Breakout #7: Workshop on General Immigration Matters

RAP Conference Breakout #7: Workshop on General Immigration Matters

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Panelists: Bill Stewart – CIC Program Advisor, Atlantic Region, Halifax

Sadhna Gupta – Settlement Officer – CIC Edmonton

Kim Winter – Settlement Officer – CIC Vancouver

Asifa Rahman – Settlement Officer – CIC Charlottetown

Small Group Activity

Case studies based on themes that have emerged were distributed to small groups. It was acknowledged that some of the issues are unsolvable but it was important to consider and strategize around these issues as well.

Small groups were asked to review and discuss the case studies. Then do a report back on the group’s discussion and suggestions. Goal was not to solve the case study – but meant to illustrate issues in the program and how we may address these things in the future.

7 case studies were used dealing with issues such as:

·  One year window (2 cases)

·  Undeclared dependents

·  Incorrect documents

·  Special needs

·  Defacto cases – family members who are not blood family

·  Family reunification

Case Study – One Year Window – Children in different countries from parents

Problems

·  Dealing with different Visa offices

·  Quality of birth certificates – Wants DNA testing done (doesn’t form part of the normal/medical) cannot be added to the transportation loan.

·  Consent of mother to come to Canada– father had remarried

·  One-year window very time consuming – visa officers very busy

·  Time consuming

·  Difficult to reach the adult supervising children

·  If children come later under RAP – and parents on social services – may deduct any contributions to children under RAP deduced from Social Services

·  Misinformation that goes around the camp – if you have more than 3 children you will not be chosen and processed.

Recommendations

·  Provide loan for DNA testing

·  If there was no one-year window then parents may be motivated to get a job and sponsor children hear.

·  Needs to be a better way of parents brining children – rather children be sponsored than brining them in under one-year window.

·  Have DNA testing cost added to the transportation loan.

RAP Conference Breakout #7: Workshop on General Immigration Matters (cont’d)

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Case Study – Incorrect Documents

·  Age of individuals seems to be different than on document; name is incorrect.

Problem

·  Should have been identified by visa office

·  List of who can verify is too limited and assumes the client is lying.

Recommendations

·  Get affidavit from a medical practitioner; school; members in own country; letter written and addressed to them.

·  Problem should be solved overseas.

·  Sworn affidavit by person themselves once they have been advised of the consequences of lying.

·  Qualified interpreters

·  Port of Entry an opportunity for person to correct information

·  Include in orientation that part of what they need to do is check on their documents to make sure that everything is correct. – RAP counselors to check on accuracy early on.

·  Need better collaboration between Ottawa and Regional office about getting these situations resolved.

·  DNA/bone marrow scans

Case Study – Defacto Dependents – man separated from his family during the war and orphaned niece and nephew – included all names on the dependents – no legal process for guardianship in country – able to bring defacto dependants – they were not refugees in own right and he was not their legal guardian

Problem

·  Document and prove of guardianship

·  Family break-up

·  Mental health issues

·  Lack of legal documents

·  Defacto members are not refugees

Recommendations

·  Flexibility in providing proof - notarized proof, community proof

·  Declare defacto at beginning of case – resolve the problem from the source

·  Change definition of dependent family member

·  Change definition of one-year-window

·  Create another category between one-year-window and defacto dependent – i.e. 6 month defacto window

·  Look at other options – JAS

·  Use UNHCR to help deal with the problems.

RAP Conference Breakout #7: Workshop on General Immigration Matters (cont’d)

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Case Study – Special needs- CRI refugees have visual and mental issues – Issues around language skills – SP has concern about daughter to deal with her parents.

Recommendation

·  Case I: CRI so can get medical help

·  Case 2: CRI should be changed to CR5 – have to finish his grade 15 and extend RAP support for another 12 months. – Save for continued education for college or university – if goes to social services will be difficult for him to continue his education.

·  Case 3: special needs designations should be more flexible – after arrive to Canada see that the case is in fact different. Different issues emerge which were not initially identified.

·  More support in Canada for medical care and education support.

Case Study – One-Year Window - came to Canada with 5 children - declared husband was missing.

Problem

·  Woman and husband illiterate

·  Processing time

·  Communication is between principal applicant and dependent.

·  Man missed the interview

Recommendations:

·  Applicant needed a bit more support – need an interpreter

·  May have needed more support for man in assisting him to complete

·  Speed up the process but having Canadian client collect all information and send it to SPO who then sends information – gets the whole package done here and then sends it by diplomatic mail plus scan and send the information to visa office.

·  Post also advises everyone of the interview time so woman can also get in touch with women

·  Broaden the one-year –window to longer period

·  Create service standards so visa office knows it has to process within a particular time.

·  Develop Check-list to make the process run smoothly and everyone is aware of what needs to be done.- make sure everything is completed.

·  CIC be provided the resources overseas and in Canada to reduce the waiting time.

·  Interview husband and wife separately so that either can declare that they have children from previous relationship.

RAP Conference Breakout #7: Workshop on General Immigration Matters (cont’d)

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Case Study – Undeclared Dependent – got married 2 weeks before departure – did not report birth of baby.

Problem

·  2 years later the man has not done anything to get spouse here

·  circumstance change from time of application to departure to Canada

·  Wonder why has this person not done anything for 2 years?

·  Definition of family member is problematic.

Recommendations

·  Visa office should do a secondary interview prior to departure

·  Provide options –

·  Interviewers should be well informed and Canadian trained – need to provide all information.

·  UNHCR staff need additional training so clients are getting proper information.

·  Canadian Orientation needs to be provided by Canadian Service Providers.

·  Do follow-up with person for status report – instead of letting this go on long.

·  Needs revision to family dependent definition.

Case Study – Family Reunification – wishes to be reunited

Problems

·  Family sponsorship

Recommendations

·  Referral by UNHCR – expedient option

·  Private sponsorship – don’t treat as VOR

·  Joint assistance sponsorship case – again expedient

1

National RAP Conference (Feb.19-23, 2007 – Vancouver B.C.)