Steven Meurrens's guest appearances

Steven Meurrens

Canadian Immigration Podcast

Borderlines

All That Jas Podcast

Marina Sedai

Peter Edelmann

Mario Bellissimo

Raj Sharma

Chantal Desloges

Hart Kaminker

John McCallum

Lorne Sossin

David Eby

Tom Davidoff

Hilary Evans

Jason Cummings

Christy Jones

Mark Holthe

Janet Thompson-Price

OwlTail

There are longstanding experiences and accusations of system racism and bias in Canada’s Immigration System. Is it true the triage system for Indian applicants is more strict than the triage system for Chinese applicants?Marriage fraud – how can we stop that from happening?And how on earth do we alleviate the current backlog of applications?Canada’s Immigration System is truly a mystery not readily explained. What we do know is what has been gleaned from Access to Information Requests. Canadian Immigration Lawyer Steven Meurrens makes those requests constantly and knows as well (or better) than anyone how it works and how it doesn’t.Guest: Steven MeurrensSteven is a Vancouver based Canadian immigration lawyer. He has extensive experience in family-based immigration matters. He also has an active practice assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada and to those who have had visa applications refused. He has appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court.Steven is the past-Chair of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia’s Immigration Subsection.Listen to Steven’s podcast BorderlinesConnect with Steven on Twitter @smeurrensJasraj can be reached at:Instagram/Facebook/Twitter - @jasrajshallanPhone – 403-207-3030Email – jasrajsingh.hallan@parl.gc.ca

There are longstanding experiences and accusations of system racism and bias in Canada’s Immigration System. Is it true the triage system for Indian applicants is more strict than the triage system for Chinese applicants?Marriage fraud – how can we stop that from happening?And how on earth do we alleviate the current backlog of applications?Canada’s Immigration System is truly a mystery not readily explained. What we do know is what has been gleaned from Access to Information Requests. Canadian Immigration Lawyer Steven Meurrens makes those requests constantly and knows as well (or better) than anyone how it works and how it doesn’t.Guest: Steven Meurrens Steven is a Vancouver based Canadian immigration lawyer. He has extensive experience in family-based immigration matters. He also has an active practice assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada and to those who have had visa applications refused. He has appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court.Steven is the past-Chair of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia’s Immigration Subsection.Listen to Steven’s podcast <a href="https://borderlines.ca/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Borderlines</a>Connect with Steven on Twitter @smeurrensJasraj can be reached at: Instagram/Facebook/Twitter - @jasrajshallan Phone – 403-207-3030 Email – <a href="mailto:jasrajsingh.hallan@parl.gc.ca">jasrajsingh.hallan@parl.gc.ca</a>

Flaws in the System: Interview with Canadian Immigration Lawyer Steven Meurrens

CIP S1E28 | Steven Meurrens. http://wp.me/p6wMQg-nq Introduction: Welcome to Steven Meurrens. Well respected immigration lawyer practicing with the law firm of Larlee Rosenberg in Vancouver, British Columbia. The firm focuses on all areas of Canadian immigration law. Advising local and multinational corporations on the movement of key employees, and individuals and families who dream of building a future in Canada. Steven is a Partner in the firm with significant experience representing corporate and individual clients in obtaining visas and permits for many business-related purposes. In addition to his business immigration practice, Steven has extensive experience in family-based immigration matters AND a very active practice assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada and to those whom have had visa applications refused. He has appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court. Steven is the Chair of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia’s Immigration Subsection. He is a published columnist, a regular panelist at immigration law conferences, and is the author of a very widely read blog on Canadian immigration law called Meurrens on Immigration which we will talk about in a little bit. QUESTION: How did you get into immigration? QUESTION: Can you tell us a little about your Blog? I am also delighted to hear that you are also wading into the wonderful world of Podcasting. QUESTION: Can you tell us a little bit about your Podcast? Focus on the legal side of immigration  and delve into the wonderful world of administrative law in the context of Canadian immigration applications. . If you recall, one of Steven’s specific focuses within his practice is assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada or to those who have had visa applications refused. Challenging an officer’s decision is not always an easy thing. Sometimes, there are clear pathways with fairly well defined appeal mechanisms. However, in many cases, the only recourse is to seek redress through Federal Court. When challenging an officer’s decision in Federal Court, administrative law principles are triggered.  Today I have invited Steven to join me to help clear up, if possible this very confusion area of immigration law……..in essence this is really the core of what immigration “law” is all about. Why is it so dang hard to challenge an officer’s decision? 1)      The discretion that visa officers have when assessing applications, including: ∙         Immigration law is a subset of administrative law; ∙         Visa officers, port of entry officers, and even summer students are administrative tribunals; ∙         They have a wide range of discretion; and ∙         There is often not a right answer to a case. Rather, there is a range of possible answers. 2)      Fettering discretion. ∙         That officers cannot fetter their discretion by relying on manuals as if they are law.   ∙         The tension that this produces between courts who view visa officers essentially the same as they view the Immigration and Refugee Board vs. program officers who view themselves as implementing and administering departmental programs. 3)      Standard of Review ∙         Questions of fact. ∙         Questions of law. ∙         My Gupta as an example. ∙         The Koo example of where there can be problems if officers have discretion in the interpretation of law.  4)      Tran ∙         The FCA decision in Tran. ∙         A review of the problems with the Tran decision as identified by Paul Daly http://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2015/11/13/a-snapshot-of-whats-wrong-with-canadian-administrative-law-mpsep-v-tran-2015-fca-237/ ∙         Plug that I’ll be back on when Tran is released. QUESTION: how can people reach you? Thanks for being on the Podcast Steven. Helpful Links:  How you can reach Steven Meurrens: steven.meurrens@larlee.com Larlee Rosenberg: http://www.larlee.com/ Steven’s Blog – “Meurrens on Immigration”: http://meurrensonimmigration.com/ Important Case Discussed in this Episode: MPSEP v. Tran (2015 FCA 237): http://bit.ly/2ajifyo One of Steven’s Successful cases at the Federal Court: Gupta v. Canada (2015 FC 1086): http://bit.ly/2authy4 

CIP S1E28 | Steven Meurrens. <a href="http://wp.me/p6wMQg-nq" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://wp.me/p6wMQg-nq</a> Introduction: Welcome to Steven Meurrens. Well respected immigration lawyer practicing with the law firm of Larlee Rosenberg in Vancouver, British Columbia. The firm focuses on all areas of Canadian immigration law. Advising local and multinational corporations on the movement of key employees, and individuals and families who dream of building a future in Canada. Steven is a Partner in the firm with significant experience representing corporate and individual clients in obtaining visas and permits for many business-related purposes. In addition to his business immigration practice, Steven has extensive experience in family-based immigration matters AND a very active practice assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada and to those whom have had visa applications refused. He has appeared before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court. Steven is the Chair of the Canadian Bar Association of British Columbia’s Immigration Subsection. He is a published columnist, a regular panelist at immigration law conferences, and is the author of a very widely read blog on Canadian immigration law called Meurrens on Immigration which we will talk about in a little bit. QUESTION: How did you get into immigration? QUESTION: Can you tell us a little about your Blog? I am also delighted to hear that you are also wading into the wonderful world of Podcasting. QUESTION: Can you tell us a little bit about your Podcast? Focus on the legal side of immigration  and delve into the wonderful world of administrative law in the context of Canadian immigration applications. . If you recall, one of Steven’s specific focuses within his practice is assisting people who have been denied entry to Canada or to those who have had visa applications refused. Challenging an officer’s decision is not always an easy thing. Sometimes, there are clear pathways with fairly well defined appeal mechanisms. However, in many cases, the only recourse is to seek redress through Federal Court. When challenging an officer’s decision in Federal Court, administrative law principles are triggered.  Today I have invited Steven to join me to help clear up, if possible this very confusion area of immigration law……..in essence this is really the core of what immigration “law” is all about. Why is it so dang hard to challenge an officer’s decision? 1)      The discretion that visa officers have when assessing applications, including: ∙         Immigration law is a subset of administrative law; ∙         Visa officers, port of entry officers, and even summer students are administrative tribunals; ∙         They have a wide range of discretion; and ∙         There is often not a right answer to a case. Rather, there is a range of possible answers. 2)      Fettering discretion. ∙         That officers cannot fetter their discretion by relying on manuals as if they are law.   ∙         The tension that this produces between courts who view visa officers essentially the same as they view the Immigration and Refugee Board vs. program officers who view themselves as implementing and administering departmental programs. 3)      Standard of Review ∙         Questions of fact. ∙         Questions of law. ∙         My Gupta as an example. ∙         The Koo example of where there can be problems if officers have discretion in the interpretation of law.  4)      Tran ∙         The FCA decision in Tran. ∙         A review of the problems with the Tran decision as identified by Paul Daly <a href="http://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2015/11/13/a-snapshot-of-whats-wrong-with-canadian-administrative-law-mpsep-v-tran-2015-fca-237/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.administrativelawmatters.com/blog/2015/11/13/a-snapshot-of-whats-wrong-with-canadian-administrative-law-mpsep-v-tran-2015-fca-237/</a> ∙         Plug that I’ll be back on when Tran is released. QUESTION: how can people reach you? Thanks for being on the Podcast Steven. Helpful Links: <ul> <li>How you can reach Steven Meurrens: <a href="mailto:steven.meurrens@larlee.com">steven.meurrens@larlee.com</a></li> <li>Larlee Rosenberg: <a href="http://www.larlee.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.larlee.com/</a></li> <li>Steven’s Blog – “Meurrens on Immigration”: <a href="http://meurrensonimmigration.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://meurrensonimmigration.com/</a></li> <li>Important Case Discussed in this Episode: MPSEP v. Tran (2015 FCA 237): <a href="http://bit.ly/2ajifyo" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/2ajifyo</a></li> <li>One of Steven’s Successful cases at the Federal Court: Gupta v. Canada (2015 FC 1086): <a href="http://bit.ly/2authy4" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/2authy4</a></li> </ul>

028: Challenging an Immigration officer's decision with Steven Meurrens

Deanna Okun-Nachoff

In this introductory episode the three of us discuss recent developments in Canadian immigration law, as well as some recent news items and a specific case.00:30 – 8:39 – We discuss how immigration policy in general has changed under the Liberal government, with a specific emphasis on the Liberal’s repealing the portions of Bill C-24 which revoked the Canadian citizenship of certain individuals convicted of certain offences related to national security.8:39 – 19:03 – The conversation shifts to Donald Trump, BREXIT, and whether Canada under the Liberal government is bucking an international trend towards increased protectionism.19:03 – 25:06 – In discussing immigration policy under the new Liberal government, we note that unlike under the Conservatives, where Jason Kenney seemed to be directly or indirectly responsible for all government departments related to immigration law, the Liberals are providing autonomy to the Ministers of each Ministry, and what impact that this may have.25:06 – 38:50 – Peter Edelmann leads off a discussion on Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s current consultations regarding immigration levels planning in Canada. The discussion becomes a very philosophical one about whether centralised planning is necessary, what Canada’s population should be, and how Canada attempts to meticulously control permanent resident numbers while at the same time does not have an overall plan for how many temporary residents are admitted.38:50 – 41:25 – Steven Meurrens provides a case summary of Sendwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 216. In this decision the Federal Court greatly broadened the ability of Canadian permanent residents and citizens to sponsor their relatives. Canadian immigration law provides that a relative of a sponsor, regardless of age, can be sponsored by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, if that sponsor does not have a spouse, a common-law partner, a conjugal partner, a child, a mother or father, a relative who is a child of that mother or father, a relative who is a child of a child of that mother or father, a mother or father of that mother or father or a relative who is a child of the mother or father of that mother or father. Traditionally IRCC interpreted this as requiring that the Canadian sponsor not have a living spouse, child, parent, grandparent, etc. However, the Federal Court clarified that this is too stringent, and instead stated that the law only requires that the Canadian sponsor not have a sponsorable child, parent, grandparent, etc. The distinction will likely be important for Canadians who either do not meet the income requirements for the parents and grandparents program, or whose parents may be medically inadmissible.41:25 – 53:16 – Deanna Okun-Nachoff comments on how John McCallum, Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, recently committed to “getting rid of silly rules.” She discusses some of the rules that she finds silly, including the Temporary Resident Permits issued to victims of human trafficking, and numerous quirks of Express Entry.

In this introductory episode the three of us discuss recent developments in Canadian immigration law, as well as some recent news items and a specific case. 00:30 – 8:39 – We discuss how immigration policy in general has changed under the Liberal government, with a specific emphasis on the Liberal’s repealing the portions of Bill C-24 which revoked the Canadian citizenship of certain individuals convicted of certain offences related to national security. 8:39 – 19:03 – The conversation shifts to Donald Trump, BREXIT, and whether Canada under the Liberal government is bucking an international trend towards increased protectionism. 19:03 – 25:06 – In discussing immigration policy under the new Liberal government, we note that unlike under the Conservatives, where Jason Kenney seemed to be directly or indirectly responsible for all government departments related to immigration law, the Liberals are providing autonomy to the Ministers of each Ministry, and what impact that this may have. 25:06 – 38:50 – Peter Edelmann leads off a discussion on Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s current consultations regarding immigration levels planning in Canada. The discussion becomes a very philosophical one about whether centralised planning is necessary, what Canada’s population should be, and how Canada attempts to meticulously control permanent resident numbers while at the same time does not have an overall plan for how many temporary residents are admitted. 38:50 – 41:25 – Steven Meurrens provides a case summary of Sendwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 216. In this decision the Federal Court greatly broadened the ability of Canadian permanent residents and citizens to sponsor their relatives. Canadian immigration law provides that a relative of a sponsor, regardless of age, can be sponsored by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, if that sponsor does not have a spouse, a common-law partner, a conjugal partner, a child, a mother or father, a relative who is a child of that mother or father, a relative who is a child of a child of that mother or father, a mother or father of that mother or father or a relative who is a child of the mother or father of that mother or father. Traditionally IRCC interpreted this as requiring that the Canadian sponsor not have a living spouse, child, parent, grandparent, etc. However, the Federal Court clarified that this is too stringent, and instead stated that the law only requires that the Canadian sponsor not have a sponsorable child, parent, grandparent, etc. The distinction will likely be important for Canadians who either do not meet the income requirements for the parents and grandparents program, or whose parents may be medically inadmissible. 41:25 – 53:16 – Deanna Okun-Nachoff comments on how John McCallum, Canada’s Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, recently committed to “getting rid of silly rules.” She discusses some of the rules that she finds silly, including the Temporary Resident Permits issued to victims of human trafficking, and numerous quirks of Express Entry.

#1 - Deanna Okun-Nachoff, Peter Edelmann, Steven Meurrens on Canada's Immigration System