Archive for category: Appeals

You are here: / Appeals

Success: VISITOR RECORD (29 DAYS)

/in , , , , , /by

The success story today refers to an elderly woman in Manitoba. She has been in Canada for many years and she was previously refused. She has a long immigration history at IRCC which is quite complex. We have been helping her and her family to address the past issues. Thankfully, she is now in status and she can stay with her family.

Here is a brief timeline of the Visitor Record application:

  • SEP 2024              Consultation regarding Visitor Record (VR) application;
  • OCT 2024             Client retained us  for a VR application for his mother;
  •                                Prepared supplementary document checklist, collected and reviewed documents;
  • OCT 2024              Reviewed full package, submitted VR application;
  • NOV 2024             VR Approved.

 VR approved in less than 1 month.

Congratulations to our clients! We need to highlight Kristina’s amazing work with this application. Kristina works extremely hard to ensure our clients have the best chance at success.

We do our best to help parents and grandparents. These cases can be difficult. Recently, IRCC announced that it will pause applications for PR status for this category of applicants. The government is currently not accepting new applications. For more information, please see details in the Gazette and the Ministerial Instructions.

In general, applications for older applicants can be difficult. In 2022, we were able to get PR status for an elderly woman after her H&C was refused. We had to go to Federal Court to fight for her to stay in Canada. In Shubar, Alastair Clarke argued that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable and Justice McHaffie agreed:

The senior immigration officer who refused Ms. Shubar’s H&C application gave reasons for decision that refer to the best interests of the grandchildren. However, those reasons contain no analysis, or indeed mention, of the particular interests of the third grandchild or how she might be affected by the decision. In the circumstances, I consider this failure to address a central submission raised by Ms. Shubar to be a material and fundamental flaw that renders the decision unreasonable.

It was a pleasure to work with Ms Shubar and her family. (We can discuss her identity as that case is public record and published on the Federal Court webside.) And it was also a pleasure to work the family to get the Visitor Record. To be clear, that application has no connection with the VR which was approved in 29 days. These are separate matters.

Please contact our office if you would like assistance with a VR application to IRCC.

Cost(s) of Slow Processing (Repost)

/in , , , /by

Alastair Clarke published this post on Slaw.ca, where he is a contributor to that website. We are cross-posting this information on the CIL website.

Legal procedures are often slow. “The slow wheels of justice,” as the saying goes. Within the immigration context, backlogs, delays, and lengthy processing take this saying to another level. Applications may take years. Families suffer from lengthy periods of separation while Visa Offices (some more than others) provide scant insight into their workflow. During the recent “modernization”, IRCC has added many online tools to address this perennial issue, including status bars, portals, and various means of communication. In certain situations, Officers are supposed to adhere to standard processing times.

For clients (or counsel) who reach a high level of frustration, the remedies to encourage or compel IRCC to make a decision on their applications are limited. One remedy is to request an Order of mandamus by the Federal Court of Canada. The legal test to obtain a positive decision from a Federal Court judge is onerous, as it is designed to be. The Court’s role to oversee decisions by IRCC Officers is extremely narrow. In those cases, however, where IRCC Officers have crossed that line and the legal test for the mandamus is met, the Court may also punish IRCC and award costs. It seems, the Court increasingly has an appetite to award costs, thus sending a clear message to the federal government and its Officers.

High Cost of Litigation

Access to justice has plagued the legal profession. You may have read other pieces in this space that refer to potential solutions, including contingency fee billing. In immigration, IRCC made the decision many years ago to allow Immigration Consultants to represent applicants, thus opening up the market beyond members of the Bar. Many consultants, however, use shady business practices, and their clients often become victims. These victims, or the ones who have learned a lesson, will then find counsel to fix the mess. In some cases, the result is that counsel has no other remedy than to go to Federal Court to request judicial review.

Even among immigration lawyers, the vast majority of counsel avoid Federal Court litigation. The high amount of work involved, the strict and draconian Rules of the Court and the high level of stress involved in these files leads to many counsel to avoid taking on these matters. For those of us who fight these battles, we are acutely aware of the gross imbalance between the resources of private counsel and the resources at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In my office, we will often have a staff meeting before we agree to do this work. Everyone on staff needs to be prepared if we have to do an emergency Stay Motion or if CBSA issues a Deportation Order on a Friday afternoon while we are winding down. Many immigration boutiques simply do not have the extra bandwidth to take on this work.

Backlogs and Staffing

Another root cause of the long processing times is the significant backlogs across the system. Canada is often reported as a top destination country in the world. The number of candidates in the various queues, including the Express Entry pool, the provincial nominee pools, or the stacks of applications at Visa Offices has created a Sisyphean workload at IRCC.

Recently, here in Manitoba, the MPNP program announced that staff shortages in 2023 led to more than 2,000 nomination certificates not being issued to applicants – completely wasted. 2023 was highly unusual for the MPNP program. As I stated to CBC News, in previous years, the MPNP program has used all its certificates and, in fact, the high demand in Manitoba has led the MPNP to take and use certificates from other provinces.

I remember back in 2016, the newly appointed Premier of Manitoba promised to eliminate the backlog. Clearly, he did not have an advisor who was well-informed prior to making this promise.

As reported by the Immigration Advisory Council (I gave testimony to the IAC), the MPNP was issued 6,275 certificates in 2021 (100% allocated) and 6,367 in 2022 (100% allocated). The 9500 certificates issued in 2023 was a huge increase by IRCC to the MPNP program and, therefore, the fact that staff at MPNP were not able to process the high number is not surprising. I would argue that the fact that MPNP processed 7,348 in 2023 – almost 1,000 more applications than the previous year is a testament to good management.

Remedies

The question becomes: when an application is dragging on and on, what remedies are available to counsel? Good immigration lawyers, in my view, are very reluctant to start mandamus proceedings. Even without these applications, the Court is dealing with a flood of Applications for Leave and Judicial Review (ALJR) based on the high numbers of refusals by Officers or by IRB Members. In contrast to situations that may lead to an Order of mandamus, these refusals are matters that have been decided. The individuals likely have no other remedy. The Mandamus process adds further work for the Court to urge Officers to simply do their job.

From the above, you can probably imagine that I am reluctant to proceed with Mandamus proceedings. Typically, I try to talk potential clients out of taking this action. If they insist and I can see merit, then we will help.

In my practice, typically our Mandamus files do not end up at a hearing. In 2023, every one of our Mandamus files was resolved with the assistance of the Department of Justice (DOJ), communicating the situation with their client (IRCC), and that was sufficient to get our client’s application back on track. This is likely the result of sympathetic and reasonable lawyers in the Prairie Regional Office of the DOJ as much as the facts.

Of course, many Mandamus proceedings end up before a Federal Court judge. They are then forced to spend the time to review the application history, review the 8-step legal test set out in Apotex and make a decision re the duty to perform.

Costs & Special Reasons

Increasingly, I believe Federal Court justices are expressing their frustration with the Officers at IRCC by increasing the number of decisions where costs are ordered against the government. I remember when I started in 2008, getting costs was extremely rare. Keep in mind, this is purely my anecdotal experience. If any readers are aware of any data regarding the frequency of Federal Court justices awarding costs, please add this information in the comments below.

In 2021, Steven Meurrens provided a summary of some past cases at the Court where costs were awarded or where a judge considered a costs award. For me, the He decision in 2021 from Justice Sadrehashemi stands out. This was an ALJR of a woman who was applying to work as a caregiver for two (2) children in Vancouver. The Service Canada Officer had already granted the LMIA (this is often the most difficult step) and when the matter was before the IRCC Officer, the case dragged on for more than three (3) years. To be clear, one of the children who needed care aged from 10 to 13 while they were waiting for a decision. Costs of $1,500 were awarded against IRCC.

Recently, Justice Heneghan in the Al-Mashtouli decision also awarded $3,500 to the Applicants as well as an Order of mandamus. In this decision from 2024, the Court ordered IRCC to process the application within 120 days of the judgment. Kudos to Barb Jackman (my former immigration law professor from Queen’s) and all the work done by her office to get this judgment!

Trends for 2024

In 2023, IRCC Minister Marc Miller inherited a mess and he has been making difficult decisions. From my point of view, much more work is necessary to add clarity and consistency within the immigration system. Previous efforts to publish “average” processing times and “progress bars” online have added even more confusion. I have spoken with applicants whose “progress bar” shows 99% complete for months and they have no idea what they need to do to finalize the application. I expect IRCC will be making more difficult decisions to address the high level of frustration.

On the Court side, I also expect more orders for costs to Applicants. I believe judges at the Court are also frustrated with the high level of immigration files and this is one way for them to send a message to IRCC.

 

 

 

 

 

Success: IAD ADR

/in , , /by

Another victory at the Immigration Appeal Division! We love winning. In this case, our client’s application (Spousal Sponsorship) was refused and they had been separated for a long time. They made the mistake of doing the Spousal Sponsorship application by themselves, without any professional help. The IRCC website let them know, of course, that they did not need to hire a professional for the application and they followed the guidance from the IRCC website. Alas, they tried their best but it was refused.

After the refusal, they came to CIL for help with the appeal. If you have read past posts on our website, we have won many appeals to the IAD. In fact, Alastair Clarke has won 100% of his appeals at the IAD. His first IAD appeal, back in 2007, was a case when he was an articling student. He articled at a large immigration law firm on Bay Street in Toronto and the lawyer on the case did not want to lose. It was a very difficult case where the Sponsor was convicted of murdering his sister-in-law. Based on the law at that time (the law was actually changed as a result of this appeal), a Sponsor was not eligible to sponsor if he had been convicted of a violent offence against a “family member”. Alastair Clarke successfully argued that a “sister-in-law” is not a “family member”, according to the definition in IRPA – she is a “relative”. He won the appeal.

In this case, our clients’ issues were not so serious. In fact, we worked with our clients, built a strong package of documentary evidence and contacted the tribunal. We also reached out to Minister’s Counsel regarding this situation. We have published previous articles on how to win at the IAD This post is from 2016; however, many of the suggestions in that article still apply in 2023. 

The main point: PREPARE, PREPARE, PREPARE.

IAD appeals require a lot of work. Do not hire a lawyer who will not take the time to properly prepare the Sponsor, the Applicant, the witnesses and to prepare a substantive package of documentary evidence. All these steps are key to winning and too many lawyers try to take “short cuts”. Those “short cuts” can lead to refusals.

IAD ADR

Based on the strong evidence, we won this case through the IAD ADR process. This Alternative Dispute Resolution process is only available to appeals that have strong documentary evidence. It is extremely limited and it is not available in most appeals.

For our clients, we won at the IAD ADR. We satisfied the parties that all the reasons for the refusal had been satisfied.

Our clients will be reunited in Canada.

Time to Celebrate!

Success: Warning Letter

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Everyone makes mistakes. In some cases, we deal with situations where our client has made a serious mistake or many mistakes. In other cases, our client has made a minor mistake. In these types of situations, depending on the mistake and the consequences, it may go to an IRCC Officer or a CBSA Officer to review. These Officers have broad discretionary powers to take various types of action against the individual. In some cases, the entire family may be punished. In other cases, the individual may simply get a warning.

Today, we will share a case that involved a mistake by our client that occurred many years ago. She used a shady agent to apply for a Study Permit to Canada based on fraudulent financial documents. The shady agent did not tell her that he added these fraudulent documents to her application. She had no idea. She never got a copy of the package. She didn’t ask questions. She trusted the agent. And she got her Study Permit.

Based on the work of the shady agent, our client got the Study Permit and came to Canada. She finished her studies and she got her PGWP. She was successful with her studies and her career. She got married and had children. She was granted PR status. Everything was going smoothly and, even after many years, she had no idea that the actions of that shady agent may come back to bite.

CBSA caught the shady agent and reviewed all his past applications – going back years. They launched an investigation into many applications and contacted our client regarding her past Study Permit. During an interview with a CBSA Officer in July 2023, our client was served with an A44 Report based on allegations of misrepresentation. The Officer explained Section 40(1)(a) (Misrepretation) of IRPA:

Misrepresentation

40 (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation

    • (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;

As you can read from the above, Section 40(1)(a) (Misrepretation) of IRPA is extremely broad and it may include any mistakes made by a shady agent. The potential punishment for a person who has violated A40 of IRPA:

(2) The following provisions govern subsection (1):

  • (a) the permanent resident or the foreign national continues to be inadmissible for misrepresentation for a period of five years following, in the case of a determination outside Canada, a final determination of inadmissibility under subsection (1) or, in the case of a determination in Canada, the date the removal order is enforced

This means that our client was at risk of losing her PR status, being removed from Canada, being banned from Canada for 5 years and being separated from her family in Winnipeg. Very serious consequences.

She immediately came to CIL for help. Over a 3 month period, we were in contact with the CBSA Officer. We reviewed her documents. We researched the shady agent. We prepared her defence, with reference to relevant caselaw from Federal Court.

In the end, our client got a “warning letter”. You can see a redacted version of this document. This was the best possible result. Our client’s PR status is no longer at risk. She clearly regrets using a shady agent to do her Study Permit. She now knows that was a big mistake. The Officer accepted her explanation and he accepted that her regret is genuine. The agent has been punished.

I wish I could tell you that these cases are rare. They are not. I cannot even count the number of A44 Reports that we have dealt with over the years. Individuals may get a A44 Report for any of the IRPA sections for inadmissibility. Typically, we look at sections 33 through 43 of IRPA in these types of cases. The most common sections that we deal with are misrepresentation (A40), medical inadmissibility (A38), and criminal inadmissibility (A36). 

In every case, we want to give our client the best chance at a warning letter. If the Officer is not satisfied, then the case is referred to the tribunal for an Admissibility Hearing. They can then give testimony and call witnesses. This can take a lot of work and it can be costly – both in terms of money and stress. In certain cases, the individual may appeal to the IAD for an appeal. Finally, if the IAD is not available for an appeal, we may have to go to Federal Court to fight for our clients. 

CIL has handled all the situations noted above, many times. If you are dealing with this type of situation, give us a call and we will do our best to guide you through the process. 

Success: Admissibility Hearing @ Immigration Division

/in , , , , , , /by

Clients come to CIL for all types of situations. We help clients apply for Passports. We help them apply for Police Clearance Certificates and Work Permit. We handle many applications for temporary status. Typically, those files are, relatively straightforward and the work is predictable. Then, there are complex, messy cases that take turn after turn. This was one of the latter cases.

Our client came to us more than one (1) year ago, after his Post Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) was refused. As you may have read from our Google Reviews, we have been successful with many international students who have had their PGWP refused and we were able to get them back on track to PR status. At the beginning, we thought that was one of those cases. We did the PGWP and Restoration application. Soon thereafter, CBSA got involved and the situation became serious. CBSA made the determination that our client was inadmissible based on A38 – Medical Inadmissibility:

  • 38 (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition

    • (a) is likely to be a danger to public health;

    • (b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or

    • (c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.

In legal terms, we call the above test the “excessive demand” test. At that time, we got the disclosure package from CBSA and we knew this was going to be a tough case.

At the same time, our client let us know that he got married to a Canadian citizen. They had been living together and they seemed to have a genuine relationship but they were reluctant to get legally married with everything going on. They decided to make their commitment to each other, to try to ensure that our client would not be removed/ deported from Canada.

We then assisted them with an SCLPC Class application and submitted the package to IRCC. As per above, CBSA has already referred our client to the IRB based on A38 – Medical Inadmissibility. So our job was to give the IRCC Officer as much time as possible to make a decision on the SCLPC Class application. We needed to ensure our client was not removed from Canada. SUCCESS! We got a positive decision from the Immigration Division!

We have provided a rough timeline of events below. I want to give credit to Naomi for spending hours (upon hours, upon hours) on this file, making sure the client and his family understood every step.

Date Action

 
1 SEP 2022 Client met Alastair for consultation regarding PGWP refusal

 
8 SEP 2022 Client retained our services for PGWP and Restoration

 
12 OCT 2022 Our office submitted application for PGWP and Restoration

 
2 NOV 2022 Client met Alastair for consultation regarding Admissibility Hearing and Spousal application

 
21 NOV 2022 Client retained our services for Spousal application

 
6 DEC 2022 Client retained our services to post-pone and represent Admissibility hearing scheduled for 19 DEC 2022

 
7 DEC 2022 Our office submitted a request to the ID to post-pone client’s admissibility hearing

 
7 DEC 2022 The ID responded with alternative Hearing dates and we re-scheduled for 8 FEB 2023 @ 11:00 am CST

 
23 JAN 2023 Submitted SCLPC application

 
8 FEB 2023 Admissibility postponed to 25 APR 2023 @ 10:30 AM due to not having enough time for witnesses

 
21 FEB 2023 IRCC provided temporary application number for SCLPC application

 
1 MAR 2023 IRCC sent Medical Examination instructions

 
28 MAR 2023 IRCC sent a letter confirming Sponsor meets the eligibility requirements as a Sponsor

 
5 APR 2023 IRCC sent a letter about reassessing clients eligibility requirements

 
12 APR 2023 Our office submitted a webform to IRCC to put PR application on hold

 
14 APRIL 2023 IRCC sent a letter confirming PGWP and restoration application was transferred to IRCC office in Edmonton

 
25 APR 2023 Admissibility hearing postponed due to member availability

 
13 JUN 2023 ID reached out to our office to re-scheduled Admissibility Hearing for 11 SEP 2023 @ 10:30 CDT

 
29 JUN 2023 IRCC sent a letter confirming client meets eligibility requirements as a Principal Applicant but still needs to pass the medical, security and background checks to become a PR

 
6 JUL 2023 IRCC sent a letter to confirm his PR application is being transferred to the IRCC office in Etobicoke for further assessment

 
8 AUG 2023 IRCC refused clients PGWP and Restoration application

 
9 AUG 2023 Client retained us to submit a Spousal Open Work Permit based on SCLPC application in process

 
10 AUG 2023 Our office submitted Spousal Open Work Permit via the Representative Portal

 
11 SEP 2023 Date of Admissibility Hearing

 

Our office and the ID did not know if client is a member of the Family class and resumption of Admissibility Hearing was scheduled for 2 NOV 2023

 
20 SEP 2023 Our office submitted a webform requesting if client has been determined to be a member of the Family Class

 
3 OCT 2023 Our office sent an email to CBSA requesting if they know if client has been determined to be a member of the Family Class
5 OCT 2023 CBSA provided GCMS notes and let us know that he sent 2 emails to IRCC

 
5 OCT 2023 Our office provided a copy of the SCLPC and OWP application to the ID and CBSA for their consideration by email and portal

 
19 OCT 2023 Our webform that was submitted on 20 SEP 2023 was added to the file

 
19 OCT 2023 Clients received a cold call from IRCC – Interview regarding genuine marriage

 
26 OCT 2023 Received VERY GOOD NEWS! IRCC Officer provided confirmation that client is a member of the Family Class

 

Congratulations to Justice Mary Moreau

/in , , , , , /by

CIL was pleased to see the announcement that Justice Mary Moreau, a francophone judge in Alberta, will be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. This announcement underscores the importance of having a Supreme Court that reflects the many different groups of people across Canada. We need voices on the highest court from judges of a variety of backgrounds, from various provinces. As a francophone judge from the prairies, we hope Justice Moreau will bring a unique approach to the cases that make their way to the SCC.

CIL was particularly impressed with Justice Moreau’s interview with the Canadian Bar Association (CBA). Here is an excerpt of her answers.

I think the most useful tools I developed as a lawyer then as a judge came from my experience as an undergrad philosophy student. I was always curious (annoyingly so according to reliable sources).

[…]

Counsel and judges are being called on more and more to take on a resolution-focused role. They should be taking advantage of any early opportunity to peel away the layers preventing resolution of the dispute, get to the heart of the issue, and present creative ways of moving forward. I think restorative justice principles based on restoring the well-being of those whose lives have been affected by wrongdoing or injustice are a useful staging ground for reconciliation in all types of disputes.

The full interview can be found on the CBA website.

As you may be aware from Alastair Clarke’s biography online, he also completed an undergrad philosophy degree. He concurs with Justice Moreau that an education in philosophy may assist with legal analysis. Philosophy is key to understanding important legal concepts and examining fact patterns from different perspectives.

In addition, Alastair Clarke is also a strong advocate for restorative justice principles and creative solutions. During his testimony to Parliament, he encouraged the Government of Canada to take a collaborative approach to decision-making. Here is an excerpt of Mr Clarke’s testimony to the Members of Parliament:

My last point relates to a collaborative approach.

Part of the reason I was attracted to this area of law is that it is generally non-confrontational. To deal with minor issues, I can easily call a CMO at the IRB, a Superintendent at a POE, an inland enforcement officer or a lawyer at the DOJ. Dealing with IRCC, by contrast, is a constant struggle. When an IRCC Officer makes a clear mistake, there is no easy mechanism to get it fixed. In my view, the Request for Reconsideration system is broken and MPs are far too often put in the difficult position to act intermediaries. Bad decisions by Visa Officers are often easy to appeal to Federal Court but judicial reviews expend a huge amount of time and resources for both the applicants and the government.

Based on our review, it does not appear that Justice Moreau has significant experience dealing with immigration issues. Hopefully she will find some time to learn this area of law. We wish her and the SCC all the best.

Success: IAD appeal

/in , , , , , /by

Parents are so important to many families in Canada. Our clients pay their taxes, they work hard to make Canada a better place and they would like to be here with their parents. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to sponsor parents to come to Canada. Many of these applications are refused for many reasons, including the minimum necessary income requirement, medical requirements, or other elements to this application. Thankfully, we have won many, many cases at the IAD. We love appeals.

Visa Officers around the world scrutinize these applications. They may refuse an application based on minor mistakes. Many sponsors try to do the applications by themselves and they may get refusals. The IRCC refusal can be stressful for the family. They have already waited for a long time and the decision can be a shock.

In this case, our client has been trying to sponsor his parents. He has been working 3 jobs to bring up his income. As you may be aware, Visa Officers are focused on line 150 from the CRA Notices of Assessment. Every year, the MNI calculation changes, depending on the macroeconomic situation of residents in Canada. Our client’s application was refused and he came to us for help.

We were retained to help. We reviewed the application and GCMS notes. We redid many key parts of the application. We negotiated with Minister’s Counsel who defended the Officer’s decision. In the end, our appeal was allowed.

As you can see from the decision, the IAD was able to make its decision “IN CHAMBERS”. This means that we did not have an IAD hearing for this case. We were able to get a positive decision for our clients without oral evidence.

Our fees are based on the work involved, so our client’s fees for this case were very low. We did not charge for the testimony preparation or for the oral hearing. This makes sense, of course, but there are many lawyers out there who will charge exorbitant fees that are not based on the work they have actually done.

Success: P/GP Appeal re MNI

/in , , , , , /by

The Parent and Grandparent sponsorship application has a storied past. Previously, the Conservative government suspended the application causing significant distress and hardship for individuals in Canada who sought to have their parents and/ or grandparents with them in Canada. The Conservatives replaced this application with the Super Visa, thus cutting off parents and/ or grandparents from permanent resident status. The Liberal government made a campaign promise to reinstate this application and they acknowledged the importance of parents and grandparents in the lives of people in Canada. The Liberals were successfully elected based, in part, on their promises to support individuals and families in Canada, including immigration reform. The reinstatement of the P/GP application was an important plank of the Liberal’s message. At first, once they took power, they were reluctant to allow many sponsors; however, we pushed them and we reminded them of their promises. In the end, they have allowed many sponsors to bring their parents and grandparents to Canada. We continue to push the government to accept more parents and grandparents.

For many of our clients, they need their parents to be with them in Canada. There are cultures and traditions that are based on the extended family being together. We regularly fight for our clients so they can have all their loved ones with them – under one roof.

Yesterday, we got a positive result from the IAD on a sponsorship application that was refused. It was refused based on our clients not meeting the Minimum Necessary Income (MNI) requirement for the application. We were able to work with the family and produce multiple packages of documents for the tribunal and for Minister’s Counsel. The key to winning this case was all the time and energy that we spent on our disclosure packages. We were able to clearly demonstrate the strong H&C factors. We had multiple negotiations with the Minister to achieve a positive result.

Congratulations to our clients! This application has been in process for many years. This family has been trying to reunite with their family members for a long time. This decision does not, unfortunately, mean that the applicant will be on a flight to Canada tomorrow. Even after this positive decision by the IAD, there are more steps before the applicant will be granted PR status.

For this appeal, we relied on the IRCC guidelines for the MNI calculation:

Income required for the 3 tax years right before the day you apply (sponsors applying in 2022)

Total number of people you’ll be responsible for 2021 2020 2019
2 people $32,898 $32,270 $41,007
3 people $40,444 $39,672 $50,414
4 people $49,106 $48,167 $61,209
5 people $55,694 $54,630 $69,423
6 people $62,814 $61,613 $78,296
7 people $69,934 $68,598 $87,172
If more than 7 people, for each additional person, add: $7,120 $6,985 $8,876

Since many sponsors may have been affected financially by the COVID-19 pandemic, the income requirement for the 2020 and 2021 tax years have been reduced to the minimum necessary income, instead of the minimum necessary income plus 30%.

Success: SP appeal

/in , , , /by

Every year, many international students submit applications to come to Canada to study. For +16 years, we have been helping students from around the world navigate the system. It is not controversial to note students from certain countries have an easier path. Today, we received a final decision on a Study Permit saga for a client from Bangladesh. This was another challenging case expertly handled by the team at CIL. After working with the family for more than 2 years, our client is (finally!) coming to start his studies in Canada. Congratulations!

Here is a summary of our client’s immigration history:

  • 2021 – client submitted Study Permit on his own
  • 2021 – IRCC refused the application
  • 2022 – client retained CIL to prepare and submit 2nd application (SP #2)
  • 2022 – Team at CIL worked with client to submit application to Visa Office in Singapore
  • 2022 – IRCC refused SP #2 application
  • 2022 – client retained CIL for Federal Court appeal re the decision to refuse SP #2
  • 2022 – Team at CIL prepared ALJR and negotiated with DOJ
  • 2022 – ALJR Settled based on Applicant’s Record
  • 2023 – SP #2 referred back to Visa Office in Singapore
  • 2023 – SP #2 approved!

This was a long process that required significant work. It has been a pleasure to work with this family and we will continue to work with this student to support him with his immigration matters.

It is not a secret that Visa Offices abroad have a different agenda from policies in Ottawa. While politicians in Ottawa publicly recruit international students are encourage them to apply for PR status, Visa Officers refuse Study Permit applications if the Officer believes the student has the intention to stay in Canada. This is a known contradiction. Frustration among students is well documented.

Another Federal Court victory for the Team at CIL. 

 

Success: IAD Appeal

/in , , , , , /by

I could have opted for many titles to this post. I could have written, “Success: Study Permit” or “Success: Spousal Sponsorship” or “Success: LMIA” or “Success: PGWP”. All these titles would have been accurate and worthy of publishing. We have previously posted past successful decisions of these types. We have been extremely busy at CIL and we have had many positive decisions to end 2022. As you may know, the team at CIL are the best immigration professionals in Manitoba (possibly Canada) and we have been busy trying to help our clients.

We may provide details on the positive LMIA application at a later date. We may also provide details on the Study Permit. That client had previous refusals and she is a mature student who is not a typical Study Permit applicant; however, our package addressed the issues and followed the CIL principles to success.

The basic facts of the IAD appeal:

  • Sponsor was convicted in Canada in 2018.
  • Sponsor submitted Spousal Sponsorship application for his wife in 2019.
  • Visa Officer expressed concerns re R133 in a PFL in 2019.
  • Sponsor retained CIL to reply to PFL and, if refused, appeal to IAD.
  • As expected, PR application was refused and we submitted Notice of Appeal.
  • CIL prepared and submitted +400 pages of evidence to the IAD.
  • Minister’s Counsel objected to our arguments and defended Visa Officer’s refusal.
  • On 14 SEPT 2022, CIL called 6 witnesses and provided extensive legal submissions.
  • In a decision dated 11 DEC 2022, IAD Member Daniel Tucci agreed with our arguments and granted the appeal.

Our clients are extremely happy, of course. We have many reasons to celebrate. I have often opined that Canadian citizens with criminal convictions should be allowed to sponsor their family members if they have properly served their time in prison. Criminal proceedings should remain in the criminal courts. Immigration proceedings are separate and apart. If the Sentencing Judge (on the criminal side) believed the sentence was not sufficiently punitive, that judge had the power to amend the sentence. Once that sentence has been ordered, however, the individual should not face additional repercussions. They should not be separated from family members. They need to be able to move on and learn from their past mistake(s).

I have to be honest. I was quite worried that IAD Member Tucci was going to refuse our appeal. Minister’s Counsel was extremely unsympathetic to our client’s situation. In past IAD appeals, Minister’s Counsel has been more agreeable to our legal arguments and the family’s circumstances. During the hearing Member Tucci asked many questions of the Sponsor, the Applicant and all the witnesses. He was actively engaged in the proceedings. Based on his questions, it was not clear whether he was sympathetic to the separation of this family.

In more than 15 years of IAD appeals, I have still not yet lost an appeal. I know that I will eventually lose an appeal. I do not know whether this refusal will be in 2023, 2024 or 2030. We will continue to fight for our clients.

The IAD has just announced changes to the IAD Rules. We are currently reviewing the changes and we may be reporting our thoughts in this space.