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.