Safe Third Country Agreement Federal Court

By accepting the government`s request, the court maintains the status quo at the border, meaning asylum seekers will continue to be returned to the United States. The Canadian Council for Refugees strongly opposes the agreement because the United States is not a safe country for all refugees. The CCR also condemns the objective and impact of reducing the number of refugees who may seek refuge in Canada. The federal government said the removal of the agreement would lead to an increase in the number of refugee claimants, but the Federal Court did not agree, saying the current refugee system could address the issue. The Federal Court suspended his declaration of nullity for a period of six months from 22 July, the date of the decision, in order to give Parliament sufficient time to respond. In an attempt to end this « forum shopping », asylum seekers usually have to apply for asylum in the first « safe » country they enter under the CASS and its Canadian law. Pursuant to section 159.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the United States is considered a « safe » country within the meaning of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). [5] But the increase in refugee applications occurred while the agreement on safe third countries was in force. Since the agreement allows the government to refuse asylum seekers who attempt to enter official ports of entry into the country, potential refugees who do not respect certain exceptions under the agreement, such as. B a family member living in Canada must find other ways to cross the border if they wish to make a refugee claim in Canada. Lawyers for refugees who had been turned back at the Canadian border challenged the pact, saying the United States was not a « safe » country under President Donald Trump. Nedira Jemal Mustefa, among the returnees on who were complained of, described her solitary confinement in the United States as « a terrifying, isolating and psychologically traumatic experience, » according to the court`s decision. « While the court gave Parliament six months to correct the law, the government squandered this opportunity in favor of an appeal, » Justin Mohammed, a human rights lawyer and political activist at Amnesty International Canada, said in the press release.

The July ruling was set to take effect in January 2021, but it will now be suspended pending a final decision on a federal government`s appeal. Persons reported for a serious criminal past are prohibited from seeking refugee protection, regardless of how they enter the country. . . .