Home
+
Published : 10 Oct 2022, 04:15 AM
On the fateful day of Apr 6, 2018, Jaskirat Sidhu was driving the truck that hit the Humboldt Broncos bus, killing sixteen players and injuring many.
Sidhu pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm. In this case, the defendant, despite being a permanent resident of Canada, has now become subject to deportation.
His lawyer has planned to argue against his deportation in a Federal court. Sidhu's case is a type of in-Canada conviction as he was sentenced to eight years for his offence committed in Canada.
However, the amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2013 has limited the review mechanism for foreign nationals and permanent residents who are inadmissible for serious criminal offences.
This law, titled the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, has made Sidhu, not yet a citizen in Canada, inadmissible due to the indictment in the provincial court.
The case of Jaskirat Sidhu drew wide media attention as it shows even if you are a permanent resident, you may face deportation if you are involved in certain offences.
Canadian immigration is a federally regulated and structured system in which one is eligible to apply if one scores specific points. When applying for immigration, everyone has in mind one simple question – am I eligible? But things get a little interesting when the applicant is asked a simple question – have you ever been refused a visa to Canada or any other country? Or have you ever been deported or removed from any country?
There are stark differences between the two. Eligibility is a set of checklists governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations. Still, when it comes to the discretion of a Border Services officer in the Port of Entry, eligibility alone will not be enough.
The very issues that the officer looks at are under the realm of admissibility, which relates to, amongst others, 'the protection of health and safety of Canadians and promotion of international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks.'
The officer could decide whether a person will be allowed to enter Canada by referencing the various inadmissibility provisions of the Act.
Ineligibility is not fulfilling some criteria or, in some cases, insufficiency of evidence supporting the application. If an applicant is considered ineligible, future applications could have little or no consequences or prejudice.
On the other hand, an inadmissible case could have severe consequences for years to come. A case in point is that 'misrepresentation' could bar one for years before being allowed to enter the country. Serious or organised criminality could lead to deportation or a life ban. Misrepresentation denotes deliberately providing wrong information or submitting falsified documents.
So the challenge remains to work with inadmissible applicants and help them navigate the web of laws. The Act is stringent to inadmissibility categories relating to criminality, organised crime, health or financial misrepresentations. Even subtle misrepresentation with non-compliance or inadmissible family members can affect the applicant. Therefore understanding the circumstances within the objective framework of the Acts and Regulations is a starting point for tackling the inadmissibility issue.
Coming back to the case of Sidhu, who is a permanent resident but facing the prospect of deportation. The legal pundits and families of the victims are divided on the case. Some have argued that deporting Sidhu won't make Canada a better country.
On the other hand, some of the victims' family members support the deportation and believe that Sidhu's removal would be a necessary step toward achieving "justice."
They have argued that laws like the inadmissibility provisions in the Act are in place because they protect Canadians. They argued that the legislative requirements would not be met if Sidhu was not removed. Other family members of the victims have objected to his deportation, highlighting the significant repentance.
Deportation is imposed on foreign nationals and permanent residents based on conviction and sentencing. An order for deportation is only rendered following the conclusion of criminal proceedings. However, deportation, a "collateral consequence" of conviction, has turned out to be a double-edged sword - at one end, punishment has first been meted out with conviction and then deportation. For example, Sidhu has been convicted of a crime in Canada, serving his time in Canada and facing removal.
Foreigners lack access to legal rights, thus depriving them of access to appeal a removal order. Being in Canada is considered to be a privilege, not a right. But they lose this privilege when they fail to abide by Canadian legislation.
Moreover, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act also deprives permanent residents of the right to appeal if sentenced to more than six months.
So foreigners and permanent residents need to be aware that the consequences of misrepresentations and serious criminality will have severe implications for their application or residency. It will also limit their access to appeal removal or deportation from the borders of Canada on the ground of inadmissibility.
[Manish Paul is a licensed immigration consultant; Md Asiuzzaman is a student success and career educator. Both of them are based in Toronto, Canada]
References:
1. Opinion: Deporting Humboldt truck driver would be vengeance, not justice; Parker Donham, Special to National Post
2. Punishment vs. deportation: What we can learn from the case of the truck driver in the Humboldt Broncos bus crash; Jessica Templeman, The Conversation
