Safe Third Party Agreement Canada Us

Refugee lawyers who had been turned back at the Canadian border questioned the pact and said the United States was not considered “safe” under President Donald Trump. In addition to meeting the exemption criteria under the agreement, applicants must meet all other eligibility criteria for immigration legislation for the country in which they apply for status. Although refugees entering Canada at official border crossings are generally returned to the United States, they would not be returned if they crossed at locations between designated ports of entry; In this case, their demands will be heard and many immigration experts see it as a loophole within the agreement. [6] [7] Section 102 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) authorizes the designation of safe third countries for the purposes of co-responsibility for refugee applications. Only countries that respect human rights and offer a high level of protection to asylum seekers can be designated as safe third countries. Under the agreement, refugee claimants must apply in the first country they arrive between the United States or Canada, unless they are entitled to a waiver. For example, asylum seekers who are citizens of a country other than the United States and who arrive from the United States at the land border between Canada and the United States can only assert their rights to refugees in Canada if they fulfill an exception under the Safe Third Country Agreement. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires ongoing review of all countries designated as safe third countries. The purpose of the review procedure is to ensure that the conditions that led to deportation as a safe third country remain met. The government appealed McDonald`s decision and argued that there would be “irreparable harm” to the rule of law and the common good if the border agreement were overturned.

For all other countries that, in the future, could be classified as safe third countries: 4 exceptions allowing the processing of claims in the third country: if the government wins its vocation, which will probably be heard at the end of February or the beginning of March, the border agreement will remain virtually intact. If the government loses its appeal, it is likely that the agreement will be permanently abolished, unless the government decides to challenge the loss in the Supreme Court. The agreement, which allows any country to deport asylum seekers trying to apply for refugees at official border crossings, was declared unconstitutional by the Federal Court of Justice in July. The Canadian Refugee Council strongly opposes this agreement because the United States is not a safe country for all refugees. The CCR also denounces the objective and impact of reducing the number of refugees who can seek refuge in Canada. McDonald gave the government until the end of January to prepare for the break of the agreement because it understood that it was in the public interest not to terminate the agreement immediately. At the recent hearing before Stratas J., counsel for this group argued that the government`s assertion that there would be an “increase” in new asylum seekers at the border if the agreement was struck down was “speculative” and “hypothetical”. Under the agreement, refugee claimants must apply for refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in, unless they are entitled to a waiver from the agreement. A safe third country is a country in which a person crossing that country could have applied for refugee protection.

Comments are closed.