Canadian Immigration Lawyers Proposes IRPA Reforms. Last month, the Legislative Reform Committee of the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association (CILA) published a comprehensive report detailing their proposed reforms for the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This report outlines CILA’s vision for changes that could enhance the effectiveness and fairness of Canada’s immigration system. By addressing critical issues and suggesting specific amendments, the Canadian Immigration Lawyers aim to improve the IRPA to better serve both immigrants and the nation.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which was first introduced in 2001, is the piece of legislation that the Canadian government uses to create the guidelines that control immigration to Canada. It also outlines the procedures for offering refugee protection to those who are displaced, under attack, or in danger.
Recommended Legislative Changes to the IRPA by CILA
The CILA paper promotes amending the present Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) legislation with the aim of “providing policymakers with an understanding of the legislative changes that Canadian immigration lawyers see as most urgent.” The study highlights that since its passage in 2001, the IRPA has not undergone a thorough examination or revision.
Founded in 2020 by immigration attorneys from all around the country, the CILA seeks to represent immigration attorneys nationwide. The association offers well-informed responses and analysis to news, initiatives, and legislative changes pertaining to immigration.
Throughout the year, CILA actively participates in a number of stakeholder meetings. These include conversations with high-ranking members of the IRCC, including Minister Marc Miller and former Assistant Deputy Minister Christiane Fox.
Proposed IRPA Legislative Changes – Addressing Inadmissibility Cases
With regard to admissibility, CILA offers substantial revisions to the IRPA statute that would radically alter how the Canadian government handles these kinds of cases.
Financial inadmissibility
Furthermore, the IRCC would take action and lower the requirements as a result of the proposed changes to the rules governing inadmissibility. Determinations of financial inadmissibility would first require the department to evaluate any outside financial support that an applicant may be able to get. This suggests that applicants for immigration to Canada would have more opportunities to demonstrate their financial suitability before authorities declare them ineligible.
The proposed amendment from CILA states that IRPA should define financial backing more broadly to include an applicant’s “family or organizations.”
Medical inadmissibility
CILA, for instance, suggests that the government repeal two laws pertaining to medical inadmissibility. In particular, CILA is in favor of getting rid of the IRPA clauses that declare foreign persons ineligible for entry into Canada if their medical condition could endanger public health and safety or put an undue burden on social and medical services. According to this plan, foreign nationals seeking entrance into Canada would no longer be subject to medical inadmissibility based just on their medical condition, even though the laws governing criminal inadmissibility would remain unaltered.
Misrepresentation
In addition, CILA suggests changes to IRPA with the intention of lessening the severity of sanctions for deception and giving people additional options to lessen their culpability. For example, under these revisions, the current five-year penalty for misrepresentation may be replaced with a one-year restriction, and the severity of the misrepresentation would determine the quantum of sanctions. Furthermore, those convicted of misrepresenting could be eligible for discretionary waivers that would let them apply for re-entry into Canada prior to the end of their suspension.
CILA’s recommendation states that authorities will review the re-entry requests of applicants barred for misrepresentation only after the ban period ends.
By providing prohibited applicants with more opportunities to apply for re-entry into Canada before the current laws permit, these proposed reforms would increase flexibility and equity in the treatment of instances involving deception.
Family-sponsored immigration
CILA’s suggestions for the family-class immigration propose major changes to the current implementation of IRPA. These proposed modifications will specifically impact family member sponsorship procedures, eligibility requirements for immigrants to Canada, and the definitions the IRCC employs for different familial ties.
Exclusion from family sponsorship
For instance, CILA supports eliminating an existing IRPA regulation. This regulation forbids admitting foreign people into Canada under the family class of immigration if their current sponsor, a permanent resident of Canada, had previously included them as non-accompanying family members and they were not assessed as such.
Under the existing IRPA regulations, authorities do not consider these foreign people eligible for the family-class because they classify them as concealed family members of the sponsor. Reversing this policy would, however, allow many of the now barred foreign nationals to once again be eligible for immigration to Canada under family-class programs.
Sponsorship by individuals with permanent residency
Moreover, CILA suggests that regardless of the foreign national’s present place of residence in Canada at the time of sponsorship application, permanent residents should be able to sponsor them under IRPA. By doing this, more Canadian citizens would be qualified to sponsor family members.
At the moment, only citizens of Canada are able to sponsor qualified foreign nationals living abroad. The proposal put forth by CILA aims to grant permanent residents the same sponsorship privilege, regardless of their residence status in Canada at the time of the application.
Broadening eligibility for family-sponsored immigration
Building on the previous points, CILA proposes two policy adjustments— an amendment and an addition— aimed at expanding the scope of individuals eligible to immigrate to Canada through IRCC’s family-class programs.
Firstly, CILA suggests amending IRPA’s definition of familial relationships by altering the policy language. Currently, IRPA states that it does not consider a foreign national a spouse, common-law partner, or conjugal partner if the relationship is not genuine or if it was primarily entered into for immigration benefits. CILA recommends changing the conjunction from “or” to “and” between the two conditions. This clarification could potentially increase the number of foreign nationals eligible for family-class immigration to Canada. For a relationship to be deemed invalid, authorities require both conditions to be met.
Furthermore, CILA suggests reclassifying fiancé ties under IRPA legislation as family relationships. In addition to spouses, common-law partners, and conjugal partners, this inclusion would add a new category to Canada’s family-class immigration structure. It represents a significant expansion of eligibility criteria for family reunification.
Study permits for underage children
Finally, CILA suggests changing the regulation to make it easier for minor children to meet the requirements for study permits in Canada.
IRPA currently uses the phrase “minor child” in this context. Instead of using this phrase, CILA suggests using “dependent child” or “child under the age of nineteen.”
With this modification, certain students might no longer have to submit an application for a study permit in the middle of their academic year. This change, for example, would help students who are born in the first part of the year. It would enable them to finish their education without any disruptions if they turn eighteen during their last year of high school.
Current Status and Developments
IRCC should consider the policy proposals made by CILA; however, it should be noted that implementing any changes to the IRPA laws will require time and effort. Changing government policy requires enacting legislation through a convoluted, multi-step approval process. It could take several years to include any of CILA’s recommendations into IRPA.