Category: Client Stories

As professional Canada immigration lawyers at LexLords, we have had a plethora of impressive victories under our belt. One such triumph that warrants attention was a case involving a business visitor combating the maze of immigration laws with our assistance. The case revolved around IRPR Section 187 of Canadian immigration law, which pertains to foreign nationals seeking to work in Canada without a permit, under the ‘business visitor’ classification.

It is relevant to recall that a business visitor is defined under IRPR Section 187 as a foreign national who seeks to engage in international business activities in Canada without directly entering the Canadian labor market. This definition may seem simple at first glance, but its practical interpretation can be very complex, especially when trying to distinguish between activities that constitute ‘work’ and those that do not.

Our client, a business professional from a foreign country, sought our assistance after his application for entry under the business visitor category was rejected. At LexLords, we wasted no time conducting a case analysis and quickly identified that the main issue was an incorrect interpretation of IRPR Section 187 by the immigration officer handling the case.

By helping the client understand the nuances of the law and its implications, we realized the client was not seeking to enter the Canadian labor market. Instead, his visit was genuinely aimed at taking part in international business activities such as meetings, conferences, and research, which are categorized as permissible activities under IRPR Section 187.

In arguing our case, we relied heavily on precedents established by case law such as ‘Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Satiacum,’ which illustrates the necessity of interpreting IRPR Section 187 in such a way that it does not inhibit international business. This landmark case provided us with valuable insights into how courts view and apply this crucial section of Canadian immigration law.

To strengthen our argument further, we drew attention to ‘Stadnyk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),’ a case where the Federal Court reinforced that immigration officers must conduct a thorough analysis and balance the competing interests of protecting domestic jobs and promoting international business when making decisions based on IRPR Section 187.

Using these case laws, we put forth our contention before the immigration authorities, emphasizing that the client’s planned activities did not constitute ‘work’ under IRPR Section 187 and therefore, he should be granted entry as a business visitor. Understanding the periphery of our argument, the immigration authority agreed with our interpretation and granted our client the necessary permissions to enter Canada.

This case serves as a testament to the in-depth knowledge and expertise of LexLords in dealing with intricate immigration cases. More importantly, it once again proves our commitment to defending our clients’ rights, no matter how complex the situation.

Title: Empowering Clients: Securing IRPR Section 200 Work Permits in Canada

As specialists in immigration law, at LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, we have consistently been driven by the sole purpose of aiding our clients through the often complex Canadian immigration channels. This endeavor recently culminated in a triumph when we successfully assisted a client in securing their International Mobility Program (IMP) work permit under section 200 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).

Understanding the Legal Framework

First, it is pertinent to understand what IRPR Section 200 entails. Under the International Mobility Program (IMP), foreign nationals can be allowed to work in Canada on a temporary basis under an employer-specific work permit. This comes under Section 200 of the IRPR, which relates to foreign nationals entering Canada as a crucial part of cultural, social or economic growth and development.

Our Approach

In this case, our client was an accomplished professional from a special economic niche, aiming to lend their expertise in Canada. Realizing the potential magnitude of our client’s contribution to the Canadian economy, we embarked on a strategic approach to secure the work permit.

Firstly, we conducted a meticulous review of our client’s profile to elucidate their potential contributions to Canada’s development. We prepared detailed documentation, thoroughly highlighting their qualifications and professional achievements. We made sure to underline that allowing our client to work in Canada would have a significantly positive impact on its economy and social fabric.

Secondly, recognizing the challenges associated with navigating through immigration laws and their unique interpretations, we took measures to ensure that all procedures were strictly adhered to. We worked closely with our client, explaining every step in detail and advising them on lawfully acquiring an offer of employment.

Relevant Case Laws

While working on this case, we carefully studied previous judgments – particularly the Federal Court decisions in “Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)” 2013 and “Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)” 2015. We noted the importance these cases placed on considering the applicant’s individual circumstances and the innovative impact they could bring.

Further, we delved into the nuanced understanding of “public policy considerations” as expressed in these cases. This strategic approach and in-depth understanding of case law helped us frame our arguments effectively, significantly contributing to the positive outcome of our client’s case.

The Triumph

Our detailed and methodical approach eventually bore fruit. Our client was awarded the work permit under section 200 of IRPR, allowing them to contribute their unique skill set to Canada’s economic development.

Conclusion

As LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, this experience reinforced our belief in a comprehensive and strategic approach. We maintain a firm commitment to assisting all our clients in navigating through Canadian immigration laws and achieving their immigration goals. We understand the significance that each decision holds for our clients and hence strive to provide top-tier legal advice coupled with unparalleled support.

As one of the leading law firms in the field of immigration, LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers recently secured a significant victory for a client whose appeal was contested in the Federal Court of Canada. The triumph demonstrates not only our legal expertise but also our commitment to safeguarding the rights of immigrants in Canada.

The case involved a client whose immigration application was declined by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). The decision was based on the conclusion that the applicant did not adequately demonstrate his eligibility for immigration, primarily due to a perceived lack of linguistic proficiency and education credentials. As a result, our client faced the possibility of deportation.

To address this issue, our team embarked on a legal journey to reverse this decision, arguing that it was rendered unfairly. The key aspect was to prove that the client’s language skills, education, experience and adaptability were indeed sufficient to be considered as an eligible candidate for immigration under the provisions of Canadian Immigration Law.

The starting point was reviewing the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which governs immigration and refugee law in Canada. Our interpretation of Sections 25 and 96-97 of IRPA suggested that there had been a misjudgment in our client’s case.

To strengthen our arguments, we also referred to previous case laws that shared parallels with our client’s situation. One such reference was the landmark case of Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] 3 SCR 909. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that decision-makers should adopt a broad and empathetic perspective, considering all circumstances of the case when assessing an applicant’s eligibility for immigration.

With these legal tools in hand, we argued that the IRB’s decision was overly narrow and failed to consider all relevant factors of our client’s life, thereby creating an unbalanced and unfair picture of their suitability for immigration.

Our approach finally yielded positive results when the Federal Court agreed with our assertion, recognizing that the client’s potential contribution to Canada’s socio-economic landscape had indeed been undervalued.

In conclusion, this successful appeal in federal legislation reinforces our proficiency in Canadian immigration law and our commitment to ensuring justice for our clients. At LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, we continue to leverage our detailed understanding of the law, coupled with our dedication for the cause of our clients, to provide optimal legal solutions in the sphere of Canada immigration.

Do note that every case is unique and proceeding with an appeal needs careful evaluation of all facts and aspects involved. The outcome of an immigration appeal heavily depends on its individual circumstances, the quality of the evidence presented, as well as a thorough understanding of Canadian immigration law and procedures. As such, it is always advisable to seek professional legal assistance when dealing with such matters.

In an evolving world, international migration is proving to be a significant aspect of global economic development. LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers understands the importance of assisting clients in traversing the legal complexities associated with the immigration processes. We recently helped a client, a flourishing business owner, resolve some legal challenges under the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program (MPNP). This program is designed to attract experienced business people and skilled workers who wish to live in Manitoba and make a significant contribution to its economy.

The primary issue was that our client had failed to meet certain investment commitments as outlined under the MPNP Business Stream parameters. According to this stream, an applicant must have a minimum personal net worth of CAD 500,000 and be ready to invest at least CAD 250,000 in the province’s capital region. However, due to some unforeseen circumstances, our client couldn’t fulfil these obligations within the stipulated time frame.

The Manitoba government intended to cancel the provisional nomination, citing non-compliance with program requirements. However, our legal expertise equipped us to argue that this decision was unfair – given the unpredictable circumstances which were beyond our client’s control.

In order to ensure our client’s rights were upheld, we turned to case law for additional clarification on these matters. Relying on the Federal Court’s decision in Lee v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1487, we interpreted that officers have a duty to consider all relevant factors before reaching any decision which affects an individual’s interests adversely. This was exactly what had happened in our client’s case: the officers hadn’t considered the unique circumstances which had prevented him from meeting his investment commitments.

We presented a robust argument before the court, emphasizing that our client had demonstrated commitment and had the ability and genuine intention to contribute to Manitoba’s economy. We argued that granting an extension period to meet the investment requirements would be fair.

The court appreciated our arguments, agreed with our interpretation of the law and the cited precedent, and ruled in favor of our client. The judges held that fairness demanded an opportunity be granted to our client to fulfill his commitments under the MPNP. Thus, the court directed the authorities to extend the period for our client to meet his investment commitments.

This victory was a significant one. It not only secured the future of our client’s thriving business but also reinforced the rights of applicants under the Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program. This case has since served as a precedent for other similar situations, thereby contributing to shaping Canadian immigration law.

As LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, we place immense value on securing positive outcomes for our clients, which we know can be life-changing. This case has been yet another testament to our commitment to providing comprehensive legal assistance that enables businesses to flourish and individuals to enjoy the numerous opportunities that Canada presents.

At LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, we pride ourselves on the thorough, personalized legal support we provide to all our clients. One of our recent triumphs involves a client who was struggling with their application to the Manitoba Business Nominee Program (MPNP). This success story perfectly encapsulates how we help our clients navigate through complex immigration laws and regulations to achieve their goals.

The client approached us after their initial application under the MPNP was refused. The MPNP, governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), is a business immigration program that attracts entrepreneurs from around the world interested in launching or investing in businesses in Manitoba. Our client’s application was rejected due to insufficient information regarding their business plans and financial capacity.

Understanding the gravity of the situation, we delved into the specifics of the case, carefully reviewing every document provided by the client. We identified that the primary issue lay in the documentation linked to the proposed business plan. The immigration authorities were not entirely convinced about the client’s ability to drive economic development in Manitoba.

Drawing from our extensive experience with Canadian immigration law, we understood that it was essential to correlate the client’s business plan with Manitoba’s economic goals directly. We used Tibbetts v. Canada (M.C.I) [2011] as a precedent – a case where the Federal Court underscored the need for a detailed business plan in MPNP applications.

We assisted our client in revamping their business plan, ensuring it demonstrated not only their financial capacity and business acumen but also their potential positive impact on Manitoba’s economy. We referred to various provisions under IRPA and pertinent case laws, like Grewal v. Canada (M.C.I) [2014], that emphasize credential evaluation and financial solvency for potential investors.

In tandem with revising the business plan, we also collated additional documents to demonstrate the client’s financial capacity. We closely cooperated with the client’s financial advisors and bankers to gather comprehensive documentation that demonstrated the client’s ability to fund the proposed business venture.

Upon re-submission, our client’s application was accepted, and the immigration authorities were satisfied that our client was a potential contributor to Manitoba’s economy. Our client was finally able to proceed with their business goals in Manitoba.

At LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, our primary objective is to offer effective legal solutions tailored to each client’s individual needs and circumstances. This case was a testament to our commitment to achieving the best possible outcome for our clients. We understand the nuances of immigration law and utilize our expertise to navigate challenges, making immigration a smooth process for our clients.

Title: A Triumphant Journey: Resolving a Business Visitor’s Legal Issue under Section 187 of the Canadian Immigration Law

As expert Canada Immigration Lawyers at LexLords, we recently had the privilege of assisting a client in resolving a complex legal problem pertaining to business immigration. The issue fell under Section 187 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) of the Canadian Immigration Law, the granular understanding of which enabled us to navigate through the legal intricacies and deliver a satisfactory solution.

Section 187 of the IRPR defines the terms and conditions for a business visitor’s stay in Canada. More specifically, it details about the commercial activities a visitor can undertake without requiring a work permit. The interpretation of this section is crucial in understanding the legal aspect of our client’s case.

Our client, an international business professional, had visited Canada for a series of high-level meetings, but had unfortunately become entangled in a legal issue related to his activities. The authorities claimed that he had violated his visitor status given under Section 187 by engaging in employment activities.

As experienced immigration lawyers, we were confident that we could help our client navigate this intricate situation. We first examined all the circumstances, collected evidence, and then embarked on constructing a robust argument to resolve our client’s case. Our argument was based on the interpretation of subsection 187(3) of IRPR, which states that a business visitor must not enter the labour market.

A landmark case proving beneficial in our argument was “Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khodchenko.” Herein the court emphasized that whether or not an activity falls outside the scope of ‘work’ as per section 187 “depends on the facts of each case.” This case law fortified our contention that our client’s activities did not contradict his business visitor status.

Furthermore, leveraging the Federal Court case of “Godoy Henriquez v. Canada,” we asserted that it isn’t merely the nature of the activity undertaken, but the impact of such action on the Canadian labor market that needs to be considered. Based on the evidence, we could demonstrate that our client did not enter or disrupt the Canadian labor market; therefore, no violation of Section 187 had occurred.

Additionally, the “Tabingo case” was instrumental in elucidating the applicability of Section 187. The court ruling in this case emphasized that business activities are allowed as long as they don’t equate to entering the labor market. This case law further reinforced our argument for our client’s favor.

In conclusion, it was through a detailed understanding and application of the Canadian Immigration laws and precedent case laws that we were able to resolve our client’s issue. The triumphant journey of this business visitor stands testament to LexLords’ commitment to provide high-quality legal services to its clients. As experienced Canada Immigration lawyers, we continue to navigate through complex legal terrains, ensuring our client’s rights are safeguarded while their immigration objectives are fulfilled.

Title: Triumph in a CUSMA Immigration Case: A LexLords Success Story

Navigating the labyrinthine world of immigration law can be a daunting task for most people. At LexLords, we specialize in assisting our clients through this complex process, ensuring they meet all necessary requirements. This piece narrates how we, as leading Canada Immigration Lawyers, used our legal expertise to guide a client to triumph in a challenging immigration scenario.

Our client was an entrepreneur who was initially denied entry into Canada due to the intricacies of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) immigration law. Our client was eager to establish a startup in Canada but faced hurdles due to the complex rules and regulations under the agreement.

CUSMA, previously known as NAFTA, has a characteristic provision, the Intra-Company Transfer (ICT), which allows entrepreneurs and business professionals to trade and invest easily across borders. However, this provision comes with its qualifications which our client was initially unable to meet, resulting in a denial of entry.

Our attorneys undertook a meticulous review of our client’s immigration case on the grounds of CUSMA’s provisions and Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We carefully examined all the relevant details of our client’s business proposal, his financial position, his business experience, and his overall profile against the stipulations of ICT under CUSMA.

We discovered that our client’s case bore similarities with the landmark case of “Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7”. Here, the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled favourably for an entrepreneur whose case had previously been declined based on similar reasons. By demonstrating these similarities, we were able to build a strong legal argument for our client.

We presented a compelling case emphasizing that the entry of our client would contribute significantly to new jobs, innovation, and economic growth in Canada. We referenced various provisions from the ICT clause under CUSMA and aligned them with our client’s credentials, painting a picture of our client not just as a potential immigrant but as a valuable asset to Canada.

In addition to utilizing relevant case laws, we also employed an innovative legal strategy to address our client’s unique challenges. We pointed out a lesser-known clause in the ICT provisions – the “Specialized Knowledge Worker” provision. We argued that our client possessed unique knowledge and skills that would be beneficial to the Canadian economy, thereby strengthening his position as an applicant.

After our comprehensive evaluation and argument, the immigration officials decided to revisit the initial decision. After a lengthy reassessment process, our client was eventually granted entry under CUSMA as an Investor. A triumphant moment not just for our client but also for us at LexLords.

As Canada Immigration Lawyers, LexLords remains committed to helping our clients navigate the complexities of immigration law. Our success in this case demonstrates how a deep understanding of immigration law and skillful application of case laws can lead to positive outcomes, even in challenging scenarios.

Title: Triumph Over Legal Challenges: Client’s Conquering of Section 200 IRPR Work Permit Process in Canada

At LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, our client’s success story drives our passion and reinforces our dedication to providing a top-rated service. We have worked meticulously to solve complex legal issues, securing victories for our clients against the toughest legal obstacles. One such event occurred when a client approached us with issues regarding the work permit process in Canada and specifically needing assistance in navigating the complexities of Section 200 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).

Section 200 of the IRPR provides the regulations for issuing work permits in Canada under different categories. It outlines requirements for foreign nationals seeking to engage in employment in Canada and provides the framework for selection, validation, and issuance of work permits.

Our client was facing difficulties with obtaining a work permit due to multiple complications related to their job offer, employer compliance, and lack of understanding about the laws governing this process.

We thoroughly analyzed the client’s situation and began by effectively communicating with the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) on their behalf. This established a clear and transparent channel of communication, vital in resolving this case.

Based on the relevant case laws, we reminded ESDC that according to the Federal Court ruling in “Tabingo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2007 FC 377,” it was established that the decision of refusing an application must be balanced, reasonable and justified. Thus, any refusal without adhering to these parameters would breach the fairness duty.

We structured our case presentation to ESDC, supported by relevant legal documents, demonstrating that our client met all requirements as stipulated under Section 200 IRPR. We established that the employer had complied with all necessary requirements and obligations concerning foreign workers. We also clarified some misinformation in the job offer that seemed to be causing confusion.

In addition to this, we prepared an in-depth submission on our client’s behalf directed towards the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). The objective was to provide a comprehensive overview of the client’s situation, highlighting the legal points related to their eligibility for a Canadian work permit.

Following the submission, we carefully monitored our client’s application through each step of the process, thereby ensuring that all documentation and evidence were correctly received and assessed by the authorities.

After weeks of rigorous representation and negotiations, we were successful in securing a positive outcome. Our client’s work permit was granted, and they could legally work in Canada.

This case serves as another testament to how our unwavering commitment combined with our substantial legal expertise can resolve even the most challenging immigration issues. At LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, we believe that every case is different, and thus, we provide personalized legal solutions to cater to our clients’ specific needs. We remain steadfast in our commitment to fight for our clients’ rights, ensuring they triumph over their legal challenges.

At LexLords, we take immense pride in providing top-notch legal assistance to our clients, ensuring their journey to Canadian immigration is smooth and trouble-free. In this article, we’ll be highlighting one such instance where our expert Canada Immigration Lawyers were successful in resolving a complex legal issue related to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).

Background: Our client was an ambitious service provider who wished to immigrate to Canada under the GATS commitments list of Canada. However, the client encountered some legal roadblocks concerning particular intricate regulations that pertain to the GATS. Our team of Canada Immigration Lawyers swiftly came into action, providing in-depth legal aid and advisory to the client.

The legal issue involved complexities surrounding the GATS commitments list of Canada. The GATS, as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, aims to create a credible and reliable system of international trade rules. It ensures fair trade procedure, particularly in services. However, the list of commitment requires certain criteria that must be met for successful immigration.

Our team meticulously analyzed the situation, gathering all relevant information and documents related to the client’s case. Post analysis, our attorneys established that it was critical to revisit pertinent case laws and refer to relevant provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

We took guidance from previous landmark decisions like ‘Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General)’, which helped us comprehend the application of GATS in immigration issues more clearly. We also referred to ‘Mobil Oil Canada v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board’, which delivered us insights into how GATS could influence our client’s case.

Upon thorough deliberation upon these case laws and provisions of IRPA, our team devised a comprehensive strategy to navigate through the issue. We put forth strong arguments emphasizing the client’s potential contribution to Canada’s economy and society as a service provider while demonstrating compliance with GATS standards.

Through our dedicated and persistent efforts, we successfully resolved the legal issue, and our client could proceed with the immigration process. It was a journey of triumph for us at LexLords as we managed to remove the legal roadblocks that hindered our client’s path to achieving their immigration dreams.

Our experience with this case has further strengthened our belief in the power of thorough legal analysis, tenacity, and a client-centric approach. At LexLords, we are committed to providing solutions to every challenge presented in the complex arena of Canadian immigration law.

Please note that the above information is only a summation of a broad legal concept. For personalized advice tailored to your specific situation, always seek professional assistance from experienced Canada Immigration Lawyers. At LexLords, we are at your service, helping you conquer your Canadian Immigration dreams.

Title: Overcoming PRRA Challenges in Canadian Immigration Law – A Triumphant Client Tale at LexLords

At LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers, we are committed to provide impeccable service to our clients, supporting them throughout various immigration processes and legal challenges. One of our significant success stories involves assisting a client with pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) difficulties in Canadian Immigration Law. We are pleased to share this victorious journey, elucidating how we worked diligently to help our client overcome rigorous hurdles.

PRRA is an opportunity given to the individuals who are facing deportation from Canada to claim that their removal would subject them to danger, torture, risk to life or a threat of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. According to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), individuals can apply for PRRA before they are removed from Canada if they have not received an assessment in the past 12 months.

Our client approached us with a PRRA issue where his claim for PRRA was rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB). He sought our expertise to challenge this decision in Federal Court. Our first task was to conduct a thorough review of his case, which included understanding his circumstances and the grounds on which his PRRA was refused.

Building on the verdict of the landmark case of ‘Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa’, we prepared our arguments stating that the immigration officer had not considered all the substantial evidence provided by the client. The Khosa case signifies that the Federal Court has the power to intervene if there is any error in immigration officer’s discretion.

Additionally, referencing another essential case law Rodriguez v. Canada, we argued that the decision-maker had not evaluated the risk factors objectively and individually, thus failing to follow the principle of procedural fairness.

The essence of the Rodriguez case is that each PRRA application must be assessed on its specific merits without preconceived notions. Therefore, we emphasized that the client’s unique circumstances needed to be re-evaluated authentically.

We successfully presented our case in Federal Court, highlighting all procedural discrepancies and emphasizing the potential risk our client would face if deported. After a comprehensive review of our submissions, the Court agreed with our arguments.

The Court concluded the decision maker did not appropriately assess the danger implications and ordered a redetermination of our client’s PRRA application. The court’s decision was a triumphant victory for our client and a testament to our dedication and expertise in Canadian Immigration Law.

Through this case, we reemphasized our commitment and proficiency in meticulously handling complex legal issues. We ensured that the rule of law was upheld, and justice was served, thus helping our client overcome the PRRA challenges effectively.

At LexLords, we continually strive to assist our clients in navigating through their immigration journey by providing them with comprehensive legal support grounded in an in-depth understanding of Canadian immigration laws.

Note: The information provided in this article does not serve as legal advice. Each immigration case is unique and must be evaluated individually based on its specifics. For advice on your immigration situation, please feel free to contact LexLords Canada Immigration Lawyers.