Will asylum seekers from Hong Kong turn to Canada?
Claims from troubled island have doubled since same period last year
With the relationship between Canada and China at its lowest point in years, a new source of tension could soon emerge: Hong Kongers seeking asylum in this country.
Canada received 25 asylum claims from Hong Kong in the first quarter of 2020, more than twice the total number of cases reported last year. Although the refugee claims from Hong Kong made up a fraction of the 13,383 cases Canada received between January and March, some believe Beijing’s imposition of a new national security law on the city last week could prompt an exodus of people from the island.
There are already strong ties between Canada and Hong Kong, including the 300,000 Canadians who call Hong Kong home. The former British colony was returned to Communist China in 1997. Last year, residents clashed with authorities in protests against a proposed extradition law from Beijing that was eventually abandoned.
Lawyer Ravi Jain, who chairs the Canadian Bar Association’s immigration law section, says anyone can make a refugee claim in Canada, but must prove they have well-founded reason to seek protection.
“What is different now is China will be sending mainland officers to Hong Kong — and that’s making a big difference,” said Jain, who had 10 inquiries last week alone from Hong Kongers interested in coming to Canada. “This is going to be a political hot potato for Canada.”
Canada granted asylum to many pro-democracy organizers and supporters from China after the Tiananmen Square massacre, as well as parents who broke the Chinese onechild policy and practitioners of Falun Gong, a spiritual movement outlawed by Beijing.
But asylum claims from Hong Kong were historically rare because the city has been under the autonomous rule of what’s known as “One Country, Two Systems,” a model that critics say is increasingly under attack by the Communist regime. The new national security law is the latest example.
“This is going to paint a different colour to these refugee claims,” said Toronto immigration lawyer Wennie Lee, who has seen an uptake of general inquiries from Hong Kongers since last week. “They’ll now have a stronger case.”
Last week, Meng Wanzhou, an executive with China’s telecom giant Huawei, lost her bid to end the Canadian extradition hearing that could send her to face charges in the United States. It was the latest twist in a legal and political fight that has strained the diplomatic relations between Canada and China. Shortly after Meng’s detention in December 2018, Chinese authorities detained two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who remain in custody. Political observers have described the moves as retaliatory.
Canada, the United States, Britain and Australia, meanwhile, have condemned Beijing for unilaterally introducing the new national security law, saying it would “curtail the Hong Kong people’s liberties” and “dramatically erode the autonomy and the system that made it so prosperous.”
According to the Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada only received an average of two to three asylum cases from Hong Kong each year between 2014 and ’18. Getting accepted was even rarer, with only one case being granted protection over those five years. Currently, there are 37 outstanding Hong Kong claims to be processed.
As Canada has raised the bar of its immigration selection system, favouring candidates with Canadian education credentials and work experience over the years, Lee said, many Hong Kongers may not qualify for immigration. “With the new Express Entry system, it’s not like the 1980s and 1990s, when people could just apply and immigrate. They (now) have to get in a pool and get invited to come here,” said Lee.
Vancouver lawyer Erica Olmstead, who practises immigration and refugee law, said she has received inquiries. She said the test for refugee protection is forward-looking and a past arrest or charge alone won’t make a person a refugee. What matters, Olmstead said, is whether the individual is at risk of being persecuted in the future for their perceived political opinions and beliefs.