This episode of the Canadian immigration podcast is sponsored by the Canadian immigration Institute. One of the best sources of video content on Canadian immigration to help you navigate your way through the Canadian immigration process. Head on over to the YouTube channel where there's tons of video content, and you can join mark. Yes myself in a number of live video streams. q&a is all designed to help you navigate your way through this crazy Canadian immigration process. When you're done there, like and subscribe, and then head on over to the Canadian Immigration institute.com where you can find all those awesome DIY courses that I've been talking about. Thank you Canadian immigration Institute. You are the sponsor of this amazing little podcast.
The Canadian immigration process can be complex and frustrating. With the Canadian Immigration Department making it virtually impossible to speak to an officer. There are a few places to turn to for trusted information. The Canadian immigration podcast was created to fill this void by offering the latest on immigration law policy and practice. Please welcome ex immigration officer and Canadian immigration lawyer Mark hold fee as he is joined by industry leaders across Canada sharing insight to help you along your way.
All right, let's get back to at here. How's everybody doing? Well turn our music down a little bit. We want to get you guys fired up as if you're not already fired up. If you are affected by this problem that we're going to be talking about today. I'm here with my special guest immigration lawyer will Tao how's it going? Well, great to have you back again.
Thank you, Mark, for having me back. It's actually interesting. I feel like you know, Ronnie Chang when he shows up on like The Daily Show or whatnot to like, give us a lot of dates. Like I have that feeling whenever I show up on your show. It's like, I got some news to bring to you. And I'm looking forward to chatting with you. So this is this is wonderful.
Yeah, this is a great topic. So you know, very, it's it's small. It's gotten to the point now where? Well, let me let me take a step back for a while. Well, for many years of practice, it would be rare that I'd get someone who was stuck in security screening, like it was a real kind of novel area of immigration. And we know that when it comes to immigration security screening, it's an important part of you know, the process, you know, for our government and for the immigration department to make sure that that takes place. But now, more and more, we're starting to see people get stuck. And then what do they do they book consults with us, they say, Hey, I'm from China, I've got this application that I've submitted, you know, it's stuck, I'm sitting, I'm waiting, what do I do? What are my options? Or people that are getting ready to file? Well, I'm thinking about filing. But Am I destined to be to be stuck in this, this black hole? Like what do I do? can I prevent it? Are there things that I can do? So this is what we are going to be talking about today? Well, and and I'm really, really excited to address this topic. Those of you who are tuning in live, we've got a decent group of people that are we will definitely be taking questions as we go forward. This topic is going to be narrowly narrowly focused on the security screening delays and everything associated with it. So if your comments or questions are related to other general immigration things, we'll definitely remember every Wednesday morning, I was sick yesterday. So Alicia, and Igor held the fort for me yesterday. But we every week we do the live q&a, so you can save your questions and save them for next Wednesday. But if you have questions related to security screening, if you're stuck yourself, this one is for you. We're going to be trying to give more of a practical approach to it, explain what's going on. And then give you a few tools and resources so that you can determine what you do when you're stuck in this vortex so so will that How's that for a lead in?
That sounds excellent. And I think one of the things I really want to do and why I want to show up on your episode is that this area can get quite dicey and quite opaque. And you know, we can start going to the federal court level and talking about case law and talking about mandamus. And, and those are very important conversations, right. But the reality of the situation on the ground are folks that may or may not have the resources or want to risk the litigation, who have these applications are looking to reunite and are dealing with the day to day issues of just waiting for their applications. So I think that it's a really good time both to share information and to, you know, get on that same page on like, what might be going on. Of course, like I said, there's so much that we don't know. And perhaps that can be the starting point for also encouraging government to be transparent and share a little bit more behind the curtain. So everyone knows, hey, this is why I have to wait a year, perhaps two years, in some cases, up to five years, as some of our documents that we've received are showing us.
Yeah, that's crazy to think that someone has their peer application stuck for five years. But you know, in fairness, that isn't without precedent. And even outside of the security realm, you know, there was a time when the average person who was maybe applying from China for permanent residence through the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the processing times, at some point, climbed up to six or seven years. And that's just regular processing. Now, that's to deal with caps and things like that. But, but these delays or even spousal overseas Family Class spousal sponsorships, you know, some individuals were stuck in this vortex for a lengthy period of time. But regardless, you know, this is something that really irritates me sometimes, well, is there's this mentality that Well, everybody's going through tough times. And so we just begin to accept and say, well, that's just kind of the way it is, right? Like, I go to emergency room at my hospital, and well, yeah, the process the times to get in to see a doctor or maybe six hours or seven hours. But Well, everybody has to, you know, wait six or seven hours. So that's the new normal. Well, hopefully, hopefully, this isn't the new normal, hopefully, they're going to be able to sort this out and figure out what they need to do, because two years, three years, five years, is just an astronomically long period of time to conduct a security screening on someone.
Absolutely, I completely agree with you. One thing that is important to note, though, is we still don't know exactly who gets the basic record check and who gets a comprehensive check. And then it's a comprehensive check. That starts to expand that processing time, because that's when there needs to be follow up with CBSA, with CSIS with security partners, and from our understanding those goalposts are shifting, right. So the best case examples we've seen are folks that may have even become permanent residents years ago, and for whatever reason, I think, actually a lot of them from China, specifically, they may be during COVID, or a period of time, chose chose to put aside their permanent residence and stay in China for a period of time. They're getting sponsored back by their spouses. And guess what stuff that happened before they became a permanent resident, the first time is now tripping up the security apparatus. And that just constantly shows that they're the citizens are having difficulty governing their affairs during this time. Right. So I think that's the first starting point is, you know, who gets the basic record check that passes through very quickly? And who gets the comprehensive check? And then once it gets to that comprehensive check phase, you know, what, what stage of that? Are you at? Are you awaiting CSIS doing the analysis? Or are you or has have they actually rendered the LSST at CBSA? Who renders these recommendations? You know, have they rendered it a negative one, and it's just waiting to be translated to you and furthered by IRCC? Have they rendered a positive one and perhaps IRCCs challenging it? So there's actually a lot of players in this game. And it's not just a checkbox. And I think that's one of the key things I wanted to bring to the forefront right away.
You bet. And for those of you who are just tuning in, or maybe just watching this, we always have, you know, we're up to 140 live right now. Will the rails for those of you that are just tuning in, oh, marks live, let's watch this, you may not understand exactly what we're talking about. So let's just, you know, unroll it back just a little bit. And just explain kind of, and maybe we'll if you could do this, how does the security screening fit into the normal processing of a permanent resident application? We won't talk about work permits or study permits or temporary stuff, we'll just focus on the permanent stuff. So why is this even important? How does it fit in?
Yeah, so and stuff we talked about? I think we focus a lot of our energy on as long as the eligibility phase, right. So when someone's applying for Express Entry, or sponsorship, the first stage of that is, are you eligible for the program that you apply for right, and that's called the eligibility for stage approval. A lot of folks are familiar with that. But in the background, and before you land, as a PR, they need to go through the medical and the security checks, and that's why they asked for those police certificates. That's why they asked the statutory questions on those forms about your previous history. Right and what has shifted In the last couple of years, and in fact, I would even say this year it's taken a whole new dynamic is the fact that the questions from the forms, for example, what school you've gone to, what employers you've worked for, what country of citizenship you're from, these factors are combining in ways that are now raising indicators and flags for the security apparatus and the review of those background, that background information. Indeed,
and, you know, it's not like more than ever before information is available. So you think about how security screening was done in the past, you know, officers 15 years ago, 20 years ago, they didn't use Google as their primary source of, you know, of doing, you know, security and background checks, like, it's to the point now, and obviously, every individuals, you know, the screening process can be a little bit different, depending upon the flags, or the triggers, or whatever they're looking for the hits, they get and looking, we can talk about AI and, you know, in the use of AI and in the security screening process, that's a topic in and of itself, but but the officers now they have access to so many different things. And it's just really at their fingertips. And the thing that just surprises me the most is just the length of time. So, you know, it's not like you're calling up your buddy, who's you know, from Australia, who's has your job, you know, doing security, and you're sharing over the phone, hey, do you got anything on this person? Here's their information. Like, I remember, well, when I worked on the border, you know, we did background checks, I had access to the NCIC database, I had access to CPIC, the, you know, the Canadian database, I could look things up, they weren't me, Mark, don't look up your friends, right, your access to this information. So you know, You'll get in big trouble if you're running your, your your friends information to see what their criminal record is, right. But but this stuff was, you know, is a database, you punch in basic information, and you're done. And if the government in, you know, if it was a state search in Texas, and the local state department hadn't uploaded the paper applications, or sort of the paper, criminal reports into the database digitally, I wouldn't see it. Right, it would, it would, that would be it. But never before has the data been available. So it just amazes me the duration it takes to do this when you have all of this at your disposal.
And that's what I think when they were modernizing these, these tools and introduced introduced the automation that you discussed, they were thinking that now that we're streamlining these things, it shouldn't take this much longer, but I don't think they were prepared for the volume. And I don't think they were prepared. When you when you widen the goalposts, you do put a lot of strain and pressure on those external parties. And we don't always know where the bottleneck is, right? It could be in the United States with the the FBI with the the US, you know, the cross border, checking on that, it could be with another, you know, if you have some sort of history in another country, but often it is with the CSIS, right. And it's with that, like, they have a pile and they have to get through it. And those who need comprehensive checks, it's, it's an extensive process, right. And I think that often gets missed. And what I'm seeing unfortunately, a bit of too much of it is a reality because people are waiting, and they kept waiting longer. But it's now becoming once a game that of like, you know, how long is too long. And if if we are in a situation where folks have waited only a couple of months, and some have waited years, and everyone is trying to do different things to force, you know, courts or members of parliament or just different stakeholders to engage and some people are complaining to CSIS. Some people are like people are doing all sorts of REM everything, it's making very, very messy under the under the tent, so to speak. So this is my call, I would say to like, you know, we so one thing I want to bring up now if it's an appropriate time, let's start with the starting point of information we do have because with security, and with things that are sensitive of intelligence nature, you're not going to get government websites that explain, you know, A to Z, here's how we're gonna bring this how we do it. Yeah, that's not gonna happen. Right. But there are and I think I want to give shout outs to a lawyer. I think he's now a crown prosecutor. Manmeet. Right. And I think it was want to share in his paints, I think this
is awesome. Yeah, like, I'm really impressed.
This is very impressive. And again, you know, we have to caveat that this is from a previous iteration. So this page is a bit dated, but he was able to go through some of these manuals, and at least we've seen were at one point in time a few years back The system was right in terms of with, you know, record checks versus comprehensive checks. He even posts these manuals that talk about the screening indicators. There are some discretionary screening indicators, there are mandatory screening indicators that IRCC once they see, you know, they push it off to the NSS, D at CBSA. And now we know through the use of automation, there are tools at the MSSD that then filter it even further in terms of whether it goes through the comprehensive or the regular check.
Can I jump in? So sometimes we as lawyers get really used to using our acronyms? Oh, sorry. So
vs agency. Yep. So Canada Border Services Agency, national security screening division. So I should, I should yeah, that's, that's a really good point. Some of these CBSA NSS D, but it's US Canada Border Services Agency, national security screen division. So when security is not just an IRC C thing, and I think this is very important to know, some people are still quite confused about this, right. They just say you know what IRC C is delaying everything. Sometimes it's not IRC C they've already made or they are, they are even forced to have the file, go to the security screening partners to MSSD, to the national security screen division, they are then you know, filtering the file to CSIS to the other doing the other checks, and then issuing the recommendation. That itself is a whole process, right. And then when you get that recommendation, favorable, inconclusive, not favorable, you then have IRCC, again, who may or may not take on that advice that that's been given to them by CBSA, to render the final result. So it really is an application in itself when you get to that really detailed, comprehensive screening process. And the question is, how much time should we give our institutions to do very, very important work that is crucial to the security of our country, balanced against families, individuals, and their backgrounds, that may or may not feel like they should be filtered, or may may or may not feel that they've had the chance to even put forth their case, in a situation like this. So that's sort of where the fundamental tensions are live right now.
Yeah. And just for those of you who are wondering what the heck is Mark showing us here, so you can you can search, as I'll put, I'll put a link into the description of the video. And those of you I should have also mentioned, I'll probably have to do a manually a manual audio intro to this. But this is also episode, I think it's 146 of the Canadian immigration podcast. So we will also have the audio version of this, and I'll have a description in in the description, I'll have a link to this website. But it's called the mystery of security screening for Canadian visa applications unraveled, all you need to know. And, yeah, like it's a dated site, but it has a really good overview of the distinction between, you know, how background checks are done. And, and this basically the the evolution of security screening, when it comes to the processing of perimeters and applications. And this is, you know, it's a good resource to go to, and, you know, where I'll give credit where credit's due, like when someone puts together, something like this, that really kind of opens up, pulls the curtain back and shows you what's behind a little bit, even though like Will is indicated, this is this is older and and things have kind of evolved, the basic principles behind this haven't substantially changed. And you can see there some very, very simple little flow through charts, I'm sure these were pulled right from the, the officers like the manuals, you know, program delivery instructions. But still this, this gives a really good example of how it works. And, you know, we're not going to spend time you guys getting into the weeds with this, but we I will put a link in so you can see. And yeah, shout out to this lawyer. He did. Yeah. It's it's a really, really useful tool.
Yeah. And I think it's good to mention at this stage, that it's not just an issue that does affect permanent residents, it's affects temporary residents. In fact, if you want to think about it, even folks who are permanent residents and go to the citizenship, I mean, the expanded security provisions and the inadmissibility these big Oh, they they they keep they keep going really even, you know, someone could get their citizenship technically revoked, even if you want to put it go that far, if they've been misrepresented or not mentioned something and pass so there's real, it covers the whole duration of the immigration process. And you know, the difference between temporary and permanent. This is another fact that I want to bring up that a lot of folks often miss. When you get when you apply as a temporary resident, oftentimes, depending on the way that file triage is there. could be lesser security provisions or lesser security screening. And it could be at that permanent residence stage where they go for the more comprehensive checks. So, you know, I have folks who see me and they're like, Hey, I came here as a student, I was perfectly fine. I've been here studying for years, you know, I should be okay, well, based off of what the goalposts are with their permanent residence, and with how they screened comprehensively in that stage, they can pull back stuff and, and look into things from from the past. And unfortunately, what we've seen is it it's kind of an indiscriminate in terms of certain folks, you know, there's individuals who have come here since high school. And I know, our friends over at borderlines have talked about that on their podcast, too, with, with Lev and another in their episodes. Folks who haven't been back to certain countries in many years, and who may have never worked there. But the way that they're filtering or screening for certain individuals based off of these patterns that they are recognizing, is catching a lot of people who I know for a fact because I'm having consults with them every day. They feel like they've absolutely done nothing personally in their lives to even warrant such a suspicion. But you know, that that's where we're heading, you know, international relations, is becoming just as important as your individual story. Absolutely.
Well, and, you know, we can go back and we can talk about what some of the triggers were, at least more recently, and politics plays a huge role in this. And we know that, you know, whenever a government has concerns, internet internationally, with with the maybe overreach or I don't want to use infiltration, but, you know, espionage in general, they treat that, you know, those international relations can have a direct effect on permanent residence. And so I'll pull up this comment here from Natalia. And actually, I'll pull up her first comment, she says, I found your channel two weeks ago, and that was a huge help for us. Thank you for your efforts. You're very welcome. Natalia. But she says here, she says it depends on the depend, essentially, does it depend on the applicant nationality? I'm from Ukraine, my security screen took way more shorter than my husband from Syria. So what are your thoughts on that? Well, are there certain countries? And this is obviously a question I've got my own views on, but what are your thoughts on countries that are currently kind of under the crosshairs, you know, of immigration?
You know, we don't know exactly what the indicators are, that are filtering these files, right? Because those are going to be kept secret. And especially as we move to a more algorithmic based system that's automated, the less and less likely we're going to be able to know exactly what triggers what in the system because once you find out, there's risks you can game the system and this is sensitive national security. This is that the top and top of protected information in terms of this process, but from our anecdotal experiences, yes, it has been Syrian nationals. It has been Russian nationals. It has been Chinese nationals, it has been Iranian nationals, Bangladeshi nationals, Indian nationals, who, you know, of course, it's it's not it's just called nationals, there's, there's other factors that usually play into right, but certain educational institution, they attended certain jobs, they may have held certain government or military experience that may be on their application. But these are the type of indicators that then cause this discrepancy in disbalance. In the processing times, what are your thoughts mark on? Yeah,
well, obviously, I like I, it's hard for me not to see politics infused in all of this. And I'm not gonna get into all of the speculation over the impact of the whole, you know, the Winnipeg labs situation and, and how much that has infused the, the challenges that that Chinese nationals are now experiencing, you know, the creation of that website with all the educational institutions and, and their decision to, you know, to treat people differently, depending upon where they, you know, studied domestically in China. You know, all of those factors, we can speculate, you know, till the cows come home, and I want it to shift here, and I just want to bring up one thing, a little topic. Next topic is, is myths to write. And when we don't have transparency, then all kinds of conspiracy theories start floating. And it makes it really difficult for us as immigration lawyers to figure out where the truth actually lies. And you look at Chinook you look at artificial intelligence and, and the implementation of that by the government and how secretive they've been. You know, I remember sitting in, it must have been 2017 Will, and I never really gave it a lot of thought, but I sat in one of our meetings with the CBA and IRCC. K pick was there Acadie was there and The main developer, I can't remember his name, main representative who was driving the AI initiative. They gave us a presentation on some of the things that they were doing, ya know, they had their, their, their DOJ lawyer who was responsible for their answering questions. And, and I never, I never fully appreciated how far along they really were back then. And we're always what are we two years behind three years behind whatever they've done. And we know just by looking at just the, you know, the AGI world, right now, we look at Chad GPT. And what you can do just personally, and we know what's being released through, you know, version 4.0 of Chad GPT is is like two years behind, you know, probably what they've already created and the technology that they haven't rolled out yet. So the scary part is, how much is immigration? Just how much are they beta testing AI in the use of the technology? And how is that now impacting the delays within security screening? Is it is it truly they're, you know, everything is halted? Because they were rolling over from their more manual process to the processing through more artificial means, you know, is, you know, what are the other factors that that have come into these delays, but, but now, when you go online, you have people coming up with all kinds of thoughts. And the hard part is when individuals who have an individual experience, then apply that experience, generally to everyone else, and say, this is the way it is. So as far as common myths, boy, I don't even know where I would start with those common mistakes. So we speculate as much as they they do, right?
Well, yeah, no, I completely agree with you. And I mean, I'll just give you another example of one. And this is interesting. I don't know if you heard about this, I think it's called, it's called the F 11, or the F 12. But folks have been able to utilize the Inspect button of their application, you know, the status tracker, the applications, they've been able to use the Inspect button of the application status tracker to get access to the source coding behind the actual sections of it. And then those codes, I don't know, have you seen this is the code that I have not seen this yet. But it reminds me of something that I'm very sad to see gone, I'll tell you in a second, but keep going.
The codes actually, like they figured out how to even code like the the number that's on that's replicated on the page in spec screen with where the application is, is in the security status review. So I mean, where people already have maybe even somewhat gotten into the system and done stuff like that, I think it's incumbent on the government, either, hey, we want you to see this and will transparently tell you what this means. Or perhaps you don't want them to see it. And, you know, perhaps I don't know, I mean, if you can remove that section, but at least it'll give us some clarity around some of those things. And that same thing with the security screening automation that you mentioned earlier, right. Like, I have an access to an algorithmic impact assessment that's in draft form. It hasn't been fully published yet. But in government publications that are hidden online, they've already said they're already experimenting with this security screening automation, which is what they use to send these files off to the various levels of screening the the NSS D, as I discussed earlier. And, you know, the whole idea of this algorithmic impact assessment is you're supposed to have these vetted, and then, you know, posted before deployment, but projects are already being deployed before public even sees the information. So the timing of all these things is getting very confusing, and people are starting to fill in the gaps with speculation. Sorry, to mark your there was one thing that you wanted to,
oh, I was just saying it reminds me of the URL code that you know, the URL I used to be able to type in to look at the APR information. So so we have, we have Nathan pose, awesome little, little tool for for, you know, capturing the screen information. Well, I never used it for years and years. Because I just punch in a little URL, it would allow me to kind of hack back in and see all of the APR information on submitted applications. Then eventually it disappeared. Because everybody was sharing it all the smarty pants Oh, look at me. Here's the secret way and I get more views on my YouTube channel. I was like, Oh, you idiots don't say anything. But anyway, so those kinds of things finally get discovered and then they get shut down. We do have we've got Katherine delude here. She's listening from Hong Kong on LinkedIn. So welcome, Catherine. She says following you guys on different platforms and and she asks an interesting question, which is probably taking us a little bit ahead of where we're at. But hey, well, this is an interactive, it's designed to you know, to let us interact with the with the viewers, she said What would you say to a potential applicant who studied at a university that's on that 100 list, and works for works for Huawei, and that would like to apply for PR. So, so so this is the this is the question, and I kind of alluded to this at the beginning of the, of the live stream, you know, what do you advise people who are saying, you know, is it even worth my time to apply? Because remember, the US is much more transparent, right? It's kind of like a fly no fly list, right? It's at least you know,
and that's what I've been sort of pushing. And I think I might have a quote coming out of the National Post soon, on this as well. But, you know, if we are really just saying, We don't want certain folks studying at certain schools right now, or doing postdocs, or whatever, I mean, yeah, you know, fear that folks might accuse us of being discriminatory, but at least you state it, at least you make it clear, at least those folks can make other decisions at this stage, or wait or not apply this idea of like not saying anything, and then just, you know, putting through folks who've never even stepped foot in Canada and accusing them of being potential spies. And then that's another level of I have concerns about that kind of predictive profiling to Catherine's question. I mean, that's a very good one. And actually, I really like what Deanna said, on the Borderlands podcast, I keep referencing that again. And it's something that I think, too, it's like, professionally, we have the obligation to tell our clients the spectrum of possible outcomes. Right. And I think at this time and this stage, with that type of fat pattern of being on a school that, you know, there are, again, what schools are actually on that list are itself a matter of discussion and speculation,
and are certain ones kind of ranked higher on the list of of, you know, more of a security, you know, risk compared to others, like, how did they even get on the list? Right.
But from what I've seen that it is it you know, that they're not discriminant Vittoria, there, whether you did your Bachelor's there, your masters or your PhD there, whether you swept the floors there, like as long as that school is on there. It's being flagged. Right. So there. So and then Huawei, of course, I mean, again, from personal experience, I've seen cases that that that seems to be an employee that is also quite high on that. So I mean, yet we don't have the perfect answer. And we we have to in our work sort of be a little bit predictive, just like the government is doing their predictive thing. But it may be in our best interest to tell somebody's clients that it's just not the right time. Right. And, unfortunately, I don't see enough of that advice always coming through from practitioners. And that could be also reasons maybe they're, they're not attuned yet to what's going on, and they haven't read up on it. Or I mean, and worst case scenario, and I hope to slot in anybody, but like, you know, of course, in certain cases, if the right fact pattern comes up, you want to challenge the system, and you want to maybe if the clients agreed to it, you know, litigate against some of the bad precedents that are in the system. But that's only if the client agrees to it. Right? And if but, if the client doesn't want to go ahead, I mean, trying to force the client towards an outcome is isn't always the best thing, either, right? And they'll create litigation or create years of challenges. And yep, I mean, espionage finding is could be lifelong with the way that the system is running. But then,
yeah, go ahead. Yeah.
Well, I was just gonna say, you know, we're also in a very, very interesting time we we talked about politics being sort of foundation of this, like, we think I'll politically, you know, the tides are shifting and there could be new government in place. There are folks who are rightfully who may have applications in the process being now like, do I push now on a mandamus versus push later when it after government change policies become even more restrictive law gets worse? It's not a science at this stage, but people are making those and thinking about those decisions.
Well, I was thinking like in, you know, consistent with with Deanna, like, he referenced, you know, and in responding to Katherine, I think it's all about allowing your client to have all of the information they need to make an informed decision. And, you know, in your case, you know, specific scenario, right, yes, 100%, you're on the list. And you've worked for one of the companies. So, you know, I've got I've got Huawei inverters on my solar panels here. We had dealings with them with my brother and our solar company. But anyways, the reality is, it's just a matter of informing your client saying, hey, look, this is what we're seeing, you know, highly likely if you submit a PR application, like you're in for at least two years and start counting. And, you know, and it's likely it could just stall out. And there's risks, right, and one of the risks. You know, Canada has member partners, we have partners around the world, right? And if Canada determines, oh, no, we think you're a security risk, you know, for whatever section they decide to ultimately, you know, land on. That's going to be a part of your record and could then affect your ability to go but other countries as well. And, you know, and there's just so much that so much uncertainty here, it really comes down to Yeah, just informing your client and then giving them the option. And as long as they're informed, you know, well, I think, you know, and, you know, our advice could could legitimately go both ways in terms of which way to go whether to apply, or whether to hold back. We know that our immigration program right now is a young person's game. And you know, sometimes windows are so small that if people have an opportunity, sometimes it's worth it to take the chance now and ride it out versus maybe later date when things sorted out. You've lost all these points, and you're no longer eligible. So yeah, lots of things to think about. Yeah.
And I'd also be very cautious. I mean, I know a lot of folks now are relying on forums and then doing, you know, for example, using chat chat GPT to file a mandamus claims. I mean, there's a benefit. I mean, I think that the sense of community that's been formed, and advocacy, like those are great things for access to justice, those are great things for sharing of information, but they can also be at the same time spots of misinformation. And you know, it may not be accurate, right? We have a tendency to see those all and maybe everyone's complaining about getting rejected or refused or found inadmissible. Maybe there are folks and this seems like there are who are actually getting approved for from these schools, but they're not going to be on these forms to be like, hey, you know, I got in, like, look at me now. So be very cautious and be very objective as much as you can about sort of the reality of the information that is available. And just be extra careful as well. I'm diligent, I think, especially in drafting things like the work history now or the education history, right. And it whether you're on the client side, or on the reviewing side, things that you think may not trigger anything, or may just be that unpaid internship that really is just for disclosure on the personal history. Non consequential, may itself be consequential because of a combination of words, because what it is, that's not to say you can't you shouldn't disclose, because that could be misrepresentation, which is a double edged sword have, you know, any things like this, I mean, I've actually seen someone come see me, who mentioned that they had, you know, renamed something, a different name on one of their, you know, employment history. You know, and I don't know what the context of any of that was. But, you know, these are the type of things though, that are going to be scrutinized and looked at extra carefully, right? So this, you're facing misrepresentation on the left hand, you're facing security concerns on the right hand, and to navigate that space, truthfully, transparently. And with this kind of anticipation that you may have to get prepared for that next step of answering to concerns and sometimes in the temporary residence spaces. It's not, it is not a long procedural fairness letter with details and readings that you can read. It may just be an interview, right? Or in the visa office that you have to prepare for. So it's getting dicey. That's our take away there.
Yes. I'll just share one thing with everyone. About a month ago now, I guess it's four weeks ago, Robert Leung and I did an episode on the dangers of crowdsourcing Canadian immigration information, and not just crowdsourcing. But obviously, I addressed a little bit with Chad GBT, and I'm always playing around with it will always just to see what use cases I can have. I'm very, very willing to test and explore. I know, that's the direction the world's going. And just for fun this morning, I just typed in again, you know, a simple question, like, give me the NOC code for these duties? Or oh, no, I know, no, it was simpler. I just said, pull up the NOC for like, 01234, something like that. And I asked her GPT to pull it up. And it pulled up the wrong one, as if it was the right one. And and like the technology is still it's still growing. It's not something that you can wholesale put your trust in. And, you know, when we see this, this is what causes me to have to get so frustrated with IRCC. And and they're just ramming it through as fast as they can, is it you know, they know that there are errors built in and baked into the system, they know that, but yet they're still willing to go forward on the basis that, you know, us as immigration lawyers, or individual applicant, applicants who are applying are just they're not going to they're not going to take the time, like you said to try to appeal, you know, to file a judicial review. They're, they're, they're kind of banking on the fact that people are are just going to either try to resubmit or something else and they're not going to have to worry about it. And I guess this is one more opportunity to advise our colleagues across the country. Don't Don't throw in arguments, you know, you know, in the world of Chinook or otherwise, unless you actually have a strategy in place to go forward. Because it's it's watering down the ability that we have to challenge this. And I think we'll this is an area that you're far, far more entrenched in than I am. There are huge dangers if we don't do it, right.
Absolutely. Yeah. I'm actually doing my LLM. Right now on that same topic, looking at automated decision making systems and immigration and unpacking that in the administrative state. What you said is absolutely correct. Like, these systems are very, very complicated. And we've only started to scratch the surface. And we only have, and I've used this metaphor, so many times, it's getting a bit old, but you know, 500 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle. And we're trying to put together what we can to show what we can, in order to force the government to open their hands little bit to show more on their end, because we saw what happened with Chinook we saw what happened with some of these technologies that were pushed in a bit more. And unfortunately, the regulatory environment around these technologies, for example, the algorithmic Impact Assessment, which is and the notices, which are the only sort of public facing side the government shows are watered down are very reduced in what they show and explain. A lot of the problems happen behind the scenes. But yeah, you're absolutely right. We have to scrutinize these technologies, we have to also advise our clients that they exist, tech competency is legal competency now is lawyer competency. And we have to also be humbled our ability to necessarily be able to fix things or direct things or change results. These systems, you know, the human discretion that used to be involved in calling up a program manager or a getting an MP to call somebody to maybe reopen and look at things we're seeing that does diminish in the new technological age of processing for immigration, and it's destabilizing, and I mentioned that quite a bit in my work. But I think at the same time, it's getting a lot of younger practitioners like myself, but also, you know, I folks, now I see who are in computer science who have the tech background, like you have this skill set now that is going to be much needed, either in absolutely no security expertise, explain how this works, or even convincing an officer where where you may have that opportunity of the potential of automation bias or complacency or to, you know, take a look beyond what your system is telling you to the actual facts of your client's case. And I think they still matter, right. And I'm, I'm someone who still believes that, you know, even though the system may have shifted to put more weight on these automated recommendations, or these risk flags that the system is throwing that good legal work and good submissions, and being able to put forth that story and narrative still has a place in our in our advocacy and our work. It may not work at the frontlines and may have to go to court. It may have to be sometimes even Provincial Court. Now we're seeing some of the most effective decisions being challenged in different forums. And we're still searching, obviously. But there's a story to be told, and clients shouldn't be afraid to tell them. Absolutely, for honest and strong way. Right.
So yeah, and I'm glad you brought that up. Because what this all boils down to is that there are real, meaningful, negative impacts on applicants. And Vivian here she she said, Mark, I appreciate you talking about this topic. My husband has been waiting for the results of this the security screening since February of 2023. So this is this is super common. And you know, when we're looking at, you know, up to two years, three, four years being stuck, that puts people's lives on hold. Probyn here, he says, he asks a practical question, maybe you can answer this one. Well, why does some police and military background applicants have longer security checks? And some don't, even if the other applicants have similar backgrounds? To add up? Why does HR IV takes longer than other components? So I don't know the acronym. I don't know what HIV is. But you know, we can skip through that. But basically, you know, when it when it comes to this, like, Why do you think even from people in different countries and people with you know, or I should say people in the same country with similar backgrounds? Why is there variation amongst them?
Hmm. And that's and that's a very, very interesting question. I think, you know, and that's where I think, frankly, as practitioners, we should come together a bit more, using our forums and spaces to be like, hey, when was your last doesn't render know what time? You know, when did you get that? You know which officer code is. And they've been actually quite good about sort of even blurring out which officer and what names and you know which stage like, there's a lot of stuff that's going on behind the scenes that's made it difficult to beat out the bit allocations, etc. But, yeah, we need to find out what these patterns and trends are. Because I think for for a Chinese applicant, for example, and I saw, Mr. I think, based on name, there may be one there. You know, there's clients, you, you know, because of certain schools that they're gonna get flagged, and you kind of let them know in advance, but there's other ones that have been here since height, you know, high school, sometimes University, and they may have done one internship in the States, and has the risk flag expanded so much that that one internship, and that one sort of I don't even know what the name of that place is, is flagging things. Well, we really don't know at this stage. And we're not going to know the way that security apparatus is. So I think the weight the best approach to this is to know what you're delving into. And also, again, when it comes to practical solutions, I'm glad you put that on the screen, what your remedies are, right? And, you know, what are the common list of remedies and ways you can escalate a file? mandamus has a lot of, unfortunately, going back to early thing, misconceptions and myths about it, right, there are people filing mandamus, because they've been delayed three to four months. And it's being told to them that they can do it themselves, or perhaps a ghost consultant is representing them behind the scenes. And they're just saying, Hey, pay us this money, or just do this, your files guaranteed to be, you know, dealt with and you're going to pass through security? No time, right. And some of these are absolutely myths, right. And then you get to the situation where the courts are getting these copy and paste, chat GPT style memorandums, which themselves are actually, again, it's not a it's not a hard and forcing rule. But there there is a rule, there's a directive now on the disclosure of the use of AI at the federal court, that should be followed. And they're seeing these but no one's disclosing. And then Department of Justice are reading, you know, the same memo, x times? And what are they how they're going to react to that or how they're going to, you know, are they going to is there gonna be a queue jumping allegation is, are they going to even push it or they're going to wait and delay. And it's leading to a lot of strain on a very important federal court mechanism we have for judicial review for applicants. So, you know, I don't want to appropriate blame to any certain individual. But I think this is a problem. We know that security screening is an issue. We know that the courts are being flooded with mandamus. I think it's time for stakeholders come together and discuss like how do we improve this. So we don't have the situation because I don't want my clients who had refusals and were separated from families also stuck in court waiting for a decision for leave, because someone is technically using mandamus as a complaint mechanism, because their file has been delayed a few months, right or anticipating delay. But at the same time, people waiting five, six years, and their family lives, as you mentioned, have been put on hold, they can't have kids that they want to have, because of what seems like very arbitrary risk indicators or flags or treatment of certain individuals, regardless of what they've individually done. So there's something very broken about the process right now. And I hope that stakeholders won't just step away or be excluded from the conversation because it's security, I hope there is still a way we can have conversation and dialogue about security.
It's interesting, I like this VK says, Can you be inadmissible without knowing? Well, you know, I, some people would say, well, that's kind of a goofy question, but it's actually not. In many of the examples that that we've provided, people have no clue that you know, that that that they might be offside in some fashion and even then, even even if you haven't necessarily done anything that would appear to be behavior that would constitute inadmissibility. There's a lot of discretion when it comes to the ultimate decision maker on whether or not you're inadmissible. You know, there's a ton of discretion. And when we don't have a clear, a clear set of a clear rubric on what they're looking out that has been fully disclosed. It becomes extremely difficult for people. I think, you know, from a practical standpoint, you know, inadmissibility can can be criminal, just straight up criminal. Someone had a DUI in Texas, you know, 25 years ago, and never until now that their passports are being scanned going across the county west border, never had any issues never knew it was an issue. Until someone ganda passport did a quick screen. You the NCIC database found this old DOI and therefore, the person is inadmissible. They entered Canada, you know, not even knowing this for years and years, or someone who comes in temporarily from another country, then applies for permanent residence and has to obtain a police clearance certificate and their UK, you know, police certificate says no Live Trace, you know, and they had something that happened years ago. So it's, it's entirely possible to be inadmissible without knowing it. Yeah, but it's one thing to be inadmissible for a DUI. And it's another for allegations of espionage. Right. And I think that's what we're getting at now is the consequences, you know, to not just being able to come to Canada, but to be able to travel freely in this world, where once you're on the radar for something, it's with you, it's stuck in your you know, it's it's in your backpack, and when you're traveling, it comes with you. And the more information sharing that comes, the easier it is for countries to be able to see, even if it's a judgment call from one country, and then use that to, in all honesty, fetter their discretion.
And you have to think about it also as like the way that the provisions are written. And I've talked about this in other contexts, I won't get too technical here. But the low threshold of reasonable grounds to believe it's a very, very low threshold. And then the way the provision is written, at least the way it's been interpreted is, it could be an action that occurs in the future. So we are predicting whether an individual may do something, not whether they've done something, not whether they've even taken steps towards doing something, it's whether they based off their profile may do something, and that, to me is very problematic. I mean, take the case of poor Mr. Lee, I know his case has unfortunately been on all these podcasts. And, you know, there's a federal court decision on it will a lot of my listeners may not have have have even heard of that case. So just give us a quick little snapshot, because it sets the, it really sets the stage for where we go into the future here.
Absolutely. And this is a federal court case, that really changed at all and really has shifted, even the processing of files. So this individual from China was seeking to study a PhD, I believe that the University of Waterloo leaving university, obviously in Canada, and he had done his master's at a university that was of some concern in China. The interesting thing about this individual and I've actually done my own research, I'm just fascinated by the human stories behind these cases, individuals a cancer researcher, right, he's using these micro fluids, the with what he's studying, to study in the medical field, and, but for the fact of the school that he went to write, and maybe a couple of the factors, depending on how you want to put it, this would be someone who could be a future cancer researcher in Canada. But he went to a school that the intelligence information shows has a tie to the military of of China. Right. So and it's been the subject of several intelligence reports. I think the challenge is, and it goes back to like, Do people know that the question was really aptly put the knowledge of folks in China of some of these things isn't going to be that great. I mean, that's the nature and that's what makes these cases very difficult to challenge even from an applicants perspective is if you are being shown evidence from foreign intelligence of, you know, five eyes intelligence, that there is a concern with your school, and there's a concern with the roots, or what have they done, or it's training of certain individuals. It's not like you can come up with evidence very readily. That suggests, hey, my school is normal. It's one of the top best, I mean, any evidence you rely on necessarily probably has to come from the country that you're at, right? I mean, you can then you can expand that to other countries around other things. So I'm not just specifically speaking about the Chinese context. But the people that are facing these concerns are from country with countries where sort of by operation, the information flow between Canada and that country may not be very great. So you're really fighting, bringing a knife to a gunfight in these contexts, trying to prove and again, I've represented several clients now that I've been in front of these five schools. They were, you know, athletic teams, they were studying undergraduates or regular students. They had no clue. They were not part of affiliates for the for the parties or any any politics. They were regular undergraduate students, studying at these institutions, going through school just like everyone else, choosing those schools often and some of the schools on these flag lists are actually top 5100 schools in the world. They're not just, you know, these specific military colleges in the middle of sort of the military land. These are just normal school. was where top students go. And they are now being accused of being spies, because they went to those schools and because of the functioning of the larger international relations, regime, and apparatus, so it's very jarring for them. I know, it's not probably the most political popular opinion to be speaking out in support of these students. But I really ask sort of the public and listeners or those who are caught in it, to think about these stories and these individuals and not view them, simply in the light that some of these media reports are that the intelligence shows them as, right off the bat without due consideration of their circumstances.
Yeah. And that's a very good point. Well, because no one, no one is going to disagree with the underlying rationale of the importance of security screening, to protect the safety and security of Canadians and right and to maintain the integrity of the immigration system. So no one is going to, is going to question that, you know, they say, Well, you know, we do it to prevent criminal activity to counter terrorism, uphold our international security agreements, right? What what are some of the other rationales, I've got a list here that I was thinking of, you know, obviously, national security, public safety, you know, and like I said, the main, you know, maintaining the integrity of the immigration system, those things, so no one will ever, you know, disagree with that. That's, that's an essential critical component, you know, we want to ensure that those things are in place. But the key question to ask is Where is, is balanced, really, looking at individuals that are going through this process through a human lens, and realizing that, you know, sometimes people are caught in things that they are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, but just the circumstances are such that they are, you know, they've, like you said, they've literally gone to the wrong school, and never would have anticipated, and recognizing at the same time, like, when this, you know, robust screening goes through, they may very well catch people that that this whole system is designed to catch. And, you know, and I think some people, sometimes you look at our whole criminal justice system, right. Well, and, you know, we are, there's a different standard there beyond a reasonable doubt. And we have that for a reason, right? The whole concept of letting however, many guilty people go free, so that we don't convict someone, wrongly. And when I look at the security screening, it's a different standard. It is, you know, we definitely treat foreign nationals different than we treat our own citizens, and every country has the right to do that. But it's absolutely the human story can't be neglected. It can't. Well, that's why, yeah, I'll finish with a few more comments. And then I want to keep our listeners as we sign off just some practical kind of solutions. And we've hinted at a few of them. But maybe we can just lay them out in a more discreet roadmap as a final takeaway, so that they know if they're in these situations, what options are available realistically, and where they can go from here?
Yeah, and we did talk about mandamus as one unfortunately, the way it is, it's going to be even more relied upon to try and move things. I would say the early points if we're going to chronological orders, like know your file, right. And then there's so many folks who may have applied without even knowing that something would flag so you know, speaking to someone like Mark or myself, I mean, there's really there's, I would say a million. There's a few colleagues around Canada, who are really specializing in looking at this stuff live. Steve, Deana, this, there's folks, I mean, I can name even more than that. Raymond, who did an excellent job in the leak case, unfortunately, ran into that decision. You know, go to them get some good advice, look at your application with that lens of like, what could be triggering what could be a flag, do the required access to information requests, I can't express how important it is to have all the information that you can possibly get, obviously, it's going to be highly redacted a lot of the stuff that's coming back, but at least it gives you a sense of where you stand before you proceed further, right? Mario bellissimo, I, how can I not forget my old mentor in this who's who's taking, you know, he, he's helping me with several cases right now. And I've asked him to because he has that, you know, both the reputation but also he's taking a bit more aggressive approach on some files. And I think that that may be needed, right. And some of us when we get face to state we tend to perhaps step a little bit back a little bit and be fearful of it but in some cases, we need to fight for the rights against the state and, and these type of, you know, automation cases where we feel like we're getting caught up. So perhaps asking for costs in the court proceeding. And then preparing ourselves for a procedural fairness process, be it an interview, or a you know, if you get a longer one as a permanent resident, you'll have to get expert evidence and affidavits and data from your country and evidence to fight back. And knowing the law getting, you know, certain people who know how to do this work well will should be in your side and corner during that, that that tough fight. And it's it's one of the most difficult areas in immigration, right. And that's frankly, how I would put it. And then, in some circumstances, frankly, taking the honest advice, that it might not be the best time to come to Canada. And if you have other options, that that that might be a better play at this stage, while we're figuring out our international relations. I know we didn't get to that topic fully today. But there's that new bill in place see 70. Really, really important to put that on your horizon too, because even in court proceedings, there's going to be an expansion of the excluded evidence and the government's powers in appealing and challenging certain decisions, where they don't want to give you the evidence because it impacts international relations, not even as Social Security or intelligence, but just the international relations between countries. So you may not know the case to be met, you may not know how to you know what, what you need to prove or disprove. And with this low standard, it's going to be difficult.
So speaking of that, Well, speaking of that, well, I'm just gonna pull up ceiling goose question here. Yeah, she says, and we've talked about this, but maybe it was glossed over. She says, in order for IRCC, to find an applicant is inadmissible and security grounds. What's the burden of proof? Is it preponderance of evidence balance of probabilities like other assessment components?
It's reasonable grounds to believe standard. So it's, it's a very, very, very low standard of proof. And it's not it's not a 50% plus one, it's not the criminal standard. And, in fact, if they have a few news articles or intelligence documents, that's, that can be some cases, but enough, that can be enough to get you right. And it's and it's, and it's right now, the test isn't. And this is where I'm hoping it'll evolve. Like, I think they need to find at least some sort of individual tie, right, that the individual may be attended some sort of training camp or did something that was a little bit, you know, that that pushed them to the edge of being involved or had a meeting with a discreet agent. But some of these individuals that like their individual involvement is less than zero, right? They've done absolutely nothing. It's just because they went to a school. And that school is presumed to have done something that it applies to the students that have attended or the English teacher that is taught English or whatnot. So again, very case by case very gray. But and that's a good, that's a good lead, and just to kind of tie things up with the lead decision. So in the case of like, you're talking about just, you know, reasonable grounds to believe. Yeah, you know, so ultimately, what was the what, how did it end? How did how did things end up
found it inevitable for espionage and the Justice, Justice crafted, expanded the test, in a way that, frankly, if information were passed on through even non public sources to a foreign national, that may be transmitted back to a state or a entity in the home country, I mean, it's a very, very broad test, if you read it, it could capture a lot of things. If I joked if I was a permanent resident doing immigration work, and I was putting out the tweets and posts that I'm doing now I might be in a bit of in a bit of trouble, it really could expand to that much stuff, right. So you know, whether there'll be new cases that that clarify that a little bit or whether IRCC will put a policy like we're hoping, right, but it's not a very attractive issue to talk about right now in this in this as we get into an election, as we see the global sort of anti immigrant slash security sort of mechanism. Come together. You know, again, that's another thing that you're it's a global movement. Now, it's a global step towards a direction of being more nationalist, more closed borders, anti immigrant, anti refugee. So I don't necessarily seen this as a number one priority, like, hey, we need to help the, you know, the however many people the system may have filtered the wrong way to make sure they get PR, but I just want to speak and I want to advocate that those shouldn't just be thrown aside. And those systems should be interrogated, even as we head towards a sort of maybe inevitable future in this direction.
So we'll leading into just some practical advice. Again, you get someone like similar. So let me let me just pull up. Again, to go back through all of my comments here. We'll go back to Catherine's question. So she talks about someone who, you know, pretty much they're going to be caught, right? They, they're on the list. So what practically, would you do differently or, or what advice would you give someone you know, who's submitting an application ation themselves or one of our colleagues, what practical advice would you give them to help in you know, if and if even if there's anything you can do to, to lessen the damage or to, you know, to help, you know, the process to go smoother or as quickly as I can, knowing that it's just, the gears are gonna grind to a crawl on the other side?
Sure. Whether you're a consultant, or registered rcic, whether you're a lawyer, and there's a duty of competency to do tech competency. So my first point would be to argue that if you do not advise them of the security concerns at this stage, right, and again, arguably, there's not enough information online, the government hasn't been fully transparent. But your duty of competency could be challenged by that, right. And, again, I hope this doesn't happen. But if someone gets flagged years down the road or a year down the road and suddenly gets found inadmissible, and their whole lives are you know, if they turn back and say, Hey, how come the person who advised me didn't at least give me a inkling that something could be wrong, that I was facing this that was facing this? I think that itself could be an issue, right? And it yes, it's gonna put some people are in a difficult situation, because they're going to be advising like, hey, maybe not, now's not the right time. And that's obviously something as professionals and folks, we want to help people, you always want to try and make people's dreams come true. But sometimes it's just not the time for this dream to happen. Right. And I think that's sort of step one. Step two, again, the long conversation is, is this something you want to do right? Now, here's the case law, here's the tools they're using, here's what likely might happen, an extended period of security delay. Maybe they even refuse your eligibility because they see this happening. And right now, they just don't want to prove certain folks with certain schools, you know, to set that precedent or to or to create that sort of pattern. So, you know, this is a reality. And if you do want to go ahead, you could be waiting several years. So whether it's a tuition you've paid or a work that job offer that's been waiting for you or time that you're supposed to be here for a certain event, are you actually going to make that event? Right? Yeah, those are some practical tips right off the bat. And then if someone's already submitting, and waiting, which is a large majority of folks are seeing me right now. They're already in the midst of delay. It's having the conversation about do we pursue mandamus. Now, how hard do we want to go in terms of pushing? What alternatives are there to come in right now? And what does the future timeline look like in terms of political change, and things that could further make things worse, or make things better? It's a very, very difficult console. People want certainty and immigration, this is probably one of the issues of least certainty that I can think of right now.
Absolutely. You know, one thing I will add, and my advice does not change. Whether you are on this, you know, the 100 list, or whether you are, you know, from a country that has no history of security concerns with Canada, my advice does not changed. I believe in being fully transparent, and actually proactive, to the point where if you see that you've studied at one of these schools, let's say if you're from China, or you know that there potentially could be something in your background that IRCC may want to take a better look at. I never, ever conceal that, or keep that in the background. Or try to, you know, almost minimize it to the point where you omit it, which of course, anything like that you never want to do, the last thing in the world is to say, Oh, my goodness, my school is on that list, I'm just not going to list it in my personal history, you're never ever going to do that. Instead, what you're going to do is you're going to get, you're gonna get good advice in like Well said, there's a lot of really, really good, good reps out there. But you're gonna get good advice, you're going to map out your strategy, you're going to look at the problem areas, and you're going to deal with them proactively. And, you know, in cases where I have clients where I know they've got problems, those submission letters from counsel or letters of explanation, if you're falling on your own, that take that issue, and don't hide it, but put it right out there. And when you put the issue out there, you say, Yeah, I went to that school. But here's what I did when I was there. You know, and this is not something that's requested in the application, but I do it proactively. When I studied I studied underwater basket weaving, you know, that's my background, I had no connection to anything, you know, or I was required to be a member of the party or in order to get into school. It was the only reason my family has no history of being, you know, involved in any way. You know, and and so I really, really tried to put it out there, and then frame it the way I want the officer to see it. The last thing in the world I want is to put sparse facts out there, and then allow an officer or the CBSA or see He says wherever it is, to take those little sketchy facts, find some other ones out there that they are misinterpreting or applying very generally to your case, and then formulating their own opinion in isolation. I want to lay it out there and frame things the way I want them to see me and my client. And so that's the one piece of advice that I could give people who are stuck in this above any others is to be proactive, you know, disclose, give the information frame things the way you want them, versus letting immigration come to their own conclusions. And as a former immigration officer, I can tell you, when people do that, like there's a lot of a lot to this, that that comes down to credibility and whether or not they believe your story, or believe you or trust you. And when you're being proactive like that, yes, I'm not saying that they can't still find you to be inadmissible on security grounds. But if they're, you know, if they are bent on doing it, that they're, they're going to do it, but I would rather cut to the chase, address it head on, and then and then let chips fall where they may. Now, some counsel may not be that way. But that's how I address it. Well, I don't know what your thoughts are on that.
Yeah. It's a matter of timing and knowing also what your steps are, and what might what opportunities, you might get to tell that story. And I think what you mentioned is very important, and we need to get that story out there. Whether it's an initial application, in some cases, or, you know, there's going to be a procedural fairness letter, but you're prepared well in advance for that to be your your Waterloo, or where you where you put in your your affidavits. But I agree with you absolutely fully. Um, you know, if you do well, for example, study plan or a letter of explanation, you are on this sort of risk area, and you're you're out of school, that's of concern, or you're you've worked at an employment of concern, and you're going to somehow put it in there, but not put it in there. And we'll mention it as if this problem didn't exist, I think you're also doing yourself a disservice. And you'll have more difficulty trying to switch gears 190 degrees later, when the when they accuse you of something, right. So you definitely have to lay the foundation for what you're going to say, of course, there could be differences in interpretation of when you want to say it, especially now, too. I mean, we, at the on the flip side of it, we're not asking everyone who thinks that they may have done something wrong to now proactively be on an application and be like, Hey, I might be a potential, whoever, whoever, right, and we don't know what the parameters are, what their screening for. And, you know, you could be from a village in some small town and whether or not you're a problem in the system, and whether it's like, who knows, right? It could be the name of the village that triggers something, it could be somebody volunteer, that could be a sports team you played for it could be something they find online and Googling it right, as you mentioned. So the sources of potential knowledge to create challenges are increased at this stage. But to be aware of where things could go into find spots of entry to tell that story, so important affidavits, because the courts are going to look at those are becoming increasingly important in areas like this, right? Because as Mark mentioned, credibility is everything. When you make an affidavit, that's a sworn statement. You're swearing to certain facts, and it's punishable by perjury, if those facts are incorrect. Well, if they're alleging something very serious, you need to fight back seriously as well. Right? So your poorly drafted letter and broken English trying to explain things, that might not be the time for that either, right, it's time to sort of stepped it up in terms of the sort of seriousness of this matter. So I completely agree with you mark on on your points.
I'm going to pull up, like we've covered a lot of ground here. And I know we've been going a long time. And I've been battling a cold the last few days. So my voice is just about gone. But I did want to end just with a few last questions that people have posted. I've been trying to pull them up. But there are a few that I that I want to address. I'm just going to slide over here. We've got a little bit more room for these questions to pop up. But this is a LinkedIn someone Tuesday on LinkedIn. And we've got good representation here. We've had LinkedIn, we've had x we've had YouTube, but this individuals got more of a practical question and and whenever we do this, I always let's see if I can find it here. I'm gonna turn my little my little sound on I ring this bell. Yeah, if you have a situation like this, where you suspect you could it could be a problem, or you're in the midst of it and you're not sure what to do. I'm gonna go back here. I say reach out to we'll connect with him. He's got a it's easy to book a consult. Of course, our firm we're here to help as well. And that like we'll identify there's a whole host of other just wonderful, wonderful counselor out there that can guide you and assist you. But this this LinkedIn user asks the following question. They say would you advise a non Chinese who studied In this 100 list to go for writ of mandamus after a long processing security delay, If yes, how long should the processing take before the applicant can file for writ of mandamus? And this is a pretty open question Will that we probably get more than any other when this, you know, when when the the facts suggest that, you know, the one option is is mandamus? Like how long? You know, what, what would you advise someone, if their application is stuck as to you know, when you start thinking about mandamus? We know what's not three or four months? Okay, we know that. But is it two years? Is it is one year? Um, how do you make those decisions? And what would you advise this anonymous LinkedIn user here?
Yeah, that's a very, very good question. And it's fact that the conversation of so many of my consultations recently with affected individuals, a lot of it has to come down to their plans as well. Right. And I mentioned earlier, like, what are they coming for? Is that still on the table? Is it for example, school willing to defer studies a little bit further or a job willing to extend an offer a little bit further? It depends on family, right? Sometimes families caught up as well in it with their own delays, in some other cases, you know, accompanying family didn't go to one of those schools or aren't being flagged and maybe the family plans switch where that person becomes the person who brings a child into study or, you know, accompanies. Of course, family separation could be a natural consequence of that, too. So, it as much as this sort of traditional lawyer answer it is very case by case. And also UCI RCC starting to pull the estimated processing times from certain websites and certain things, there's an act of effort to kind of no longer state that there is an average processing times because, you know, on one end, if you're automated through some of these, you know, triage systems, these advanced analytic systems, you can be proved very, very quickly, right, very quick, a limited limited security screen that doesn't involve very much inter interception of what could happen. I mean, that's creating its own challenges at the port of entry right now. CBSA, etc. That's, that's one thing. But for other folks, it could be on the entire other spectrum of as some of these documents recommend comprehensive screening up to five years. So my answer would be looking at a case by case, I probably start at about the one year mark, in terms of thinking about this as an option. But it depends on the application category. What the government has said, the impacts prejudice on you. I mean, you have to look at the mandamus test, too, right? That's the test you're eventually gonna have to convince the court with. For some people, that prejudice is very obvious on the face. And for other folks, it's not as obvious and there may not be as much prejudice and there's still good jobs and everything's still going on at the home country. There may be other plans as well for other countries to immigrate to. So there's no one size fits all.
This. So Lucy, she she asked this question. So is the only thing we can do to expedite the security screening is just to wait.
Yeah. Well, that's the that's the question that everyone and actually some of the crowdsourcing of Solutions has come up with different things. And I get, I hope that there's some clarity, because the fact that folks are now trying to complain to CSIS separately or find folks to like, contact CSIS on their behalf to like, like, complete, like, it's taken immigration to a whole new different direction that I don't think the initial folks probably foresaw when they came up with I did not foresee this will when I decided to, you know, to, to basically focus my practice on immigration. When I was at galleys in Calgary, I, I had no vision, I it was a blissful world. You know, the officers were my friends, I just finished, you know, you know, working on the border and working with the hearings, officers, man, I could fix anything, like this level of complexity, the challenges, the problems, like even through the pandemic, we became, you know, like, travel, travel restriction specialists, right. It was orders in council, all these things, it was just a, it was a complete shift to our practices. But But yeah, this is sometimes you guys, this is something that, you know, and I'll speak maybe on behalf of will and a lot of us. Sometimes there is nothing that we can do. Sometimes we're in a situation where the only option is to just wait. And that's why it's so important to understand before you get into it, what you're dealing with, so that there's no surprises. And the hard part is, sometimes you can think you know that you're okay. And then things go sideways very quickly. Yeah, yeah. It's going to require a lot of patience. It's going to require a real firm resolve that you know that Canada is where you want to be. And if you have any doubts about those two things, well, then maybe He maybe you choose to go to a different country. Yeah. And I guess that's one, one way of approaching it.
Yeah. And also, I mean, just to pass on some advice that I got from my mentor Mario bellissimo recently. Especially if you're thinking about pursuing the mandamus route with a request for costs, and then it has been a long time I get ready for that procedural fairness process to start as well, right, like start from day one, there may be a very expedited process. There, there could be a time when you right now you want to expedite, but as soon as they send that very detailed legal 10 Page procedural fairness letter with like, a literally essays worth of intelligence information that you need to read and respond to, while struggling to find your expert, who's a needle in the haystack in the United States, similar, hopefully, who's a scholar in this area, you might want the absolute opposite, you need more time to now respond to things you need to get your ducks in a row. And so you have to do this whole thing of like, you want it to speed up, you want to get something out of it. But you're also prepared for that worst case scenario. And, you know, just from news stories, you knows, IRC, see, sometimes they disagree with the finding from the security partners from the national security screen division, sometimes they have a contrary opinion, that's what they call it. Sometimes they endorse it. Sometimes maybe there was no negative or inconclusive finding. But the IRS says the officer based off their own knowledge or whatever the directive at that time is, may want to do their own investigation and put in their own evidence for to have concerns. So this can go a whole slew of many different ways. And I think that had knowledge of that. And preparation for that is is crucial. While you're waiting, so it's never truly just waiting. It's preparing and waiting at the same time.
Yes. Well, I want to thank you. Well, this was another great, a great live stream that we've done. I'll be honest, I think this one is probably the most watched, I think this broke our record for the number of Live users live viewers, I should say, understand everyone that this is an evolving area. And we know as well as you do that there's a very black box on the other side. And it's frustrating when no one can give you answers. And it's doubly frustrating when you try to do a tips and things like that. And everything is redacted. We will put in the show notes the link to that excellent. You know, article, I guess blog, we could call it that here that was done by what was the name of this individual again?
Well, I think it's men meet Ray. Yeah, so props to him very, very well done. Research.
So if you're wondering, you know, because we didn't have time to go through all the nuts and bolts of everything. But this is a really good site. And I'll put the link in the description. Same thing for those who are listening on the podcast, I'll make sure that you can get that in the show notes. But, but yeah, this is a this is a topic that's evolving. And if we can, if we can kind of summarize a few things, I guess the most important thing is, you know, when, when you're faced with applying for permanent residence to Canada, there's a lot of information now to let you know, if you could be potentially at at risk of being sucked into this vortex of lengthy security screening. So right at the beginning, make a decision? Do you want to really want to come and know it, you know, go into it with eyes wide open, this could be a possibility for you. And if that's what you decide, then fine, you go for it. We're definitely not saying, you know, if you feel you might be at risk for lengthy security screening not to proceed, that's not the case. But know that it's an issue. And then if you do be honest, always in your application, you know, the degree of detail you provide depends on your unique circumstance. And so it's not like everybody is going to write you know, a life essay of 100 pages and include it in your application proactively. That's not what we're saying. But there may be circumstances where it makes sense to provide a little bit more detail, and try to proactively clarify or frame things so that an officer when they're looking at it, say, okay, yeah, this person is trying to be transparent, and they've got nothing to hide. And then if you're stuck in the process, there may reach a stage where it makes sense to consider filing a mandamus application, you know, well as suggested that maybe after a year and and will this is an after your filing. Right? This is this is this is a year a year stuck in security, I would say Right, exactly. The refrain, that process can start different times depending on exactly. And then And then ultimately, you know, what do you do when you get a procedural fairness letter? Well, you're going to seek help. For sure. This is not something that you take lightly and I'd strongly encourage you to can seek help from from counsel. And and you know, at the end of the day, like I said, the links are here for you to reach out to will and our other colleagues are easy, easy to find across the board. And you know, if we'll one thing I know people always ask is oh my goodness, they only give me If X days to respond, what if I don't have enough time? What what do you do in those circumstances? Can you request an extension?
Yeah. Can you request an extension? Can you have some time to prepare? It depends whether you also have a federal court matter going on at the same time. And that's another thing I wanted to speak to listeners about, like if anyone is in the unfortunate circumstance of being having been found inadmissible for espionage for having never actually done anything that could have raised concerns, and who feels that that decision has been not reasonable or unfair, like, please reach out to counsel, I'm not saying it has to be me. But like a counsel, we need more cases to be able to bring these types of challenges for to the court, and maybe get them to rethink about the implications of decisions that they've made in the past and think if there's a better way to narrow down and not only just individually like, right, there's membership provisions as well, it's expanded beyond that there's human rights provisions organized criminality, so this is just really a microcosm of a whole slew of security issues that are in the act, and really important to address.
Absolutely. The world of security screening is changing, evolving. And we will definitely be back to talk more about this issue. It's a very, very, it's a burning issue right now, as we see how things are unfolding and, and lies is transformed and made through the facts of individual circumstances. And like, I'll reiterate with will what will said as well, you know, you may be a situation where you get the procedural fairness ladder, and you think, well, this is simple, they're just asking a few questions, I'll respond, and then boom, you get the refusal and, and you're found inadmissible for, for some serious things. You know, obviously, we'd love for you to reach out at the PFL stage and not wait because that's the best time, you know, when when these things are being brought to, you know, the possibility of a finding of inadmissibility. But by no means, you know, just roll over and just just accept it seriously, consider challenging. And if the circumstances are right, you could be the one person that makes all the difference in the world with this, with this very, very difficult situation. And I'll finish with one last comment to will before I pass it off to you for some final remarks. But, you know, we understand as immigration lawyers, the need for national security. So I don't want anyone who's watching this, who thinks all these immigration lawyers, all they care about is, you know, lining their pockets with money and getting their clients in at all costs. That is not the case. You know, the integrity of our country, and the security and safety of, of Canadians and permanent residents and people that live here is 100% important, but it's, it's about striking the right balance. And, and that's how you strike it by considering all sides, considering, you know, the circumstances of individuals, and and just balancing finding that balance. So I'll turn it off over to you Well, for some last comments.
It's hard to follow your statements, Marcus, you've told everyone what they need to know. And I just reiterate that, like I, our commitment, and my commitment, personally, is to continue to advocate and continue to look into these issues. I mean, I'm spending a lot of my time this is not for any particular client. It's not for any particular thing, like I'm on a journey to understand how these systems are working. And whatever little bit I can do or people I can recommend you or I mean, it's all a collective effort. And I think those who are impacted by this should themselves come together. And I know it's hard to put your neck out and the time when there may be looking or screening for work together and figure out a way to to advocate and represent difficult time.
Absolutely. Well, well thank you so much, my friend for connecting in and joining me on this. I know my back again. All right, everybody. Take care. See you later.
