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: [email protected] 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

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related