Showing that the Visa Officer or IRB Member or CBSA Officer Was Biased

Many individuals think that either a visa officer, a Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) officer or an Immigration and Refugee Board member is biased against them.

This is not an argument to make lightly.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that in order for an individual to demonstrate that a government decision maker is biased, then:

the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. [T]hat test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the matter through — conclude.  Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.

As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has also noted that:

Regardless of the precise words used to describe the test, the object of the different formulations is to emphasize that the threshold for a finding of real or perceived bias is high. It is a finding that must be carefully considered since it calls into question an element of judicial integrity. Indeed an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias calls into question not simply the personal integrity of the judge, but the integrity of the entire administration of justice. Where reasonable grounds to make such an allegation arise, counsel must be free to fearlessly raise such allegations. Yet, this is a serious step that should not be undertaken lightly.

As the Supreme Court of Canada stated, an accusation of bias is not something that should be undertaken lightly, and in the overwhelming majority of cases the Federal Court of Canada has dismissed such accusations.  The most common accusation that individuals often make is that an individual is biased because of their race.  The Federal Court of Canada has categorically rejected such race based allegations, and held that individuals are not entitled to decide who adjudicates their matter, but can only expect that they will be treated fairly.  In my experience, the race and gender of an adjudicator is completely, and thankfully, irrelevant in Canada’s immigration system.

There are, however, instances where the Federal Court did find that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed.

In Guemache v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the allegation of bias involved the following exchanges and statements between an Immigration and Refugee Board member and an appellant:

Chairperson: I don’t put anybody in jail, I don’t condemn anyone to death, so rest assured, that’s already settled.

Chairperson: You see, I speak quite loudly – not in an attempt to intimidate you, Sir, but so that you understand me . . .

Chairperson.             Okay. And what happened?

R.             I came out to go take the bus, on my way, the distance . . . between the police station . . . the bus stop was . . . is a little bit far from . . . the police station. I was walking on my way and suddenly a car stopped, four people got out from . . . the vehicle, they came toward me, they insulted me, they hit me on the head, they told me that I was . . . what do you call it, a informant for the police.

Q.             And these people, did you know them?

A.             No.

Q.             Had you seen them before?

A.             No.

Q.             Did they say anything to you other than that you were a police informant?

A.             They said to me “You must stop doing this work.”

Q.             Did they . . .

A.             “And don’t think that we’ll . . .we’ll leave you in peace, we’ll get you.

BY THE CHAIRPERSON (addressing the claimant)

Q.             Why did . . . why didn’t they kill you right away, Sir?

A.             I don’t know, maybe I was . . . I was lucky.

. . .

BY THE COUNSELOR (addressing the Chairperson)

Q.             And can I ask a question?

A.             Yes, yes, yes.

BY THE COUNSELOR (addressing the claimant)

Q.             Why did you stay home?


Excellent question.

So, Sir, if you gave your passport to your brother on February 7, 8 or 10, 2002, to get a visa, can you explain to me how your brother gave this to someone, then, at some point, the visa was issued on January 28, 2002. So, if it’s a genuine visa, then, there’s like a problem, Sir. How can you give a passport to your brother without a visa on February 7, 8 or 10 and have a visa in your passport dated January 28, 2002

. . .

BY THE CHAIRPERSON (addressing the claimant)

Q.             Sir, does . . . “internal asylum” ring a bell?

The Federal Court ruled that the Member completely overstepped his boundaries, and that the applicant was denied the ability to present his case.  It described the member’s comments as  “gratuitous and uncalled for”.

In Kalkat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration Canada), a Citizenship Judge made the following comments to an individual who was requesting a language waiver:

Somebody who does not speak English or French will never be Canadian.

Tomorrow, I will grant citizenship to 800 people who all speak French or English; they all passed the test! Your lawyer has written to us that you cannot be able to learn about our country and language. Unfortunately, we receive this argument from hundreds and thousands of people.

The medical opinion on record was just an opinion of a person not as a doctor because doctors are not linguistic experts.

I am a judge and I apply the law, my first wife was Russian and my second wife was Romanian; they came as immigrants and learned.

During the hearing, I observed that you seem to understand all my questions and that you were able to converse fluently with your interpreter.

Many other people have trouble learning; some work harder at learning and some don’t and you should have learnt with the help of your husband and children.

If a negative decision is rendered, you can go to the Federal Court of Appeal and get an audition.

The Court found that this demonstrated bias, especially the reference to the Citizenship Judge’s ex-wife.

In Dena Hernandez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Justice Martineau determined that an Immigration and Refugee Board member demonstrated bias through aggressive questioning, and also by implying that twins were not normal.

In Kalombo Kabongo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)Justice Martineau also determined that an Immigration and Refugee Board member demonstrated bias when the member acknowledged that he had pre-written a decision (which the member stressed wasn’t final) so that the member could issue the final written decision quickly.

As is hopefully shown, these examples are particularly blatant and egregious.  Most allegations of bias are unsuccessful because in almost every instance a visa officer, CBSA officer, or IRB member does do their best to maintain impartiality.

Finally, the Federal Court in Delos Santos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) has also ruled that it is not a breach of procedural fairness for the same officer to determine both an applicant’s humanitarian & compassionate (“H&C“) application as well as an applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA“), and that there was no inherent bias arising from the same officer dealing with both a H&C application and a PRRA application for the same individual.

This decision was based on the Federal Court of Appeal’s (the “FCA“) decision in Oshurova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) where the FCA answered the following certified question in the negative:

Is there an appearance of bias, in this case, because the same officer decided the application for a visa exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds as well as the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment?

Open Marriages and the Family Class


Canadian immigration law allows people to sponsor their spouses or common-law partners to immigrate to Canada.  A question that often arises is whether open relationships count.

Multiple Spouses or Common-Law Partners

Canadian immigration law is clear that a person cannot have more than one spouse or more than one common-law partner for the purpose of immigration. .

Section 119(9)(c) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations provides that a person cannot sponsor someone if the prospective immigrant is the Canadian’s spouse and (i) the sponsor or the foreign national was, at the time of their marriage, the spouse of another person, or (ii) the sponsor has lived separate and apart from the foreign national for at least one year and either the sponsor is the common-law partner of another person or the foreign national is the common-law partner of another person.

On the issue of polygamous marriages, section 13.2 of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Overseas Processing Manual 2 – Processing Members of the Family Class (the “Guidelines”) further states that:

Polygamous marriages

Officers must counsel both parties that polygamy is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. R117(9)(c)(i) states that a spouse is not a member of the family class if the spouse or sponsor was already married to another person at the time of the subsequent marriage. This regulation prohibits a second (or third, etc.) wife from being recognized as a spouse within the family class and provides that only the first marriage may potentially be recognized for immigration purposes.

In order for the first marriage to be recognized as legally valid under Canadian law, the couple must live together in a monogamous marriage in Canada. Common law imparts that a polygamous marriage can be converted into a monogamous marriage provided that the couple live together in a monogamous relationship from the time of arrival in Canada. This conversion is effected by the stated intention of the parties to so convert their marriage, followed by some factual evidence that they have complied—usually by divorcing the other spouses and/or by a remarriage in a form that is valid in Canada.

The decision to refuse must be based on the balance of all evidence, and not solely because the applicant did not obtain a divorce. The parties must understand that refusal to provide such evidence may result in a refusal of their application.

A polygamous second (or third, etc.) marriage cannot be converted to one of monogamy. If a husband wishes to sponsor a wife other than his first as a spouse, he must divorce his other wives and remarry the chosen wife in a form of marriage that is valid in Canada. He and his chosen spouse must sign a declaration to that effect.

When a sponsor and applicant have been practising polygamy and there are children existing from several spouses, officers must caution the sponsor and the spouse being sponsored that other spouses will not be eligible for immigration to Canada even if their respective children are sponsored. Officers must explain that separation of children from their mothers will likely be permanent, and counsel the sponsor and applicant to consider the consequences of that separation on the children. If the children nonetheless are sponsored, and if one of these children subsequently sponsors their respective mother, this mother must be cautioned that she will have no spousal status and related legal protection in Canada and that she will not be eligible for support or other benefits that also flow from marriage under Canadian law.

The prohibition against polygamy in the Regulations, and the lack of recognition of all spouses except the first, cannot be avoided by processing a second spouse as a common-law partner. Legally, it is not possible to establish a common-law relationship that meets the definition of such in terms of conjugality, where one or both parties are still living in a pre-existing conjugal relationship. The notion of conjugality has within it the requirement of monogamy; therefore, it is only possible in law to establish a new common-law relationship after a person is either divorced or separated from the spouse or common-law partner and where they have convincingly formed the intention not to continue with that previous relationship.

An already existing marriage, uninterrupted by separation, divorce or death, is a barrier that cannot be overcome when assessing a second spouse as a common-law partner. However, where such a barrier is removed (i.e., a first wife is subsequently divorced or is deceased), a husband and second wife could choose either to remarry, or could potentially meet the definition of common-law partner (i.e., where a husband was separated from a first wife and lived with a second wife in a bona fide conjugal relationship for one year after the separation from a first wife). Because a subsequent marriage (where the first is continuing) is not valid in Canadian law, persons in such a scenario would be considered as single in law and thus, they would have to remarry to be considered married under Canadian law.

Section 5.42 of the Guidelines further states that:

5.42. Simultaneous common-law or conjugal partner relationships with two or more people (polygamous-like relationships)

A common-law or conjugal partner relationship cannot be established with more than one person
at the same time. The term “conjugal” by its very nature implies exclusivity and a high degree of
commitment; a conjugal relationship cannot exist among more than two people simultaneously.
Polygamous-like relationships cannot be considered conjugal and do not qualify as common-law
or conjugal partner relationships.


Open Relationships

Suppose someone is in a common-law partnership or a marriage, but that the relationship is an open one.  IRCC’s manuals emphasize that in order for a relationship to qualify for Canadian sponsorship purposes the relationship must be conjugal, and that in order for the relationship to be conjugal the relationship must be mutually exclusive.

While the Guidelines are silent on the issue of open marriages and open relationships, the Immigration Appeal Division has held that whether a relationship is open is just one factor in determining whether a relationship is genuine or if it was entered into for Canadian immigration purposes, and that the only part of whether an open sexual relationship could result in a relationship not being conjugal would be if both parties did not mutually agree or recognize that the relationship was open.

As such, Canadians wishing to sponsor a spouse or common-law partner and who are in an open relationship with that person should simply ensure that they do an especially good job of demonstrating that they are in a conjugal relationship, by showing the interdependence in the relationship,  the co-mingling of finances, the public recognition of their relationship and the other factors mentioned in the Guidelines.



Addressing Ghost Consultants

For years, Canadian politicians have been grappling with the issue of how to end untrained and unregulated people from providing immigration advice, a practice commonly known as “ghost consulting.”  There appears to be a general consensus that tens of thousands of people each year are scammed by ghost consultants.  As well, even though they are not licensed, ghost consultants harm the reputation of the immigration consulting profession broadly.

The Government of Canada has launched numerous attempts at cracking down on ghost consultants, including, requiring licensing, creating the designated the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, and creating this video:

As well, in June, 2010, the previous Conservative Government of Canada stepped up Canada’s efforts to regulate immigration consultants by introducing Bill C-35, also known as the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act.

Continue reading “Addressing Ghost Consultants”

Disabled Adults and the Best Interests of the Child Analysis

“Every child is a dependent but not every dependent is a child”.

Individuals who apply for Canadian permanent residency can request that visa officers consider humanitarian & compassionate factors to exempt them from general immigration requirements.  Such factors can include the best interests of children. Pursuant to Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal in Hawthorne v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), the best interests of the child in a humanitarian & compassionate consideration context involves, for example, an assessment of the benefits a child would receive if a parent was not removed from Canada, in conjunction with an assessment of the difficulties the child would face if the parent was removed and the child remained in Canada, or if the child was to return to the parent’s country of origin with the parent.

Previously, the issue of whether the best interests of a child extended to adult dependents was unclear.  Some decisions stated that the determining factor was whether an adult child was dependent on his or her parents.  In Naredo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), a 20-year old was determined to be a child under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA“) because he was dependent on his parents. In Ramsawak v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),meanwhile, the Federal Court explicitly stated that the “mere fact a ‘child’ is over 18 should not automatically relieve an officer from considering his or her ‘best interests'”, and that the dependency of the individual on his/her parents is what matters.

However, in Saporsantos Leobrera v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (“Saporsantos“) Justice Shore systemically and thoroughly criticized the principle that dependency determines whether one is a child.  Justice Shore’s decision has generally become the leading case on this topic, and it is now generally understood that adult dependents are not entitled to a best interests of the child consideration.

An Overview of the Decision

The applicant in Saporsantos argued that the definition of “dependent child” in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the “Regulations“) determined whether a person was entitled to a best interests of the child analysis.  Section 2 of the Regulations then defined “Dependent Child” as follows (emphasis added):

“dependent child”, in respect of a parent, means a child who

(a) has one of the following relationships with the parent, namely,

(i) is the biological child of the parent, if the child has not been adopted by a person other than the spouse or common-law partner of the parent, or

(ii) is the adopted child of the parent; and

(b) is in one of the following situations of dependency, namely,

(i) is less than 22 years of age and not a spouse or common-law partner,

(ii) has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22 — or if the child became a spouse or common-law partner before the age of 22, since becoming a spouse or common-law partner — and, since before the age of 22 or since becoming a spouse or common-law partner, as the case may be, has been a student

(A) continuously enrolled in and attending a post-secondary institution that is accredited by the relevant government authority, and

(B) actively pursuing a course of academic, professional or vocational training on a full-time basis, or

(iii) is 22 years of age or older and has depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before the age of 22 and is unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.

Justice Shore, however, noted that section 2 of the Regulations began with the statement that:

2. The definitions in this section apply in these Regulations.

He accordingly concluded that the IRPA and its Regulations are two different pieces of legislation and that the definition of “dependent child” in the Regulations did not determine what a child for H&C consideration in IRPA.

After concluding that s. 2 of the Regulations did not determine the issue, Justice Shore noted that the using the definition of “dependent child” to interpret the meaning of  “child” is contrary to the presumption of consistent expression. The presumption of consistent expression states that:

It is presumed that the legislature uses language carefully and consistently so that within a statute or other legislative instrument the same words have the same meaning and different words have different meanings. Another way of understanding this presumption is to say that the legislature is presumed to avoid stylistic variation.  Once a particular way of expressing a meaning has been adopted, it makes sense to infer that where a different form of expression is used, a different meaning is intended.

Justice Shore concluded that the appropriate reference to determine the meaning of “child” was not IRPA’s Regulations, but rather the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (the “Convention).  The Court noted that while the Convention has not been enacted into Canadian law, the jurisprudence is clear that IRPA must be interpreted in accordance with international treaties, that the values reflected in such treaties may help inform Canadian statutory interpretation, and that the importance of the Convention has been specifically stressed in Canadian immigration jurisprudence.

The Convention defines a child as:

Article 1

For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

Accordingly, Justice Shore determined that adult dependents are not entitled to best interests of the child consideration, a principle which has since been upheld in numerous Federal Court of Canada and Immigration and Refugee Board decisions.


As such, practitioners should note that disabled adult clients are not entitled to a best interests of the child analysis for H&C purposes.


Nonetheless, common sense indicates that the impact that a guardian’s separation would have on a disabled adult would still be a significant factor in determining whether there are sufficient H&C grounds to qualify for an H&C exemption.  Accordingly, while a tougher test applies, applicants should continue to stress what the interests of their adult dependent children are.

Spousal Sponsor is Pregnant with Someone Else’s Child

When someone sponsors their spouse or common-law partner to immigrate to Canada, it can often be difficult to determine how detailed one’s application should be.  Should one include every aspect of their relationship history, including marital difficulties?  What about instances of fidelity?

Several Federal Court of Canada decisions involving cases of alleged misrepresentation against applicants offer guidance on this topic.

In Chen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),(“Chen“), Mr. Chen, a Chinese citizen, married Ms. Zou, a Canadian permanent resident. Ms. Zou then sponsored Mr. Chen for permanent residence.  While Mr. Chen’s application was in processing, a friend told him that his wife had been seen “in the company” of another man in Toronto.

When Mr. Chen arrived in Canada, he discovered that his wife pregnant with another man’s child.  According to Justice Harrington, Mr. Chen was willing to forgive his wife, and asked her to get an abortion. She refused. On many occasions she made sexual overtures to him but he was both unwilling and unable to perform. Ms. Chen “taunted Ms. Zou’s lack of manhood.”

As one would expect, the marriage shortly dissolved thereafter.

After the divorce, Mr. Chen married an old flame in China.  He then attempted to sponsor her for Canadian permanent residency.

Unfortunately for Mr. Chen, Canadian immigration authorities not only disallowed his new wife’s application, but also declared Mr. Chen to be inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation in his own immigration application.

Essentially, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) alleged that Mr. Chen’s first marriage to Ms. Zou was not genuine, that Mr. Chen lied to enter Canada, and that his permanent residency should accordingly be revoked.  Specifically, the CBSA was suspicious because Mr. Chen did not have a wedding reception upon arriving in Canada, he did not confront his wife about the rumours before he left China, and he did not return to China once his marriage to Ms. Zou dissolved.

Justice Harrington, however, held that in determining whether a marriage is genuine for the purposes of immigration, one has to consider whether the marriage was genuine in the first place, and whether it was still genuine when the Applicant arrives at a Canadian port of entry.

Regarding Mr. Chen’s failure to disclose to immigration officials the possibility of Ms. Zou having an affair, Justice Harrington noted that at the time of the interview Ms. Zou having an affair was only a rumor, and that the duty of candour did not oblige Mr. Chen to share mere worries.  As Justice Harrington wrote,

As to not sharing the rumours with the officer at the time of his interview, what material fact did he withhold? The only fact was that he had heard rumours. Even if they were true, it did not mean that the marriage was necessarily at an end. The Divorce Act specifically contemplates the possibility of reconciliation and the divorce papers jointly signed by the parties, which are to be found in the tribunal record, contain their joint statement that reconciliation was not possible.

In Osisanwo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), a similar issue arose. There, a Canadian citizen filed an application to sponsor his parents to immigrate to Canada.  He included his birth certificate in the application to show that the people that he was applying to sponsor were his parents.  Ultimately, immigration officials required DNA testing, which showed that while his mother was indeed his mother, he was not his “father’s” son. Immigration officials determined that this constituted misrepresentation.

Justice Hughes, disagreed.  He noted that DNA testing proved that the mother was really the Canadian child’s mother, that the “father” had raised the child, and that the “father” had no reason to suspect that he was not the person’s biological father. As Justice Hughes noted:

History is replete with children born to and raised by a married couple, believing it to be their own. Must an applicant seeking entry into Canada disclose every extra-marital relationship conducted at a time where there is any possibility that a child might have been fathered by someone other than the husband? Surely our society has not found itself at that point.

The above two cases should not be taken to mean that applicants can never disclose extra-marital affairs when they apply to immigrate to Canada.  In Kawech v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)the Federal Court of Canada had to address a situation where someone failed to disclose the existence of a long-standing mistress.

Mr. Kawech, a Tunisian, married Ms. Charlotte, a much older woman who could not have any children.  Mr. Kawech also had a long-standing mistress with whom he had children.  Mr. Kawech did not mention the existence of this affair during the processing of his spousal sponsorship application.  When immigration officials eventually discovered it, they determined that his marriage to Ms. Charlotte was not genuine.

Madam Justice Gleason agreed, and determined that while applicants did not need to disclose every extra-marital incident, that a long-standing affair could reasonably cast doubt onto the genuineness of a marriage.

These three cases, and a string of similar cases at the Immigration Appeal Division, show that when completing their immigration paperworks applicants should keep in mind that in assessing the genuineness of a marriage there may be a difference between those who have one-night stands or flings, and those who are in extra-marital relationships that last close to one year.

As also shown above, the issue of extra-marital affairs in spousal sponsorship applications also goes beyond simply impacting whether a marriage is genuine.  A father who is informed by Canadian immigration officials that he is both not the biological parent of his child, which by itself would be devastating, may also discover that he is also banned from Canada for misrepresentation because he did not disclose what he did not know in his immigration application.

Fortunately, as long as applicants can show that they both (a) did not know that they were not the biological parents of their child and (b) that this belief was reasonable, the innocent mistake defence to misrepresentation would likely apply.

How the Post-Graduate Work Permit Program Works

The Post-Graduation Work Permit (“PGWP“) allows students who have graduated from most Canadian public post-secondary institutions to stay and work in Canada upon graduation.  As someone who remembers when I was in undergrad the frustration of international students who had to leave Canada upon graduating even though they would have jumped at the opportunity to stay, work, and pay taxes in Canada, it is certainly a welcome program.

PGWPs are open work permits. This means that international graduates who possess them can work for any employer.  There is no restriction on the type of work that can be performed.  Having said that, if a student wishes to work in health care or in education they will need to first obtain a medical exam. And, as with all work permits, PGWP holders are prohibited from working in the sex industry.

There is no requirement for a job offer prior to applying.


Outside of Quebec, in order for an international graduate to obtain a PGWP after graduating, an international student must:

  • have a valid study permit when applying for their PGWP;
  • have continuously studied full time in Canada, except for the final academic session, where part-time studies are permitted;
  • have completed and passed a program of study that is at least eight months in duration at either a public post-secondary institution, a private post-secondary institution that operates under the same rules and regulations as public institutions, or at a Canadian private institution if the student was enrolled in a program of study which led to a degree; and
  • apply for the work permit within 90 days of receiving written confirmation from their educational institution that they have met the requirements for completing their program of study.

If an international student in Canada completes a post-secondary program of study that is two or more years, the student can apply for a three-year work permit. If the program of study is between eight months and two years, then the student will be eligible for a work permit lasting for a period equal to the duration of the student’s  studies.

How to Apply

An international graduate must submit the application for a PGWP within 90 days, from either the date their final marks are issued or when they receive a formal written notification of graduation from the institution, whichever comes first, indicating that they have met the requirements of their program of study.

As well, their study permit must continue to be valid when you submit your application for a work permit.

The work permit application package and guide can be found on the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s website here. The checklist can be downloaded here. In addition to the standard forms and documents that are required for work permit applications, PGWP applicants are required to provide the following:

Combining Programs

One question that frequently arises is what would happen if a student obtains a second one-year diploma after having already completed a one-year diploma prior to that.  Would the student be eligible for a one year PGWP or a two-year one?

The answer is that the length of the two one-year degrees may be combined to obtain a three-year work permit.  For example, a student who obtains a one-year diploma program in Canada, and then completes a one-year MBA, well receive a three year PGWP.

Distance Learning

Students who complete a program of study by distance learning (from outside or inside Canada) are not eligible for the PGWP.

After much uncertainty over how this distance-learning policy was to be interpreted, pursuant to the IRCC website officers are recommended to use the following guidelines in their assessment of an applicant’s PGWP eligibility when they have taken distance or online learning in Canada:

  • when less than the majority of all the credits earned by the student toward the completion of a program of study were earned by completing online courses, a post-graduation work permit may be issued based on the length of the program as confirmed by the school, including credits earned from both in-class and online courses; and
  • when the majority of the credits earned by the student toward the completion of a program of study were earned by completing online courses, the applicant is ineligible for the PGWP, as the program may reasonably be considered a distance-learning program.

Implication of Doing a Victory Lap and Going on Exchange

While the PGWP requires full-time study, there is an exception for people in their last semester.

As well, going on exchange outside of Canada will not result in someone being ineligible to obtain a PGWP.

Open Spousal Work Permits

The spouse or common-law partner of a PGWP holder can obtain a work permit only if the PGWP holder is working in a skilled occupation as defined in National Occupational Classification 0, A or B of the National Occupational Classification website. To demonstrate this, the spouse or common-law partner should show the following.

  • a letter from their current employer confirming employment or a copy of their employment offer or contract; and
  • a copy of 3 of their pay stubs.

Refusal Rates

One of the more surprising things about the PGWP is its rather high refusal rate.  Indeed, during the first six months of 2016, the PGWP refusal rate exceeded 20% in every month except May, and in both June and March the refusal rate was 40% or more.

Although a breakdown of the reasons for refusal of PGWP applications has not been published, it is likely because international graduates either:

  • attended a private school whose graduates are not eligible to receive PGWPs (which, contrary to the opinion of some private institutions) is mot of them;
  • their application was returned for being incomplete and when they tried to apply again their study permit had expired; or
  • a visa officer determined that they did not meet the full-time studies requirement.

In order to avoid such rejections, it is important that students:

  • research their prospective educational institution so that they know whether it qualifies;
  • ensure that their PGWP application is complete and that it includes the correct fee amount; and
  • if there is any question about whether their studies were full-time, to make sure that it is explained in their application.

As with all applications, the onus is on the applicant to make sure that they have shown that they meet the requirements of the PGWP.  If something is unclear, the visa officer is not under any obligation to seek clarification, but can refuse the application. For this reason, it is imperative that international graduates ensure that their application is complete and satisfactory.

Section 7 of the Charter and Canadian Immigration Law

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter“) provides that:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

There have been several Supreme Court of Canada (the “Supreme Court“) and Federal Court of Appeal decisions involving s. 7 of the Charter and Canadian immigration law.

Continue reading “Section 7 of the Charter and Canadian Immigration Law”