OTTAWA — The Supreme Court declined Thursday to hear the case of a refugee hoping to compel the federal government to grant him citizenship in a case that has also raised broader questions about Canada's asylum system.
The court was being asked to consider a specific issue related to whether or not the federal immigration minister ought to be able to suspend someone's application for citizenship if their permanent residency status is in doubt.
But B.C. resident Nisreen Nilam had hoped to prompt a review of one element of sweeping changes made to the asylum system in 2012 that advocates have long considered unfair: the implications of what happens when a refugee loses their refugee status.
Nilam received asylum in Canada from Sri Lanka in 2009, and became a permanent resident in 2011. While it's always been possible for refugees to have their status revoked, it never used to impact their permanent residency.
That changed in 2012 when the Conservative government of the time, seeking to crack down on so-called bogus refugee claims, added the power to cancel permanent residency when revoking someone's refugee status, a process known as cessation.
That decision assumed wrongly that the only reason to remove someone's refugee status if they committed fraud in their original application, advocates argued.
In other words, just because someone appears to no longer need protection from their home country, that doesn't mean they did not properly qualify for permanent residency in Canada at the time they received it.
Nilam became caught up in the new laws after he made two lengthy trips back to Sri Lanka between 2011 and 2013. The immigration minister tried to remove his refugee status, but was initially thwarted by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
In the meantime, Nilam applied for Canadian citizenship. That's how the matter nearly ended up before the Supreme Court: since his permanent residency status was under review, the minister halted his citizenship application. Nilam sued, arguing that he met all the criteria for citizenship and that cessation proceedings ought not interfere.
A lower court sided with him, but the Federal Court of Appeal overturned that decision and sided instead with the government.
As usual, the Supreme Court gave no reason for its decision to deny leave to appeal.
Douglas Cannon, Nilam's lawyer, sought to frame the case as one that would allow the Supreme Court to consider the legality of the entire cessation process, given the fact that last year, there were more than 290 people in a similar situation.
It undermines "a central principle of Canadian immigration law," Cannon argued in his brief to the high court.
"Refugees who become permanent residents (and indeed all permanent residents) are encouraged to integrate, to raise families, and to make Canada their settled home — subject only to their good behaviour (that is, non-criminal behaviour) and residency requirements."
