Archive for category: CBSA

You are here: / CBSA

Success: SCLPC (Out of Status)

/in , , , /by

International students come to Canada for education. They must submit a Study Plan along with their Study Permit application. In most cases, the student will graduate, get a PGWP and then apply for PR status. For most foreign students, this is their goal and they spend $$$ to achieve this immigration goal. In some cases, however, the student’s immigration path does not go according to plan and there is no way to get back on track. They need another plan. The case that we are sharing today is along those lines.

Our client is a citizen of the beautiful country in Asia. She was granted a Study Permit. She completed her Canadian study program. For some time, things were going well. Then her application to IRCC was refused. Then she hired an agent who gave her bad advice. Then another application was refused. She was ordered to leave Canada. She lost her passport and she did not know what to do.

In this case, thankfully, our client connected with a PR during her studies. He wanted to help. They decided to take the plunge. This was not an easy decision. She wanted to get PR through her Canadian studies and based on her skills and experience. The bad advice that she followed by the agent, unfortunately, eliminated that option. She no longer qualified for a Work Permit and she was outside her Restoration period. The agent really messed up her case.

CIL has helped 1000s of clients in this situation. We work with CBSA Officers and IRCC Officers to ensure they understand our client’s situation. These cases are not easy. SCLPC applications cannot be appealed to the IAD. The applicant may have to go through a difficult interview with a CBSA Officer to explain what’s going on. Those interviews are never fun. CIL supports our clients are every step, going with them to CBSA interviews and making sure they understand their legal rights.

Here is a timeline for this SCLPC Class application:

  • JUN 2023      Initial Consultation with Applicant and Sponsor
  • AUG 2023     Client requested our services, signed contract, ATIP online request
  • AUG 2023     Submitted ATIP application on behalf of client
  • SEPT 2023    Prepared Document Checklist, reviewed GCMS Notes, including IRCC Officer’s reasons for past refusals
  • NOV 2023     Collected and Reviewed documents
  • DEC 2023      Initiated PR application, prepared Supplementary Document Checklist based on Client’s limitations
  • JAN 2024      Reviewed package, submitted PR application to IRCC
  • FEB 2024      Received AOR and request to update forms
  • FEB 2024      Submitted updated forms
  • FEB 2024      Request for medicals, done
  • JULY 2024   Recieved Approval In Principle (AIP) from IRCC
  • AUG 2024     Client requested our services to submit OWP while PR application is being processed. Submitted Work Permit for Client
  • SEP 2024      Request for biometrics, done.
  • SEP 2024      PR Approved

As you can see from the above, the SCLPC Class application was approved after only 9 months. This is much faster than IRCC average processing times. Our client did not expect a decision until JAN 2025 – at the earliest. She actually expected that IRCC would take even longer based on her complex immigration history and the fact that she was in Canada without status.

You can also see that we submitted the Open Work Permit in AUG 2024. With the SCLPC Class application approved, that application become void. She no longer needs a Work Permit as she is now PR!

It is unfortunate that we had to do the work to apply for the OWP in AUG 2024. We did not know, at that time, her PR application was going to be approved so quickly. If we had known, we would have advised our client in JULY 2024 that she could just wait to get PR rather than apply for the OWP.

Congratulations to this couple! We wish them all the best!

Victims of Fake Immigration Consultant

/in , , /by

Choosing a representative may be the most important decision for the applicant. Canadian immigration officers and Federal Court justices are, in general, not sympathetic to applicants who hire representatives and those representatives mess up their application. A40 is very clear that the actions and decisions of the agent are squarely on the shoulders of the applicant. We have helped many, many (MANY!) applicants respond to A40 concerns by IRCC Officers and CBSA Officers. These cases are extremely serious and we may have to deal with potential consequences to all family members. Many potential victims.

In Winnipeg, the Nigerian community has been rocked by the criminal actions of Chinenye Alozie who was convicted of acting as an unauthorized immigration consultant and misrepresenting facts. He was sentenced to 2 years house arrest for actions he took between 2014 to 2019 – five (5) years of messing up applicants’ files. The damage from Mr Alozie’s criminal actions are widespread. Families are at risk of deportation. Applicants are suffering from mental health issues. CBSA has been systematically going through old files and investigating folks – even if they have since become Permanent Residents or Canadian citizens.

NOTE: Misrepresentation can be an issue at the federal level as well as the provincial level. We have also helped clients deal with this issue re MPNP. 

Criminal Actions

Full disclosure: CIL has represented individuals who were formerly assisted by Mr Alozie and we have been helping our clients. Our goal is to help clients respond to the Officer’s concerns. Thus far, none of our clients who were assisted by Mr Alozie have been deported from Canada. We have been successful with all these files and we will continue to help victims who made the mistake of hiring Mr Alozie.

As reported by the Winnipeg Free Press, Mr Alozie owned a restaurant in Winnipeg and he received significant funds from individuals as part of this scam:

Chinenye Alozie pleaded guilty to acting as an unauthorised immigration consultant and misrepresenting or withholding facts on immigration applications. (Supplied)

Alozie “is not a licensed immigration consultant, nor is he a lawyer,” Crown attorney Matthew Sinclair told provincial court Judge Stacy Cawley at a sentencing hearing Tuesday. “He is not entitled to represent people with respect to their applications.”

A look into Alozie’s bank records found deposits of $90,000 in 2016 and $120,000 in 2017 from people believed to be foreign nationals, Sinclair said. An investigation by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada found 52 deposits were from people applying to come to Canada as temporary students, workers or visitors.

As noted above, WFP reports that at least 52 deposits were found on various applications. In our conversations with CBSA, CIL learned that more than 200 individual victims may be investigated. These victims are not only the applicants who hired Mr Alozie. That group also includes family members of those applicants who may also be inadmissible to Canada.

Criminal Agents in Winnipeg

This is not the first shady agent in Winnipeg, of course. Mr. Alozie is part of a group of criminals who have created victims in the immigration system. Also in 2020, Mr Zhihao Jia was also criminally charged for unlawfully representing people applying for immigration, misrepresenting facts on immigration applications, and communicating false or misleading information with the intent of inducing immigration to Canada. This is an offence under IRPA.

Jiatoo Immigration Consulting has closed and many Chinese families are facing investigations by CBSA. They are also at risk of losing their status and being removed from Canada. Thankfully, we have helped both Nigerian clients who made the mistake of hiring a shady agent as well as Chinese clients who made the same mistake. None of our clients have lost their status.

Helping Victims of Scams

As noted above, we have helped many victims of these scams. In one example, we met with the CBSA Officer many times with our client. He explained the scam and he explained how our client may have benefited from the scam. In one case, our client was able to find her financial documents from the period of her initial application to come to Canada to show the Officer that she actually qualified for the program at that time.

CBSA Officers have broad powers to deal with A40 issues. As noted in 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;

    • […]

Indirectly misrepresenting means that the applicant may hire a shady agent (eg Mr Alozie, Mr Jia, etc) and they, the applicant, are responsible and may be punished for the actions of these shady agents – even if they had nothing to do with the mistake.

In one case, we got this warning letter from CBSA (see photo). This is the best possible result. Congratulations to our client. She was extremely grateful for the services at CIL. I believe Naomi worked many hours on this file to help this family.

Victims of scams suffer greatly. I cannot overstate the ripple effect of these mistakes. If one (1) family member is inadmissible per A40, then ALL family members are inadmissible. This means the whole family may be forcibly removed from Canada and they all lose status. One mistake from many years ago can come back to bite the whole family.

Further Information

Here are some of the cases the Team at CIL have handled over the years related to misrepresentation:

Federal Court Success re MPNP and Misrepresentation

Success: Client gets Warning Letter from CBSA

Victims of Fraud in 2022

 

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: Deportation Order Cancelled

/in , , , /by

Canadian immigration laws are tough on criminals. A person who has been convicted of a criminal offence may face serious issues on the criminal side. In fact, CIL has an entire side of our practice for “crimmigration” – this is the area that covers criminal law and immigration law. The overlap is significant so that lawyers need to understand many aspects of both areas of practice to give their clients good legal advice.

Our client is a “long term” Permanent Resident of Canada and a citizen of Portugal. This means that he has spent significant time in Canada after he emigrated from Portugal. He has strong family connections to Winnipeg and he has built his life on this side of the Atlantic. He loves Winnipeg and we put together a strong package of more than 100 pages of documents on his behalf that covered the relevant legal tests.

Our client also has a history of addiction. Addiction has been recognized as a condition that may be considered a “disability” in Canada. According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

In Canada, people use different terms to describe struggles with alcohol or drugs. The terms substance dependence, addiction, or substance use disorder are often used interchangeably. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (Commission) uses the term “substance dependence” to refer to previous or existing addiction or dependence on alcohol or drugs. Substance dependence is considered a disability under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

For our client, his addiction led to criminal activities and he faced multiple convictions. He was facing deportation from Canada and CBSA was taking steps to separate him from his family and friends in Manitoba.

Our client contacted CIL after he was convicted and sentenced. He served his time in prison. He already paid a heavy price for his mistakes. He came to us for help so that he would not be deported back to Portugal.

After much work and negotiations with CBSA, CIL successfully stopped his deportation. We love winning our cases. We love helping our clients.

Our client got a “warning letter” from CBSA and they closed his file. This means that he will not be deported and he will be able to stay in Winnipeg with his family. The CBSA Officer accepted that he has been sufficiently punished by the Canadian criminal system. Deportation was canceled.

 

CityNews: Stop Deportation

/in , , , , , /by

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) is in the process of removing a Pakistani family who have been living in Canada for 3 years. Please note: CIL does not represent this family and we are not involved in any legal matters. We have been advised they are represented by counsel who, unfortunately, has not been able to stop the deportation. We were contacted by multiple news agencies to give legal advice on immigration law and how to stop deportation.

Showing 81 of 275 media items Load more

As noted by the segment on CityNews:

A family of 6 living in Winnipeg is desperate and worried about being deported. After creating a life here for the past 3 years, they are being forced to leave because all their appeals have been denied. @CityBreanna can tell you the story.

We have been advised this family is still in Canada. We hope their counsel is able to stop deportation. This is a complex matter. We have been advised they had their refugee claim heard at the IRB-RPD and the Adjudicator refused their claim. They appealed to the IRB-RAD and the Adjudicator refused their appeal. In addition, they appealed to Federal Court for judicial review and this ALJR was dismissed. At this point, CBSA is pursuing deportation.

This story has also been covered by CTV News: ‘I am looking out for their lives’: A Winnipeg family is seeking help as they face deportation before the end of the year

As stated in the CTV article:

Alastair Clarke is an immigration lawyer with Clarke Immigration Law. He hasn’t represented the family during this process, but said there can be several reasons why an asylum application is denied.

“The adjudicators at the tribunal obviously take the claims very seriously. They ask very serious and often difficult questions, in order to see if the claimant is telling the truth, to see whether or not the claimant meets the definitions under Canadian law,” said Clarke.

Clearly, this family has strong connections to Canada and we wish them all the best. Hopefully their lawyer is able to stop deportation.

WFP: Audit of Deportation Orders

/in , , , , , , /by

The widely reported report by the Canadian Auditor General describes the significant backlog and delays in the removal process for individuals who have enforceable removal orders, including deportation orders. These removals are carried out by CBSA Officers and we have many clients who are affected by these orders. We are in contact, almost daily, with CBSA Officers on behalf of our clients to ensure our clients fully cooperate with law enforcement and Canadian regulations. At the same time, we advise our clients on their legal rights.Deportation

The report focuses on failed refugee claimants who have deportation orders. Let me make a brief comment on this group. It is important to note that even when the refugee claimant’s risk may not rise to the level of risk per sections 96 or 97 of IRPA, they may still face significant risk or hardship and/or persecution. The fact is that the legal bar to refugee status is a high legal test and claimants must go through a rigorous adjudicative process, including examination and cross-examination of testimony. Another key fact is there is a shortage of competent legal counsel and claimants may be poorly prepared for their hearing.

Winnipeg Free Press reporter Eva Wasney published an article on the Auditor General’s report that discussed the challenges faced by CBSA:

Winnipeg immigration lawyer Alastair Clarke said some of the criticisms in the report are valid, but the audit is a an “oversimplification” of the removal process because it doesn’t include specific case examples.

“My concern is that the public reads this report, they don’t understand the details, the individuals who are behind these numbers, and this type of report causes undue or exaggerated anxiety in the public,” Clarke said. “The individuals who are under enforceable removal orders in the serious criminality category are generally only a small fraction of individuals in that entire pool.”

Of the more than 34,000 cases in the agency’s wanted inventory, 2,800 were criminal.

Indeed, to a certain extent, this report provides a limited perspective on the current state of removals and it fails to provide a nuanced approach to a complex procedure. I have spoken many times on this topic. Canadian laws require CBSA Officers to adhere to procedural fairness and, in our experience, CBSA Officers in Manitoba are vigilant in following Canadian laws and regulations.

In addition, I strongly agree with my friend and advocate Dr. Lori Wilkinson who has been doing significant research at the University of Manitoba’s Immigration Research West group:

While Wilkinson said she is glad to see the immigration removal audit, she is worried that the report could have a negative impact on people who are in Canada legally.

“There could be backlashes against immigrants,” she said. “Lots of people make the leap that if the deportation system isn’t working, then the immigration system must not be working.”

This is absolutely correct. In my view, IRCC Officers and CBSA Officers are working hard to ensure integrity in the system and they take deportation orders seriously.

On the flip side, let us be reminded of deportations that have been rushed and have led to disastrous results. One example that comes to mind is the case of Lucia Vega Jimenez from 2014. She was a failed refugee claimant from Mexico with an enforceable removal order as described in the Auditor General’s report. While she was on the verge of being deported, she took her own life in Vancouver. Advocates point to the serious risks to her life. On its face, I believe anyone can understand that if she was so afraid to go back to Mexico she would take her own life to prevent deportation, she had genuine fear.

In my view, it is important to consider the people behind these numbers. Every case is different, and I can tell you from many years of experience, immigration is messy. As correctly noted by the report, CBSA Officers focus their resources on serious criminals and ensuring the safety of the Canadian public. This is exactly how the system is designed to work.

Denied Entry to Canada: What Can You Do?

/in , , , , /by

Crossing the border is rarely a simple act. In the post-9/11 world, security checks have increased and each foreign national faces additional scrutiny from Immigration Officers. In Canada, the border security is the responsibility of Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), under the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. They work closely with other police agencies and they have access to international databases to screen everyone, and everything, that goes through a border. When CBSA is dealing with a Permanent Resident of Canada, a Canadian Citizen or an immigration application, they may refer the case to their counterparts at Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada (IRCC, formerly known as CIC). If you are denied entry to Canada, it may be due to a negative determination by a CBSA Officer or an IRCC Officer. What can you do?

The first question to deal with is where you are trying to enter. Issues vary between entering at land borders, ports and airports. 

One of the common situations that we face is when Permanent Residents who are trying to fly back to Canada without a valid PR Card. The airline will not let them board their flight back to Canada without a valid travel document. There are a number of risks in these situations. One of my first concerns is that if the PR is anxious to return, they may insist on boarding the flight and then, when they enter Canada, they may request temporary status. This puts their Permanent Resident status at risk and we do not advise this option.

When a PR is flying back to Canada without a valid PR Card, they have two (2) main options – neither option is cheap or easy. The first option is to go to the nearest Canadian Consulate, Embassy or High Commission. Canada has hundreds of offices peppered around the world in every continent, except Antarctica. I have never had a client call who could not travel to a Canadian office within their jurisdiction.

Once the PR reaches the consulate, they may apply for a Permanent Resident Travel Document “PRTD”. The government fee for the document is $50 and processing times vary from 1 hour to 2 months. We had one case where the printer at the Canadian office was broken and they had to order a new printer before they could issue new travel documents. In general, the Officers who work in these offices are very supportive and they will help any Permanent Resident who is courteous and professional.

The second option, for some, is to fly to the United States and enter Canada at a land border. For those clients who are at the airport and they do not want to leave the airport, this may be an option. NOTE: this option is only available to individuals and/ or families who are able to enter the United States and they do not have other issues with American authorities. We also advise our clients that we do not practice US immigration law and, therefore, if there are any issues with US authorities, we would refer the matter to an American colleague.

Being denied entry can be a stressful experience. Airline staff are not government officials and their knowledge of Canadian immigration law is limited. If you or your family members are in a situation where you are denied entry, we recommend that you call a lawyer whom you trust to help you properly navigate the system.

 

Former Immigration Officer: “Gave Bad Advice for Money”

/in , , , , , , /by

As reported in the Windsor Star, former Immigration Officer Flavio Angelo Andreatta used a store as a “front” and provided bad immigration advice to clients. He was an unlicensed representative who should have known better and he has been sentenced in criminal court.

Here is an excerpt from the Windsor Star article:

Andreatta, a retired Canadian immigration officer grandfathered into the Canada Border Services Agency, would instruct clients to make cheques out to the cultural charity, headquartered at his Kingsville home. He would then make withdrawals from the society’s bank account, a fact that caused the group’s treasurer and former bookkeeper to resign in 2011.

Andreatta, who turns 68 next week, pleaded guilty in Superior Court Wednesday to contravening Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act by providing immigration advice for a fee. Only lawyers or people vetted by a sanctioned body can charge for that work.

As punishment, Andreatta will spend the next year on house arrest, followed by two years on probation.

Court heard Andreatta collected more than $25,000 for his services between June 2011 and December 2014.

Having the money flow through the Italian Genealogy and Heraldry Society was the “subterfuge” Andreatta used, federal prosecutor Paul Bailey told the court.

Having been an immigration officer in the past, Andreatta “certainly was in a position to know better,” Bailey said.

“He gave some bad advice for money.”

Authorities first learned of Andreatta’s activities in May 2012 when a woman who was an Italian national was denied a visitor’s visa. She had been working at the Caboto Club on a work permit that was about to expire. She was later deemed inadmissible to Canada because she had continued to work past the expiry date.

Clearly, this former Officer set up the charity with the purpose of deceiving the government and breaking the law. In my view, house arrest is too lenient on this gentlemen, no matter his health “ailments”, his background and his years of service. As stated in the article, “Only lawyers or people vetted by a sanctioned body can charge for that work.” Those described in the second part are sanctioned by ICCRC and they are subject to discipline by their professional organization. In my view, there are benefits to the system in the United States where they do not allow immigration consultants to represent clients.

Note that the decision by Superior Court Justice Kirk Munroe does not preclude the Law Society of Ontario from imposing additional punishment to the immigration officer and ordering separate fines for providing legal services in Ontario without a licence.

Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter L.8. Section 26.2 of the Law Society Act states as follows:

Non-licensee practising law or providing legal services

26.1 (1) Subject to subsection (5), no person, other than a licensee whose licence is not suspended, shall practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario.  2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 22.

26.2 (1) Every person who contravenes section 26.1 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of,

(a) not more than $25,000 for a first offence; and

(b) not more than $50,000 for each subsequent offence.  2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 22.

 

MCJA Conference: Guest Speaker on Criminal Justice

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

On 9 November 2017, Alastair will be a Guest Speaker at the annual Manitoba Criminal Justice Association conference. Here is a description of the Association and its importance in criminal justice:

criminal justice

The Manitoba Criminal Justice Association (MCJA) is a provincial affiliate of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association (CCJA) and has been actively engaged in promoting crime prevention initiatives in Manitoba for over 40 years. It is an independent, community-based organization, governed by a Board of Directors which is comprised of citizens interested in achieving the objectives of the Association. The Manitoba Criminal Justice Association exists to promote rational, informed, and responsible debate in order to contribute to the development of a more humane, equitable, and effective justice system.

Alastair will be speaking on criminal justice issues and the rights of refugees. He regularly represents refugees at the IRB, Refugee Protection Division. He also represents clients at all levels of tribunal, as well as Federal Court on appeals. He also assists clients who have criminality issues who face Section 44 Reports from CBSA and foreign nationals who have criminal convictions and need a TRP to enter Canada. His talk will cover:

The talk is part of a larger series that includes many perspectives and we welcome any questions at the end of the presentation. Please note that Alastair cannot give any legal advice on any individual matters at the conference.

MCJA is currently still accepting new registrations which can be done through their website here.

Participants at the conference will have access to all materials provided by MCJA. The purpose of the workshop is to foster coordination between agencies and to make sure that refugees are provided with sound advice and resources to potentially establish themselves in Canada.

“Warkentin family still battling to overturn a decision from Immigration Canada”

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

FROM 730CKDM.COM: 

The Warkentin family from Waterhen are still battling to overturn a decision from Immigration Canada which denied them Permanent Resident status because of their daughter’s disability.

The family has hired Alastair Clarke, an immigration lawyer from Winnipeg to handle their case.

Clarke provides some insight to Immigration Canada’s decision.

“Unfortunately medical inadmissibility are not uncommon. Generally the individuals who face this type of issue come to me before a refusal. In this case the Warkentin family responded to the fairness letter, submitted all the evidence and then after it was refused, that’s when they came.”

If the decision cannot be reversed, the Warkentins could face moving back to the U.S. by November of this year, when their visas run out.