Canadians will have a new way to identify their sex on passports and other government documents: “X” will join the options of male and female.

The decision to allow the third category, indicating an “unspecified” sex, is intended to protect the rights of Canadians to identify by the gender of their choice, the country’s immigration department said in announcing the change. Ahmed Hussen, the minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, said in a statement that the designation was added to advance “equality for all Canadians regardless of gender identity or expression.”

The move is part of a broader push to embrace nontraditional forms of gender expression. In November, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed a special adviser to coordinate government efforts to promote equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. A law passed in June amended the Human Rights Act to include nondiscrimination protections for gender identity and gender expression.

Canada is not alone. At least eight other countries offer a third option on passports or national identification cards, according to Lambda Legal, a nonprofit that promotes the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people. Those countries are: Australia, Bangladesh, Germany, India, Malta, Nepal, New Zealand and Pakistan. The group is suing the United States State Department on behalf of a client who identifies as neither male nor female and is therefore unable to accurately complete a passport application.

Last year, a judge in Oregon granted a petition allowing Jamie Shupe of Portland, a retired Army sergeant, to identify as neither sex and instead be classified as nonbinary. At the time, experts described the ruling as groundbreaking. In June, Washington, D.C., added a gender-neutral identifier to drivers’ licenses and identification cards, and in July, Oregon began allowing residents to mark their sex on driver’s licenses as “not specified.”

 

Source: nytimes.com

IPSA International Services, Inc., a US-based risk management firm, has been fined $259,200 by OFAC for violating US sanctions on Iran.  The violations, worth $290,784, are said to have occurred when IPSA assisted two countries with their citizenship by investment programmes.  Some of the applicants to the programmes were Iranian nationals and, because most of the information about them could not be checked or verified from outside of Iran, IPSA and its subsidiaries engaged subcontractors, who in turn hired third parties, to validate their information.  As a result, OFAC found that IPSA had directly imported Iranian-origin services into the United States, or done so indirectly by reviewing, approving, and initiating payments to the providers of the Iranian origin services by its foreign subsidiaries.

The base penalty amount was $720,000 and the maximum penalty available was $18,000,000.  In aggravation, OFAC found that IPSA had not voluntarily disclosed the violations, that at least one of its senior management knew or had reason to know of the violations, and that the underlying conduct was not eligible for OFAC authorisation under an existing licence. In mitigation, OFAC said that IPSA had substantially cooperated with its investigation and taken significant remedial measures to prevent further violations from occurring in the future. (source: europeansanctions.com)

For more information on this action, please visit

 

 

In response, Michael Beber, President & CEO,Exiger LLC, posted the following note to several of their clients which provided further context regarding the recent OFAC settlement and their relative view and role:

‘By way of background, Exiger was formed in July 2013 to monitor, on behalf of the U.S. and UK governments, the worldwide sanctions and anti-money laundering (AML) compliance programs of HSBC.  Since its founding, Exiger has gone on to be retained by and work with dozens of financial services companies, including many other global banks in the U.S., Europe, and Asia, to conduct KYC due diligence and improve sanctions and AML compliance programs.  Exiger is also working closely with regional banks in smaller countries to improve their overall compliance so that they can continue their correspondent banking relationships and avoid de-risking.

Exiger is, in a real sense, an integrity company, trusted by governments and banks around the world to improve due diligence and compliance processes. We now bring that expertise to the CBI market.

As you know, OFAC recently announced a settlement with the U.S. company that sold IPSA Canada to Exiger—IPSA International Services, Inc. (IPSA Parent)—regarding transactions dating back to 2012 that involved obtaining due diligence information within Iran.  The principal finding OFAC made was that performing due diligence services within Iran—by a U.S. company, as had been historically done by due diligence companies working for CBI programs—constituted an apparent technical violation of U.S. regulations.  And importantly, the technical violation of the OFAC regulations was IPSA Parent’s alone because it is a U.S. company; neither IPSA Canada (bought by Exiger in 2017, years after the facts at issue) nor any of its clients, were or are in any way exposed to liability.  Nothing about the OFAC settlement or the underlying facts implicated in any way the quality of the due diligence services that IPSA had conducted.  As part of its fresh look at the CBI industry, from both quality and compliance perspectives, Exiger has made the decision that we will not perform any work in Iran and, of course, will continue to conduct all other due diligence work around the world in strict conformity with appropriate sanction regulations.

Exiger was attracted to the CBI industry because of the opportunity to combine our well-earned reputation for compliance expertise and integrity with the best and most experienced professionals in the industry; the best processes and the best, purpose-built, due diligence technology, all of which allows Exiger to provide client solutions far superior to competing due diligence firms.

With Exiger in this market, CBI programs can have greater confidence than ever before that its due diligence company, Exiger, understands the unique issues of this industry reputationally and will only lead the industry in a direction of quality, compliance and integrity. This provides an excellent opportunity for our clients to assure themselves and their countrymen that CBI due diligence will not only be performed at a best-in-class level, but will operate in an environment that will stand up to the scrutiny of observers around the world.

We entered this business to help our clients to make the CBI due diligence industry far better and more compliant. We look forward to continuing to work with the industry to make that a reality.’

What Price Would you Put on a Passport?

Fiddling distractedly with her headscarf and in words little louder than a whisper, Amar Al-Sadi tells me Malta has saved her from a life of bombs, rubble and deadly disease.

Read full story

 

Source: bbc.com

The Home Office has today published the second report on the data collected on travellers departing and arriving in the UK as part of the exit checks programme.

As part of legislation introduced through the Immigration Act 2014, carriers and port operators in the aviation, maritime and international rail industries were given the power to carry out embarkation checks. Since 8 April 2015 departure data has been collected on all scheduled commercial services departing the UK from air and sea ports and from international rail stations except those services not within the scope of the exit checks programme.

The analysis in the report focuses on individuals who had both valid leave and were identified as having entered the UK after April 2015, when the exit checks programme was introduced.

Brandon Lewis, Immigration Minister, said:

The Home Office introduced exit checks in 2015 to provide more comprehensive information on travel movements across the UK border.

This information has already been invaluable to the police and security services who have used it to help track known criminals and terrorists, supporting wider work taking place across government and law enforcement.

The report found that among the 1.34 million visas granted to non-EEA nationals which expired in 2016/17, 96.3 per cent departed in time.

Brandon Lewis said:

Today’s report also gives us a more comprehensive picture of the compliance of visa holders, clearly showing that the vast majority of people are following immigration rules and that the action we’re taking to clamp down on illegal immigration is working.

Exit checks is a long-term programme and the data collected will continue to be assessed and analysed to ensure that they become more robust and extensive over time.

 

Source: gov.uk

According to new statistics, net migration in the UK has fallen to the lowest level in three years.

Migration has fallen by a quarter to 246,000 in a year as EU citizens are leaving Britain ahead of Brexit. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has also found that the number of people who are arriving to live in the UK is 81,000 less than last year.

“We have seen a fall in net migration driven by an increase in emigration, mainly for EU citizens and in particular EU8 citizens, and a decrease in immigration across all groups,” said Nicola White, the head of international migration statistics at the ONS.

“International migration for work remains the most common reason for migration with people becoming increasingly likely to move to the UK or overseas only with a definite job than to move looking for work.

“These results are similar to 2016 estimates and indicate that the EU referendum result may be influencing people’s decision to migrate into and out of the UK, particularly EU and EU8 citizens. It is too early to tell if this is an indication of a long-term trend.”

The figures found that there was a particularly sharp rise of citizens from the EU8 countries – Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia – leaving the UK.

“No one should celebrate these numbers,” said a spokesman for the Institute of Directors.

“Given unemployment is currently at its lowest level ever (4.5 percent), without the three million EU citizens living here the UK would have an acute labour shortage.

“Signs that it is becoming a less attractive place to live and work are a concern,” he added.

16,211 people were granted asylum, resettlement or other protection in 12 months to June.

The government hopes to reduce net migration to below 100,000.

“The fall in net migration figures will be a relief for the Government,” said Tijen Ahmet, legal director and immigration law specialist at Shakespeare Martineau.

“With employment being the main driver for EU workers coming to the UK, the lack of commitment from the government to secure the rights of EU citizens could be causing them to think twice about coming at the present time.

“In the case of non-EU nationals, the introduction of the skills levy in April 2017 has meant businesses are more reluctant to sponsor skilled workers from outside of the UK/EU given the significant costs involved – £1,000 per year. This drop-off is particularly evident in the hospitality sector, where profit margins are particularly tight. If this levy is extended to EU nationals post-Brexit, this could have a devastating impact on the sector; leading to a spike in business failures.”

 

Source: theinvestmentobserver.co.uk

Geneva, 17 August 2017

 

The Investment Migration Council (IMC), the worldwide association for Investor Migration and Citizenship-by-Investment, has today announced the appointment of additional members to serve on its Governing Board and Advisory Committee.

The new appointees include:

• Nadine Goldfoot, Partner, Fragomen LLP, UK (Governing Board)
• Ronald Klasko, Managing Partner, Klasko Immigration Law Partners, USA (Governing Board)
• Alexander Varnavas, Attorney-at-Law, Varnavas Law Firm, Greece (Advisory Committee)
• Inigo Lecanda Crooke, Attorney-at-Law, Lecanda Immigration & Nationality Law, Spain (Advisory Committee)
• Michael Frendo, Managing Director, Frendo Advisory, Malta (Advisory Committee)
• Edward Beshara, Founder & Managing Partner, Beshara Global Migration Law Firm, USA (Advisory Committee)

In welcoming the new members, Bruno L’ecuyer, IMC Chief Executive, commented “The IMC continues to focus on setting the global standard for the industry and as a result, has attracted the most respected industry experts to provide un-paralleled guidance.”  He goes on to say “These key additions will further strengthen the organisation’s mission to establish the highest international best practice levels of professionalism in relation to Residency and Citizenship-by-Investment worldwide.”

IMC Chairman Prof Dr Dimitry Kochenov commented: “The IMC has already firmly established itself as the go-to organisation for Governments, Academia and Professionals who seek un-biased information and services. Trust and reliability are essential ingredients the IMC adheres to, which is why the Board and Committee continue to include additional distinguished individuals from the global investment migration field.”

Newly appointed Governing Board member, Nadine Goldfoot, commented that it was natural for the Council to strengthen its structure by appointing a broader group of individuals, even better reflecting the Councils’ membership base which has grown significantly in the last three years particularly, in the USA, Caribbean and Asia.

New Zealand’s government has confirmed that Australia’s deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, is a dual citizen.

Dual citizens are not allowed to run for public office under Australia’s constitution.

Mr Joyce revealed earlier that he may have New Zealand citizenship by descent, but said he will take his case to the nation’s High Court.

PM Malcolm Turnbull’s government risks losing its grip on power if Mr Joyce is ruled ineligible.

The office of New Zealand Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne confirmed to Australian media that under New Zealand law, a child born to a New Zealand national is automatically given citizenship.

However, Mr Joyce told parliament he received legal advice that he is not in breach of rules. He will remain as deputy PM in the meantime.

• How a dual citizen crisis befell Australia

Mr Joyce is the latest of several Australian politicians to be caught up in dual citizenship scandals.

Two senators, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, were forced to resign last month over their citizenship status. Another two senators, Matt Canavan and Malcolm Roberts, will also have their eligibility decided by the High Court.

Who is Mr Joyce?

He is the leader of the National Party, the junior partner in Mr Turnbull’s conservative coalition.

Mr Joyce entered the Senate in 2005, where he served for eight years, before moving to the lower House of Representatives in 2013.

Known for his straight-talking comments, Mr Joyce gained international attention by clamping down on Johnny Depp’s dogs and rebuking critics of Australia Day.

What is his citizenship defence?

Speaking in parliament, Mr Joyce said he was contacted by the New Zealand High Commission last week and informed he could be a citizen by descent.

“Needless to say, I was shocked about this,” he said on Monday.

“Neither I, nor my parents have ever had any reason to believe I may be a citizen of another country.”

Mr Joyce’s father was born in New Zealand and moved to Australia in 1947. The politician was born in the New South Wales town of Tamworth in 1967.

He said: “Neither my parents nor I have ever applied to register me as a New Zealand citizen. The New Zealand government has no register recognising me as a New Zealand citizen.”

Mr Joyce said he had been advised by Australia’s solicitor-general that he was not in breach of the constitution.

What does the constitution say on this issue?

The Section 44 (Disqualification) states that any person who “is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power… shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives”.

This is interpreted as meaning that people with dual citizenship are not permitted to run for office.

However, experts have said there is uncertainty surrounding the rules, particularly on the issue of citizenship by descent.

What happens if Mr Joyce is ruled ineligible?

Currently, Mr Turnbull’s government has only a slim one-seat majority in the House of Representatives.

If Mr Joyce were to be ruled ineligible, it would force a by-election, and the government’s hold on power would be at risk.

However, Mr Turnbull could retain government with the support of independent MPs and minor parties.

Treasurer Scott Morrison, a senior government minister, said it was important not to “leap to conclusions”.

What was Mr Turnbull’s reaction?

Mr Turnbull responding by writing an open letter to Opposition Leader Bill Shorten asking for help in resolving the dual citizenship saga.

He said it was time for the High Court to clarify the precise meaning of Section 44.

“With around half of all Australians having a foreign-born parent and with many foreign nations having citizenship laws which confer citizenship by descent, regardless of place of birth, the potential for many, possibly millions of Australians unknowingly having dual citizenship is considerable,” he wrote in the letter.

“The Australian people must have confidence in our political system and resolving any uncertainty is vital.”

 

Source: bbc.com

Malta has ranked ninth in an analysis of citizenship by investment programmes conducted by an international research group of 12 countries, with the country among the top three for due diligence procedures.

Cyprus and Malta also emerged as two of the most popular jurisdictions for EU and non-EU nationals in the Citizenship by Investment Index, published by Financial Timesgroup’s Professional Wealth Management.

The index rated the 12 countries according to seven indicators: freedom of movement, standard of living, minimum investment outlay, mandatory travel or residence, ease of processing, citizenship timeline, and due diligence.

Malta, together with Austria, attained the highest scores in freedom of movement and standard of living, as well as achieved the highest score, together with Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis, for due diligence – although
the report noted the corruption claims about proceeds from Malta’s programme.

Having received a commendable score for ease of processing, Malta was, however, among the lowest-scoring nations for all other pillars, ending up in 9th place out of the 12 countries.

Cost differentials between the countries were also described as large: “Among those jurisdictions carrying out the most intense due diligence, Malta, offering the lure of EU membership for wealthy investors, requires a particularly high €1.2m ($1.35m) outlay, compared to $250,000 in St Kitts and Nevis and $100,000 for Dominica,” the report said.

The Caribbean jurisdictions ranked in the CBI Index’s top five positions, with Dominica – home to one of the longest-running citizenship by investment programmes, and known for its speedy procedures and affordable entry thresholds – attaining the highest ranking. The world’s earliest CBI programme was launched in 1984 by Saint Kitts and Nevis, a Caribbean island-state.

CBI is attracting investment from families – with Russian, Chinese and Middle-Eastern business people some of the most likely applicants. Around 60 per cent of all applicants for a Maltese passport come from Russia, according to the research.

 

 

Source: timesofmalta.com

Cyprus ranks 7th out of 12 countries studied in an analysis of citizenship-by-investment programmes by the Financial Times group’s Professional Wealth Management, ahead of Malta, Bulgaria and Austria, the other European Union member states on the list, Cyprus Mail reported.

The research group ranked Dominica as the top jurisdiction in scope of the study, scoring an overall 90 per cent, with St Kitts and Nevis trailing with 88.

Third, with 85 per cent, was Grenada, with Antigua and Barbuda (78), Saint Lucia (76), and Vanuatu (76), following in the next three spots.

Cyprus scored 67 per cent overall, Comoros 66 and Malta 64 per cent.

Bulgaria, Austria and Cambodia ranked last, with 61, 54, and 53 per cent, respectively.

The rankings were devised as the aggregate of seven indicators: freedom of movement, standard of living, minimum investment outlay, mandatory travel or residence, ease of processing, citizenship timeline, and due diligence.

On freedom of movement, Cyprus scored 9 out of 10, with only Austria and Malta getting top marks.

“Benefits for acquiring citizenship in Cyprus includes freedom of movement and residence in any other European Union member state, although it does not occasion membership of the Schengen Area,” the report said of the island’s naturalisation by exception scheme.

“Citizens may avail themselves of visa-free travel to around 160 countries.

In terms of standard of living, the island scored 8, again with Austria and Malta scoring highest, 9.

Cyprus’ was second-to-last in minimum capital outlays – the capital that needs to be tied up for citizenship – with 2 out of 10, with only Austria scoring worse (1) and Comoros, Dominica and Saint Lucia getting a perfect 10.

“In its original form, [Cyprus’ scheme] required a ?15m investment – an exorbitant price that discouraged applicant participation,” the researchers said.

“The current scheme was unveiled in 2014, and last amended in late 2016 by the nation’s Council of Ministers. All applicants for citizenship must purchase real estate valued at ?500,000, and declare that real estate as their permanent residence. They then have a choice of three options in which they must invest ?2m.”

In mandatory travel or residence, Cyprus scored a respectable 7, while the Caribbean nations – Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia and Saint Kitts and Nevis – scored 10.

 

Source: focus-fen.net

The federal government has once again stripped Helmut Oberlander of his Canadian citizenship for serving in a Nazi death squad and lying about it to enter Canada.

Oberlander, 93, was an interpreter for the Nazis and served in Einsatzkommando 10a, a group of mobile death squads that participated in the systematic extermination of Jews in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Oberlander has denied taking part in any executions.

It’s the fourth time Ottawa has taken this step after Oberlander defeated government efforts in court three times to restore his citizenship.

“We are determined to deny safe haven in Canada to war criminals and persons believed to have committed or been complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide,” Pierre Deveau, spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, said in a statement.

Service in notorious death squad

Efraim Zuroff, the chief Nazi-hunter of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the director of its Israel Office, said he was very pleased with the decision by the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to revoke Oberlander’s citizenship.

“I only regret that he has been able in three previous times to have that decision overturned,” Zuroff said in a phone interview with Radio Canada International.

Einsatzkommando 10a, one of the most notorious death squads which operated in Nazi-occupied southern Ukraine during WWII, was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews who were murdered simply because they were categorized as enemies of the Reich, Zuroff said.

“Obviously a man like Oberlander, who started his service at a young age, wasn’t an officer, is not as guilty as the people who planned the ‘Final Solution,’ that was the Nazis’ plan to destroy the Jewish people throughout the world, nor is he as guilty as the officers in that unit,” Zuroff said. “But international law, throughout its inception always rejected the ‘superior orders defence’ and recognized individual criminal responsibility.”

Oberlander, who was born in a Mennonite community in southern Ukraine, has said he was forced into service and he never subscribed to Nazi ideology.

The fact that he served in the notorious SS Einsatzgruppen unit alone should be enough to convict him of being accessory to murder, Zuroff said.

He also has doubts about Oberlander’s insistence that he did not participate in the killing of civilians, Zuroff said.

“We know that in the killing units they made every effort to make sure that every person who served there participated,” Zuroff said. “In a certain sense they wanted to make sure that everyone shared the responsibility. And if people did not want to shoot, they were transferred elsewhere, they were not facing the threat of death or anything like that.”

Canada’s poor record in going after war criminals

In 1995, the government started proceedings to strip Oberlander of his citizenship. The governor in council did so in 2001, 2007 and 2012.

In an emailed statement to CBC News, Deveau said the government “welcomes newcomers” to the country “for all the ways they enrich our society.”

“We also know the value of Canadian citizenship, and cannot allow anyone to defraud the system or diminish its integrity. We don’t take citizenship revocation lightly, but it is necessary in cases of fraud and serious misrepresentation,” the statement said.

But Canada has a very poor record when it comes to going after Nazi war criminals, Zuroff said.

The federal government originally passed legislation enabling criminal prosecution in Canada of war crimes committed elsewhere, Zuroff said.

The first case that came to court in 1987 was the case of a Hungarian gendarmerie officer in the town of Szeged Imre Finta . Finta was accused of assisting the Nazis in the forced deportation of 8,617 Jews from Szeged during the Holocaust.

Finta’s defence was that he simply followed orders.

“Contrary to what happened everywhere else in the world, the court in Ontario accepted that defence,” Zuroff said.

Finta was acquitted after a six-month jury trial. The acquittal was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 1992 and the Supreme Court of Canada in 1994, which also ruled that that the use of the Criminal Code to prosecute Finta was unconstitutional.

Following an American model

The decision forced the government to follow the American model to try to deal with alleged war criminals – stripping them of their citizenship.

Following that decision, the government stripped 10 people of their citizenship in relation to alleged war crimes committed during WWII.

Of those 10, only two people voluntarily left Canada. The other eight, including Oberlander decided to remain in Canada and fight their deportation. Seven of the alleged have since died in Canada, and Oberlander has successfully fought off three attempts to strip him of his citizenship.

Oberlander is seeking a judicial review of cabinet’s decision, as he has done on three previous occasions. A court hearing is expected in the fall or early 2018.

 

Source: .rcinet.ca