Discussing Inadmissibility and Enforcement: “Does one act define you for a lifetime?”
I had a fun time chatting with Chantal Desloges and Cathryn Sawicki on their new immigration podcast -Welcome Home.
We talked about practicing in the complex area of inadmissibility law.
Topics covered:
- The amount of discretion that remains in the hands of an Officer even when confronted with inadmissibility;
- The challenges and rewards inherent in practicing in this area;
- The consequences of inadmissibility and potential remedies; and
- Jaskirat Sidhu and the intersection of criminal law and immigration enforcement.
Speaker 1:
This podcast is brought to you by the Immigration Law Series by Emond Publishing, Canada’s leading independent legal publisher.
Cathryn :
Welcome Home everybody. This is a podcast about Canadian immigration law. If you are an immigration practitioner or a student looking to get into this area, this is a podcast for and about you. Chantal and I will tell you what you need to know, bring you expert guests and share their wisdom. And we will all have a lot of fun doing it. So sit back, enjoy and welcome home. And I will now serenade you with a song. Why are you cutting me off? What?
Chantal:
The welcome home podcast is not legal advice, but it is awesome advice. Should you develop diarrhea, vomiting, or breathing complications, please consult your doctor.
Chantal:
Today on Welcome Home, we are discussing inadmissibility with Raj Sharma. Raj, the Rajanator, Rajarella, Rajalamivitch. We are going to be talking about the Sidhu case, which has been in the media, and how to manage inadmissibility cases in general. We will also have a segment on things I wish I knew when I started to practice in this unique area of law.
Cathryn :
Hello and welcome listeners. Today, we have one of the co-authors of Inadmissibility and Remedies joining us. Thank you for joining us, Raj Sharma. Please tell our audience a little bit about yourself.
Raj Sharma:
Cathryn, Chantal, thanks for having me on. I am an immigration lawyer. I’m based out of Calgary, Alberta. I’ve been practicing immigration law for, I guess, 17 years. Prior to that, I was a refugee protection officer with the Immigration and Refugee Board. And it’s a pleasure to join you today.
Chantal:
Thank you so much for giving up your time. We know that you’re a very, very busy practitioner and you’ve got an active social media profile as well. I love watching your tweets on Twitter. Tell us a little bit more about the book that you have, that’s coming out. I’m interested about that.
Raj Sharma:
The book came about as a result of you, I guess. So I guess I’ll have to thank you. And of course, Cathryn as well. You had suggested the project, I think more than a year ago. And at that time I was just wondering how I’m going to… I don’t know whether you guys sleep, because you guys are [inaudible 00:02:46] and prolific. So I was wondering how I was going to handle a book of that magnitude because inadmissibility is obviously near and dear to my heart. So inadmissibility, enforcement, deportation, removal, stays. This is something that has been my life’s work, I suppose, for over a decade. So you had suggested it. I had some trepidation whether I could deliver, and thankfully we have a brilliant co-author Aris Daghighian. So Aris came on board and we were able to shepherd this obviously with both of your brilliant assistance into fruition.
Cathryn :
Begging also, I think, maybe helped a little bit in there when we were begging you guys to write. Please, please Aris, please Raj, come on.
Raj Sharma:
You know, it’s interesting, obviously it’s my first time. We write, we speak on this issue. It’s a profession, it’s a calling. And so, but once you put pen to paper, once you write something and you try to express it and try to explain it to someone else, it does resonate as well. So it’s one of those things that I think was something that I’m very grateful for. And oddly enough, I think the pandemic assisted in the writing of the book. Normally I’m doing dozens of hearings a year, much like yourselves. And so I was wondering how we could produce this gargantuan, or seemingly gargantuan work, but we managed to get it out. And I think those early months of the pandemic really assisted in getting the raw work out.
Cathryn :
And it’s an important textbook because I find this is an area of law where practitioners can really get it wrong. And then that’s it, game over. Now you mentioned that inadmissibility was kind of near and dear to your heart. Why is that?
Raj Sharma:
I think it’s complicated. I think in terms of personal history or my own family’s history, there’s always two sides to immigration. One is of course settlement, which is everyone is… You qualify, you’re eligible and you get status in Canada. But there’s obviously the other side of the equation, the other side of the coin, which is there’s individuals that once they’re here or trying to get here, but there’s an impediment. And that impediment or that hurdle is, that’s where things get complex. This is, now we’re moving beyond checklists. Now we’re moving beyond simple eligibility. Now we’re into the realm of discretion. And how do you explain discretion to a non-lawyer for example, which is an officer could choose to do or make a decision which is justifiable or reasonable in the circumstances, it could be a yes or it could be a no.
Raj Sharma:
So I think inadmissibility, or ineligibility, or removal, is a huge part of what we do. So settlement is only half of the equation and whether this is hubris or my personal opinion, but I think you separate, let’s say the men from the boys and the women from the girls and the practitioner from the dabbler, once you get into the labyrinth or the maze of inadmissibility. These big concepts, there’s terms of art, there’s jurisprudence, there’s brilliant jurists expounding on the statutory and regulatory regime. So it’s a lot of moving parts and it’s been very, very challenging. But at the same time, very, very rewarding as well. So when you can shepherd someone, when you can assist someone navigating this complex regime, it is of course at the same time, challenging, sometimes dispiriting, but always rewarding.
Chantal:
And it’s such a complicated area. And I think you really hit the nail on the head in the sense that a lot of practitioners shy away from that type of work, because, A: it’s quite complicated and it’s difficult to be good at it, frankly. It’s more than paper pushing. It’s a lot of persuasive advocacy and having to be good on your feet. But also because the stakes are so high and it’s difficult work. I mean, when you lose, it’s so devastating. How do you manage that emotional aspect of being involved in so much inadmissibility work?
Raj Sharma:
Every file is a life. So everything that you touch, for example, has massive consequences. So you could have a refusal on quotidian or normal reasons. You could have a [inaudible 00:07:38] application, it could be insufficiency of evidence, and you have a refusal that doesn’t have any prejudice for any future application. Inadmissibility, you make a mistake, there are going to be consequences, or you could have repercussions that ripple for many, many years, if not a lifetime.
Raj Sharma:
So these are difficult. And of course, every immigration practitioner realizes this. And so we must tread with caution. We have to look before we leap. Philosophy helps, I suppose. The Bhagavad Gita tradition is good, which is you do your work, you do your best, and then you step back. There’s the Tao Te Ching. So you’re a little bit on the side of a surgeon, let’s say. Which is you can’t get, let’s say too emotionally invested. But without emotional investment or without passion, you cannot be a proper advocate. So these things are always difficult. We all have those cases where we wish we could have won that one case, or we’ve won one case on these facts and then lost another case on very similar facts. So it is very, very challenging. But in terms of a life or a legacy or a practice, you would want something… In my opinion, anyway, difficulty awake the genius. You want something that’s challenging.
Cathryn :
How do you, again off of what Chantal was saying, emotional. Sometimes those cases can really weigh heavily. Like I had one DUI case where the individual hit his best friend’s car and had three children in the backseat and it went up in flames. And I’m reading all the criminal information on that and all the details. And that’s a lot emotionally. How do you cope with that? What kind of things do you do to help you manage your emotions to make sure you stay on point?
Raj Sharma:
I think individuals contain multitudes. Does one act define you for a lifetime? Perhaps. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t. And so the only thing you can do is, if you choose to take on this challenge of assisting individuals and helping them navigate this labyrinth, then you have to sort of give your best. And so you’re going to then take perhaps some objective view, but you have to understand the circumstances that brought that individual to that point of inadmissibility. And you would have to then explain all of that life, and of course the consequences of the grant of relief, for example, or remedy or non-action, non-enforcement to an officer as well. And the officer of course is a human being as well. And so we’re now back to, again, these classical philosophical concepts from the ancient Greeks. Pathos and logos. And so at the same time you combine argument or logic with an emotional appeal.
Chantal:
It’s also, I think, especially when it comes to criminal inadmissibility, it’s a very polarizing issue. People who have never really had any contact or experience with the immigration system, it’s easy to have a knee-jerk reaction. And there have been cases all throughout my career, and I’m sure through yours as well, where it hits the media and people are very, very quick to judge somebody based on an action at a specific point in life, right? Like I’m thinking of Mr. Sidhu, who was driving the truck that hit the Humboldt Broncos bus. All of that is very much in the news right now, as he sort of makes his way through the court system and the immigration system. And I wonder what your thoughts are around that.
Raj Sharma:
This is one of the challenging aspects of inadmissibility, or practicing in the sphere of inadmissibility law and remedies. Which is, this intersection between immigration law, which is nominally or presumably administrative in aspect. And then of course, the intersection with criminal law, whether in Canada or outside of Canada. So we are going to judge an individual’s actions or culpability or criminality or alleged criminality, committed outside Canada that has to be equivalent to an offense inside Canada. And then of course, conviction inside Canada, which is what Mr. Sidhu is… That’s the situation that he’s in.
Raj Sharma:
And Mr. Sidhu is a great example of that intersection between immigration law, our administrative powers, and of course the criminal laws. And so this is an aspect of, let’s say, double jeopardy. Traditionally, for hundreds of years, our concepts of criminal law is that we are not going to punish someone twice for the same crime. But immigration is one of those aspects where you do get a double jeopardy, where you will, let’s say, get convicted of a crime in Canada. You will serve your time in Canada. You will be punished in Canada. But you will also face the jeopardy of exile, banishment from Canada, another punishment. And again, historically, exiling someone or banishing someone was one of the highest punishments you could give to someone who’s committed or breached the norms of society.
Chantal:
Yeah. And I read a really good article recently. I think it might have been in Maclean’s Magazine, about the different family members of the players who had lost their kids in the accident. And some of them being able to forgive and others not being able to forgive. And I see that as, if you look at that in the immigration context, you do see people falling into two broad categories, right? There are the people who will say, no, this is a black and white issue. It is one strike, you’re out. You do something like that, you’re not a Canadian citizen, you have to be deported. And then there are other people that look at it a different way. Through a sort of a more, what I would say a holistic lens of seeing the whole person, as opposed to just that one act. And I just thought it was a very insightful article.
Raj Sharma:
Mr. Sidhu and… I’ve met Mr. Sidhu in an informal setting. Friends of friends, let’s say. And he struck me as a very honorable individual. And I think Mr. Sidhu, as the article indicates, makes an inadequate villain. Mr. Sidhu took responsibility, pled guilty. Of course, his oversight, his negligence resulted in the death of 16 individuals and horrific injuries to 13 more. Impacts of perhaps dozens or hundreds of family members, including himself and his own wife, who’s a permanent resident, Tanvir, here in Calgary.
Raj Sharma:
This is a, it’s a complex case. And I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Sidhu. And part of that is because of that, his honorable sort of demeanor or his acceptance of responsibility. And he could have fought the charges, he had a basis to contest the charges against him.
Raj Sharma:
But that case then now exemplifies, and part of this sort of complex regime, these moving parts that we’re talking [inaudible 00:16:00]. So again, so let’s say you have someone that immigrated to Canada at two or three or four or five years of age. For all intents and purposes, they’re Canadian. And so that individual commits a crime and faces immigration jeopardy. That is, banishment, exile, deportation from Canada. Someone that’s born in Canada, such as myself, for example, commits the exact same crime, will serve the time just as the other individual, but will never face potential removal. And again, some of these individuals are facing removal to countries that they have no recollection of.
Raj Sharma:
So this case exemplifies that double jeopardy aspect. At the same time, the case also shows, and I’ve heard, whether it’s immigration practitioners, whether it’s consultants or lawyers, I’ve heard these individuals say, Well, if you get convicted of a crime in Canada and you get sentenced to this length of sentence, there is no hope, you will get deported. And that’s simply not the case.
Raj Sharma:
So one of the important messages that are in our book, it’s a standalone, it’s a chapter that Aris Daghighian and I wrote, was that the… Inadmissibility is not necessarily, or enforcement action or potential enforcement action is not necessarily the end of the road for your journey in Canada. There is discretion that remains in the system, and that’s where Mr. Sidhu is right now. He’s a permanent resident of Canada. He’s pled guilty to a crime that carries with it and was sentenced to eight years incarceration. Normally under section 36, that means that removal is in the cards. But there is some scope of discretion under section 44. An officer may choose not to proceed with enforcement. And this is, it’s going to be very, very interesting because there’s so many, that officer is part of this community as well. That officer presumably is driving on these highways and roads just like you and I are.
Raj Sharma:
And so that officer is going to be confronted with a decision, which is what do I do at this point with a remorseful individual, with an individual that all evidence indicates is not a risk. If he were to stay in Canada, he would not be a risk to the safety of Canadians. And did the broader system let Mr. Sidhu down? I.e. we allow individuals with, and it depends on the province, but we can allow individuals with a few dozen hours, let’s say 30 hours back in Alberta, maybe 100 hours in some other provinces. We allow individuals with a few dozen hours of training to drive 60,000 pound missiles.
Cathryn :
Right. It’s interesting that you say that, because Chantal and I were talking, what about the employer? Do you think that this highlights some duties of the employer when people are here working? For nationals, permanent residents, what role? How do we make sure people keep their jobs in a safe and healthy work environment?
Chantal:
Yeah. And if I could add to that, imagine if he hadn’t been a permanent resident. Imagine if the employer had sponsored his work permit.
Cathryn :
Correct.
Chantal:
That would be a whole other host of issues.
Raj Sharma:
And we are seeing pushback now. I’m doing judicial review of work permit refusals of truck drivers from Abu Dhabi, experienced truck drivers, for example. We’re seeing pushback after Mr. Sidhu’s case. We’re seeing a lot more refusals on the grounds of, well, I believe implied refusals on the basis of safety. So we are seeing pushback by officers now, in light of that case. I agree with you completely. That employer, I believe, is… I believe, is a distant relation of Mr. Sidhu, but really has dropped off the radar. So what are the obligations on employers as well? That we’re employing international students, 21-year-olds, 22-year-olds, 23-year-olds with limited work experience, let’s say in Canada. And the regulatory regime across Canada, which varies by province. So Mr. Sidhu case is also a microcosm, but at the same time it speaks to larger public policy considerations.
Cathryn :
Absolutely. I also think it highlights… I mean, if he was a temporary worker, there would be a full-force investigation into this employer. They would be looking at the employer to say, were you compliant? Did you provide proper training for this individual? And might I note, we have a shortage of truck drivers in Canada. There’s a serious need for truck drivers in Canada. So, what are they doing to set these people up for success? Is it just a driver’s license? But if they follow the the Ministry guidelines, as you said, with 50 hours in one province and 100 in another or 25 in another province, and then they’re good to go? Is that enough? I don’t know.
Raj Sharma:
Yeah, certainly Mr. Sidhu, was he set up to fail necessarily? Very, very inexperienced, on the job for a few weeks. Sympathy naturally arises, that of course counterbalances with the fact that we have 16 dead individuals and 13 more injured.
Cathryn :
Yeah. And he ran a stop sign. At the end of the day, he knew or ought to have known, there’s a stop sign.
Raj Sharma:
Right. And that being said, I’ve represented individuals that were driving drunk much, much beyond any level, and that… Permanent residents of Canada t-bone taxi drivers, killed two, a taxi driver and his passenger. And again, same situation as Mr. Sidhu, in that situation, less media exposure. And an officer exercised their discretion not to enforce removal, in that case to Mexico.
Raj Sharma:
So this is going to be a very interesting case, which is how does Mr. Sidhu’s remorse, apparent non-risk, apparent forgiveness by some family members, how will that play a part? And of course the media coverage. How will that impact on the discretion that will be exercised in this case?
Raj Sharma:
I don’t envy that CBSA officer. That CBSA officer, this is probably one of the more significant decisions that that officer has made. But again, our officers make, and perhaps the layman, layperson is not aware of this, but we exercise discretion. We allow criminals into Canada all the time. Whether it’s Conrad Black, with a fraud conviction that resulted in five-plus years sentence in the United States. We’re granting him a temporary resident permit to come to Canada. Whether it’s stars, media stars, singers, what have you, with significant criminal records in the United States, we allow individuals entry to Canada not withstanding prior interactions with the criminal justice [inaudible 00:23:51].
Chantal:
So speaking about Mr. Sidhu’s case, we have a lot of practitioners listening to us today. What kind of evidence would you put forward or include in this kind of appeal mechanism towards the CBSA officer, when asking for that discretion?
Raj Sharma:
Mr. Sidhu is represented by Michael Green QC here in Calgary, a very experienced immigration lawyer. Mr. Green is going to put forward his best possible case. That best possible case, just no matter what, is going to indicate Mr. Sidhu’s establishment in Canada. Mr. Sidhu entered Canada legally, Mr. Sidhu obtained permanent residency under an economic class. Mr. Sidhu did everything right. He’s married. His wife is obviously building her life in Canada as well.
Raj Sharma:
And so you’re going to look at that establishment in Canada. You’re going to look at those ties to community in Canada. His journey to Canada, for example. So he did everything right. You’re going to explain the circumstances leading to that request as to, don’t write the report. Well, it was one mistake in a young man’s life. Now that one mistake had horrific consequences. So you’re going to put forward those circumstances.
Raj Sharma:
So what I would do probably, is we would put in those sentencing transcripts. We are going to grab that criminal record, whether there’s a pre-sentence report, what have you. We’re going to grab all of that information, including the pros and the cons, the warts and all. The families that have not forgiven him and the families that have. We’re going to grab these news articles, including the Maclean’s article and the National Post article. We’re going to discuss, in terms of hardship, if he goes back to India. So this is a life interrupted. Him and his wife started a life in Canada, studied in Canada, graduated successfully in Canada. And all of a sudden they might have to start all over again in India. So we’re going to discuss that hardship. We’re going to discuss the remorse and the insight that Mr. Sidhu has displayed obviously. The fact that he’s no longer a risk. There’s going to [submission 00:26:19] [eloquent 00:26:19]. This is our task. [inaudible 00:26:21].
Raj Sharma:
This calls for us to bring forth the highest level of advocacy that we can bring to the table. Which is, okay, well, this is what’s happened. Almost like a mini-humanitarian and compassion application. But again, all of the jurisprudence, all of the concepts of rehabilitation, recidivism. All of the concepts surrounding remorse, all of these sort of, these concepts that underlie our Judeo-Christian heritage, which is that while punishment, of course, for criminal acts is part and parcel of our worldview, but forgiveness is also part and parcel of that. And so who deserves forgiveness? And how do we determine who is deserving of this discretion or the grant of discretion?
Raj Sharma:
And so it is very much, and of course, both of you have done this. It is very much a deep dive into the life of this individual. And you’re going to inhabit this person’s life. And you’re going to look through their eyes and through their position in life and explain everything to that officer. And you’re going to put everything in front of that officer. In terms of Mr. Sidhu, there’s many, many positive considerations for the grant of discretion here. Always counterbalance with the fact that we have 16 dead, innocent young men. And of course the coach and the driver. And of course the impact on so many different [inaudible 00:28:10]. So it’s going to be heartfelt. There’s going to be passion. At the same time there’s going to be advocacy. There’s going to be logic. There’s going to be lines on jurisprudence and an appeal to that discretion of that officer.
Cathryn :
I think also making sure that when the lawyer advocates, they do so in a plain language and very clearly, concisely. In a compelling, emotional way. I mean, we can’t get away. This situation had catastrophic consequences. We all know that. So I think really the job of Michael Green is to make sure, and as we know, he’s phenomenal at what he does. So Mr. Sidhu has one of the best of the best. But making sure that it’s written in such a way that they can see those things that you just laid out. Making sure that the officer… I find that’s the talent in inadmissibility, is separating that emotional piece, somewhat for yourself, adding it into your submissions where needed, but focusing on the law and proving the points that you need to prove to make sure that when that CBSA officer does that wing, they can say, spouse in Canada, life in Canada, criminal-free up until this particular point, both in the previous country and the current country. Employed.
Chantal:
It’s as close to a 0% chance of recidivism that you could possibly get.
Cathryn :
Exactly. And I agree with you. I think that a lot of this is double jeopardy, right? Like when is enough enough? If I’ve served my criminal sentence because society has said eight years is now the penalty, after that eight years plus however many years of probation, am I done then? When’s enough enough?
Chantal:
Well, I would also point out, for those who may be listening who have not been in the field very long, that there used to be a full right of appeal for permanent residents. Like pretty much everyone with a criminal record would be able to have a right of appeal where those discretionary factors would be fully litigated. And that was changed in the law some time ago to become pretty strict. I mean, it’s almost like a one strike, you’re out policy, absent the discretion in the section 44 report.
Cathryn :
Exactly.
Raj Sharma:
Yeah, absolutely. So prior to IRPA, you had the ability for a permanent resident to challenge almost any ground of [inaudible 00:30:56] or criminal inadmissibility. IRPA brought in that two years, less a day, threshold. We had the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, or the… Sorry, the euphemistically entitled Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act brought in some years ago, which brought in this six month, less than six months, sort of threshold. And it was a threshold that didn’t take into account the nature of the crime itself. It was strictly based on the sentence imposed.
Cathryn :
And it’s interesting, because I know we’re specifically talking about section 36. But organized criminality as well is very broad. I had a client who came to Canada at the age of three. It was, that client got PR, never got citizenship. Literally had a tattoo of a particular biker gang on their shoulder. And out they go 40 years later. No criminal history at all. Nothing. But because of that tattoo, Immigration said, we think you fall within the scope of organized criminality. And I mean, that’s quite shocking to me.
Raj Sharma:
Section 37 is going to be a favorite, I think, of CBSA for a long time because Section 37 removes whatever fetters one has under section 36.
Cathryn :
Exactly.
Raj Sharma:
We simply don’t have that in 37. So membership is broadly defined, organization is somewhat broadly defined. You don’t need a conviction. And…
Cathryn :
And isn’t that scary? Isn’t that a little scary?
Chantal:
You don’t even need to show an actual crime. You just have to show an involvement with the organization.
Raj Sharma:
Right. So we have, of course, and we’ve dealt with this case in this office as well, which the Sunny Wang case… Sunny Wang of course, the sort of mastermind behind this immigration fraud gets conviction and sentence in Canada and is not facing deportation. But his secretaries, his assistants who are permanent residents are facing removal under 37 of the act with no conviction. No charges, no conviction. So, a definite uphill battle.
Raj Sharma:
And one of the things that I’m most proud of, of this book with Aris, is that we’ve given a very, very fulsome treatment of 37, which I believe is going to play a larger and larger role. Because 37 frees these CBSA officers, enforcement officers, from the confines of that criminal code. We don’t need that intersection, vis-a-vis a conviction under the criminal code of Canada. What we need is some allegation. And we need some sort of action or participation in some sort of broader organization of three or more individuals. So 37 is going to be heavily litigated. And again, our office dealt with that, my partner [inaudible 00:34:06] dealt with that recently, Lopez [Gaetan 00:34:10], that case went to the Federal Court of Appeal. That was on the issue of duress. But it’s a very exciting area of law. There’s always, there’s going to be… Immigration in general changes almost day by day. Inadmissibility law, again, very, very interesting. And the jurisprudence is changing on a regular basis.
Cathryn :
I think it also tests your research skills, of looking at other pieces of law, trying to get a little more creative.
Raj Sharma:
Foreign law.
Cathryn :
Oh, foreign law.
Raj Sharma:
You’re going to be tasked with meeting the PRC, People’s Republic of China, law on fraud, and trying to see how they’re making it equivalent to fraud in Canada when fraud in China… And literally their words are, especially large amounts, could result in the death penalty. So again, but a very challenging as well, because the jurisprudence is usually against it. If we look at misrepresentation, if we look at… We don’t get a lot of wiggle room in terms of either the statute or the jurisprudence that emanated from that statute.
Cathryn :
So if you could give our listeners any helpful hints with respect to inadmissibility, what would it be?
Raj Sharma:
Buy the book.
Cathryn :
We love it. We love it. Great advice. What would be your second piece of advice, Raj? Besides, buy the book?
Chantal:
You almost made me spit out my wine.
Cathryn :
If she was drinking wine, of course.
Chantal:
Yeah. Allegedly.
Cathryn :
Allegedly.
Raj Sharma:
I think that, again, going back to those ancient Greeks is that the first step is to know yourself. If you’re interested in that area of law, that intersection of criminal law and immigration law, then we can develop down this path. So, I argue with the Federal Department of Justice and my partner, law partner Bjorn was with a leading criminal law firm in Edmonton. So if you’re interested in this sort of complex area of law, then you can develop this. But again, I think this is where again, relying on [inaudible 00:36:29]’s website is simply not going to be enough to practice in this area of immigration.
Raj Sharma:
This is the area of law where you will reach out to the leading lights of the bar, and we all know who they are. So you’re going to reach out to these leading lights. You’re going to do your research, as Cathryn said. You’re going to have some sort of grounding in criminal law anyway, probably, or a deep interest in criminal law so that you can bring those same concepts, that pure law, that criminal lawyers bring. You’re going to bring that same insight and passion into here.
Raj Sharma:
You are going to question everything. This is not an area where, well, an officer says it’s so, therefore it must be the case. Here, you’re going to question everything, you’re going to… Is this evidence? Is this an inference? Is this speculation? Is this, whatever. So you really, first of all, figure out whether you’ve got this aptitude or this grounding and this interest and desire. If you do, then you’re going to have to develop this almost adversarial nature against Immigration, because you’re going to question everything. You’re going to challenge everything. You’re going to, like Cathryn said, you’re going to have good research skills. You’re going to have a firm grounding in that jurisprudence.
Raj Sharma:
You’re going to have to have a desire to have [reported 00:37:58] decisions. You’re going to have to get into that fray, enter that forum and duke it out with DOJ, Fed DOJ in terms of federal court or other, or the Immigration Refugee Board. And so you have to have a very, very solid litigation grounding, or a desire to become a litigator.
Raj Sharma:
And really, in the UK there’s a difference between solicitors and barristers. And truly, there’s a difference in the immigration bar as well. Either you’re going to be a solicitor and you’re going to get those applications in, or you’re going to be a litigator. And very few individuals have a huge overlap. If you do, if you’re not in that world, you identify an issue early on, refer that out. Unless you want to flirt with allegations of incompetence or conduct in breach of professional requirements or ethics. Refer that out, get specialists on board. Get criminal defense lawyers on board. Get appellate, criminal appellate lawyers on board. Get immigration litigators on board. So that would be my advice, I suppose.
Chantal:
Well, and it’s excellent advice. And nobody does this better than you, by the way. You are, when you talk about leading lights, you are definitely one of them. So we just really want to thank you for your time today. You spent a lot of with us. We know you’re really busy doing a lot of different things, and we just appreciate it so much. And I know our audience will get a lot out of your tips.
Raj Sharma:
Chantal, Cathryn, always a pleasure. And I hope to see you soon.
Cathryn :
Get working on the second edition, Raj.
Raj Sharma:
Please, I’m still recovering. I’m still in recovery.
Cathryn :
Get on it, on it.
Chantal:
Thank you.
Cathryn :
Thanks Raj.