Lawyer falls short in bid to test refugee rules

OTTAWA — A law that leaves refugees forever at risk of losing their permanent residency must continue to be tested before the courts, says a B.C. lawyer who fell short Thursday in his efforts to have the Supreme Court examine the issue.

The top court declined to hear lawyer Douglas Cannon’s case, which involved a refugee hoping to obtain Canadian citizenship but would have touched on a much larger debate about the principles underpinning Canada’s asylum system.

A refugee’s status can be revoked at any time, but until 2012, such a development wouldn’t have impacted their permanent resident status. Similarly, a permanent resident could have that status revoked, but still be considered a refugee.

Five years ago, the Conservative government at the time changed the law in order to remove people they felt ought not to have been given refugee status — and in turn permanent residency — in the first place.

The intent was to go after fraud, but hundreds of people properly granted refugee status now find themselves stuck in an already clogged system with little chance of a hearing any time soon, Cannon said.

Cannon’s client, Nisreen Nilam, won asylum in Canada in 2009 and permanent residency in 2011. Nilam later travelled back to his home country of Sri Lanka for two lengthy visits, using a Sri Lankan passport he’d applied for and then renewed.

Those moves are among the red flags for a government when it considers whether a refugee still needs protection from their home county and is among the grounds for so-called cessation of refugee status.

The immigration minister tried to remove Nilam’s refugee status; he in turn argued he was there to visit a sick mother and get married, trips that for myriad reasons left him in Sri Lanka for longer than intended. The government initially lost its case, but the Immigration and Refugee Board was forced by the courts to reconsider.