Skip to content
Accidents — general-news — War-and-conflicts — Car-accidents — Justice — Migration — Crime-and-justice — Politics

Discussion on U.S. Asylum Seeker Agreement Heads to Federal Court

Groups Questioning Ottawa's Control Over the Agreement Faceoff

,   and  ASMedia
3 min read
Opposing Groups Challenge Ottawa's Monitoring of the Agreement in Capital City
Opposing Groups Challenge Ottawa's Monitoring of the Agreement in Capital City

Discussion on U.S. Asylum Seeker Agreement Heads to Federal Court

The Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States is at the centre of a legal challenge in Ottawa, with two organizations claiming the Canadian government is not examining adequately the U.S.'s treatment of asylum seekers as stipulated by the agreement.

The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) have argued that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in the process used by the Canadian government to determine whether the U.S. remains a "safe" country for migrants seeking protection. According to the legal filing, this is a "legal black hole" as no information regarding the examinations and their outcomes has been made public since 2009.

The Safe Third Country Agreement presumes that both Canada and the U.S. are safe countries for asylum seekers, and that claims should be processed in the first safe country they reach. The concerns raised by the two organizations revolve around the U.S.'s treatment of asylum seekers, which can vary significantly from Canada's more open approach to asylum claims. Critics argue that the U.S. process can have delays, backlogs, and lack fairness, while Canada allows most asylum seekers to apply for immediate permanent residency and benefits such as healthcare.

Furthermore, researchers and advocates have documented instances of the U.S. expelling third-country nationals without proper screening or deportation processes, potentially compromising the rights and safety of asylum seekers. These concerns impact the Canadian government's ability to assess the legitimacy and urgency of claims from asylum seekers entering the country from the U.S.

The Canadian government argues that it is fulfilling its legal obligations to "monitor" the U.S. and its treatment of asylum seekers, but no such examination has been made public since 2009, despite the agreement being in place since 2004 and expanded last March to "close" the notorious Roxham Road.

The legal challenge aims to force the government to detail the process and evidence used in its evaluations, a move that would contribute to increased transparency and accountability in the handling of asylum claims from the U.S. The organizations also argue that the lack of transparency raises questions about whether Ottawa is complying with its legal obligations towards asylum seekers.

This case extends beyond individual claims and could have far-reaching implications for the broader issue of the role of executive power and the need for public justification of decisions impacting individual rights. Lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represents SALCO, notes that it's important to ensure that the Canadian cabinet is accountable, bound by the law, and transparent in its decision-making process.

Immigrant rights and asylum seeker advocacy groups have routinely voiced concerns about the Safe Third Country Agreement being used to restrict access to asylum in Canada for people who may have not received proper protection in the U.S. The ongoing legal challenge presents an opportunity for court scrutiny over the government's evaluations and decisions regarding asylum seekers entering Canada from the U.S.

  1. The legal challenge instigated by the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario (SALCO) and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL) calls for increased transparency and accountability in the evaluation process of U.S. treatment of asylum seekers, as stipulated by the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the U.S.
  2. Researchers and advocates have compiled instances of the U.S. expelling third-country nationals without proper screening or deportation processes, potentially compromising the rights and safety of asylum seekers, impacting the Canadian government's ability to assess the legitimacy and urgency of claims from asylum seekers entering Canada from the U.S.
  3. This legal battle, revolving around the Safe Third Country Agreement, extends beyond individual claims and could have extensive implications for the broader issue of the role of executive power and the need for public justification of decisions impacting individual rights and also the need for transparency and accountability in policy-and-legislation related to migration.
  4. Lawyer Sujit Choudhry, who represents SALCO, argues that it's crucial for the Canadian cabinet to be accountable, bounded by the law, and transparent in its decision-making process, especially in matters of justice, crime-and-justice, and general-news, such as those concerning car-accidents, politics, and the treatment of asylum seekers.

Read also:

Related

Latest