Hilary Evans Cameron is an Assistant Professor at Ryerson Law. Prior to become a faculty member, Hilary represented refugee claimants for a decade. She is the author of Refugee Law’s Fact-finding Crisis: Truth, Risk, and the Wrong Mistake. Her paper on risk salience in refugee decisions that we discuss can be found here. She is also the creator of www.meetgary.ca, a website which provides guidance to both decision makers and asylum claimants on the implicit biases and thought processes that can influence decision makers. She provides training to the Immigration and Refugee Board on this topic.

---

3:00 The two strong pulls in the law of how a decision maker should make a decision in a refugee hearing that impacts risk salience.

7:00 Can a decision maker ever be truly neutral?

11:00 Does the fact that the refugee process starts with a removal order “set things up” for strict scrutiny? Plus how politicians can influence error preference.

18:30 Refugee acceptance rates have increased recently. Is this a result of new decision makers or the same decision makers applying different maxims. Can someone’s risk salience approach change over time?

22:00 The non legal things that can influence decision makers.

26:30 Studies on accuracy in credibility and how risk salience follows.

30:00 Should decision makers make their biases explicit?

36:30 What is the fear that people have of refugee claimants?

43:01 The illusion of transparency. “The idea that truth will shine through.”

44:30 The myth that a memory is like a video recording.

46:00 The myth that a refugee claimant will never take unnecessary risks.

47:15 The myth of once a liar always a liar.

48:80 The maxim of the perfect applicant.

52:00 The maxim of “our expectations were clear.”

1:01 The inconsistency between standards in refugee law and trauma theory.

1:04 Hillary’s working with the IRB

1:15 Have any IRB members told Hillary that who the representative is can impact how they view the claim?

1:21 When should you admit a past lie?

---

A discussion of the philosophy behind economic immigration, how Canada ranks economic immigrants, Ministerial Instructions and listener Q&A.

Ashal Kaushal is an Assistant Professor at the University of British Columbia’s Allard School of Law, where she teaches, amongst other courses, Immigration Law.

---

6:00 An introduction to Canada’s points system, how Express Entry changed it and Ministerial Instructions.

14:30 The three models of economic immigration. The Human Capital Model, the Demand-Driven Model and the Neo-Corporatist Model

22:00 How the same job offer can be worth different points depending on the immigration program.

28:30 Is it possible to qualify the value of a prospective economic immigrant through their job?

32:00 Why are the points what they are? Why would a job offer go from 600 to 200 / 50, for example? How did the change from Conservative to Liberal government change?

37:30 A ranking system based on wage.

44:00 Ministerial Instructions

Listener Questions

55:30 How long will Express Entry last before they bring in a whole new system?

1:00 Should there be country caps on economic immigration? Will India remain the top source country of immigrants?

1:06 What, if anything, should be done about how the federal and provincial governments have economic immigration programs that target the same “high skilled” people?

1:16 Should Canada bring back the Immigrant Investor Program?

1:24 If you could make one change to Express Entry or economic immigration what would it be?

---

A discussion of when someone can be inadmissible to Canada for having committed a crime which doesn’t lead to a conviction.

Cases referenced are Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 141 and Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 59.

Sania (Ahmed) Chaudhry was counsel in Garcia. She is currently Legal Counsel (Professional Conduct Proceedings) at Real Estate Council of Alberta.

---

2:00 Introduction and an overview of Garcia v. Canada.

15:00 The purpose of Canada’s inadmissibility provisions.

17:10 What is the standard of proof for determining that someone committed a crime where there is no conviciton?

19:45 A review of Enforcement Manual 2

30:30 Determining equivalency and issues with inadmissibility findings where there is no conviction.

39:30 Dlieow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

46:00 Living in a society where the State makes everything a crime.

---

A discussion of s. 34(1)(f) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which provides that a foreign national or permanent resident is inadmissible for being the member of an organization that has committed terrorism. Topics include how terrorism, organization and membership are defined, the Proud Boys, QAnon and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

---

5:45 What is terrorism under Canadian immigration legislation?

9:45 What is an organization?

15:30 What does it mean to be a “member?”

19:00 The Bangladesh Nationalist Party

29:00 Would Nelson Mandela be encompassed?

30:45 Should only organizations that are officially designated by the government render someone inadmissible?

39:39 The Ministerial relief process.

47:35 Jose Figuerora

53:45 Could someone being a QAnon adherent make them inadmissible to Canada?

1:00 Does the designation of the Proud Boys broaden what could result in inadmissibility due to terrorism?

1:03 Could the leader of a party calling for an insurrection lead to all members of that organization being inadmissible for being a member of an organization which has committed terrorism?

1:05 What about antifa? The Republican Party?

1:13 Would it be misrepresentation to not declare one’s being a QAnon adherent in the IMM5669?

---