Search this article on Google: Triumphant Journey: A Business Visitor’s Success Story in Section 187 of IRPR Canada 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.