for drawing upon newspapers and different open sources to construct their case, fairly than laborious proof.
Mosley wrote in a ruling quashing the Immigration and Refugee Board’s determination that the safety assessments amounted to an “overzealous effort” to determine Geng as a member of the Chinese navy.
Portokalidis stated many individuals who discover themselves in an identical place don’t have the means to combat it in court docket.
“Our client was fortunate enough that he had the resources and the means to hire a lawyer to assist him this process, but if you weren’t so fortunate, I mean, he might be facing a lifetime ban,” she stated.
It wasn’t the primary time that Portokalidis stated she had seen a failure to reveal data.
“Mr. Geng’s not the only person, unfortunately, who’s been subjected to this,” she stated. “It’s unfortunate, because we could have avoided the time and expense for everyone involved if he had just been properly advised of what the concerns were from the get-go.”
The matter has been punted again to the board for additional evaluate, which Portokalidis stated may take months.
The push-and-pull between sustaining an open immigration system and prioritizing safety can put folks’s lives and futures on maintain. But the regulation solely vaguely defines what represent safety threats, and clearer definitions may forestall injustice, Aiken advised.
“I would, in my view, assert that it has unfortunately been an invitation, all too often, for overreach,” she stated.
Evidence that might in any other case not be admissible in a felony or civil courtroom can be utilized in immigration proceedings. And in contrast to in a felony courtroom, there aren’t parameters particularly detailing what constitutes guilt.
“Basically, little more than suspicion is enough to render you inadmissible,” stated Aiken.
In 2020, the Federal Court overturned a 2019 determination to deport a 34-year-old Ethiopian citizen who had arrived in Canada in 2017 to hunt asylum.
The causes used to find out that Medhanie Aregawi Weldemariam must be rendered inadmissible weren’t related to Canada’s nationwide safety pursuits, the court docket discovered.
Weldemariam was a former worker of Ethiopia’s state safety and intelligence company. That line on his resume was sufficient to kick him out of Canada, officers argued.
Security officers made the evaluation that the Information Network Security Agency had dedicated cyberespionage on Canada’s allies and focused journalists outdoors of Ethiopia who labored for an outlet important of its authorities.
But they didn’t set up why such surveillance was opposite to Canadian pursuits and made “too tenuous” a leap to find that Weldemariam was concerned in actions towards Canada, Federal Court Justice John Norris discovered.
He ordered a brand new admissibility listening to, however the federal authorities challenged that call.
The matter is at the moment ready to be argued on the Federal Court of Appeal, pending the choice in a separate Supreme Court matter difficult how the federal authorities applies its “national security” provisions.
The case concerned two individuals who had been charged, however not convicted, of separate and unrelated violent crimes.
The federal authorities couldn’t take away both of them from Canada primarily based on the costs due to the shortage of conviction, but it surely tried utilizing nationwide safety provisions in immigration regulation as a cause to deport the 2 males.
Their attorneys keep that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act shouldn’t be used as a catch-all for utilizing felony conduct to kick somebody overseas.
There are reputable issues about overseas interference in Canada, Aiken stated. People who symbolize real threats are being screened out.
“But you know, there’s a line there,” she stated.
“Not any and all tenuous connections to foreign interference should render somebody’s security inevitable.”
