Yeah maybe but I don’t know exactly if I need visa or no but when I was there they said how you came here you have to go back to the last country where you come from then they said you have to go to your country then change your booking and go to Canada in the end they allowed to me to go to Canada but without take and of my baggage and they took my passport until give it to me in the airplane
Canada safe third country agreement
- Thread starter ali.bangash
- Start date
russ6970
VIP Member
Asylum shopping means choosing the country you want to claim Asylum in and not claim Asylum in the first safe country you arrive at.
Ok but what if someone has valid visas for numerous safe countries as well as canada and they choose canada over others and fly to canada from home country with or without passing through a safe country they hold the visa for?
I think the issue would become that having numerous safe country visas, why didn’t you claim assylum while you were in those countries? Why wait? Depending on what your BOC is, what has changed since you travelled previously to other safe countries.
Are you saying the airline allowed to you fly to Canada without a visa? Stupid airline staff. They may no longer have a job and the airline likely had to pay a fine.
Can someone share the list of safe countries according to canada. Is turkey one of the safe countries?
Ok got it you meant visit visa which I have valid for many years. Problem is I have valid visit visas also for UK, USA and a couple others but I have decided to claim refuge in Canada out of these. Now I am trying to find a flight path with which I can avoid the safe first/third country rule. For the dayedI am travelling, Dubai/qatar take me through US while turkey is an option which fly direct into canada but then turkey is party to Geneva convention (but I am not sure if Canada recognise Turkey as a safe country or not)
The bigger issue is whether you have recently travelled to another safe country but not claimed asylum. You are technically supposed to seek asylum in a safe country as soon as you feel like your life is in danger. If your life has been in danger but you have visited countries and returned home there will be concern that you are not actually in danger and asylum shopping.
Your understanding of the safe 3rd country is incorrect. It is an agreement between Canada and the US.
Your understanding of the safe 3rd country is incorrect. It is an agreement between Canada and the US.
Ok here it is. Life is in danger in home country because of religious persecution. Currently residing for work in another country(likely not safe/non-signatory to Geneva convention). Have valid visas for multiple countries as said above but no travel to any of these for atleast past one year. A couple of short careful trips to home country in past two years. Job now finishing so must return to home country so danger of persecution. All this scenario in a family setup with young kids. Any tips are welcome.
I know safe third country agreement run between US and Canada. But taking a flight transiting through a US airport trigger its use? Considering I also have blood relation in Canada
So likely you are working in the gulf but are from probably Pakistan. The big issue is that haven't been subjected to persecution lately because you have been working abroad. Your circumstances haven't probably changed since you last travelled to another safe country 1+ years ago. To be granted asylum Canada usually wants to see that you have been persecuted in your home country and have tried to relocate to other areas of your country. If you have been working in the gulf for many years, general religious persecution sin your home country isn't usually a strong enough reason.
Thanks. It makes sense but a couple of points. Moving cities has no use because the core problem is the law of the land which applies everywhere in the country which makes a community subject to persecution and a variety of discriminations. The case is well known globally and its my concern that returning to home country permanently will be questioned as to why not come directly when the threat was so well known and obvious.