Regulation 4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPR“) state that: 4. (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse, a common-law partner or a conjugal partner of a person if the marriage, common-law partnership or conjugal partnership (a) was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act; or (b) is not genuine. The primary purpose test and the genuineness test are determined with respect to different time-frames. As the Federal Court noted in Idrizi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1187 The relevant time for the primary purpose test is in the past (i.e. the time of the marriage); the relevant time for the genuineness test is the present (i.e. the time of the decision). Evidence that a marriage is not genuine can support the inference that it was entered into primarily for an immigration purpose. The converse is also true. these determinations can be exceedingly difficult. Officers must “proceed cautiously and carefully, ever aware of the need to facilitate family reunification, while at the same time safeguarding the integrity of the immigration process” (at 1944). There will rarely be direct evidence of an improper purpose. Instead, normally … Read More
Sponsoring Someone Who is Out of Status in Canada
It is generally well known that Canadian citizens or permanent residents wishing to sponsor their spouses or common-law partners from abroad can typically do so. As well, most people know that Canadians who live with their spouses or common-law partners who are inside Canada as legal visitors, workers or students can sponsor them as well. What is less known is that they can also sponsor those who are in Canada without status. Requirements Canada since 2005 has had a public policy in which Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada will process permanent residence applications from the spouses and common-law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents in Canada who do not have legal immigration status. The objective of the policy is to facilitate family reunification and facilitate processing in cases where families are already residing together in Canada. It is to prevent the hardship caused by family separation. Lack of legal immigration status includes people who overstayed visas or permits, people who worked or studied without authorization from the government to do so, people who entered in Canada without required visas and people who entered Canada without valid passports. The most typical situation involves people who travelled to Canada, became romantically … Read More
Sponsoring a Common-Law Partner
Canadian immigration law allows Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their common-law partners. It requires that: people in relationships who have not married to have cohabited together for at least one year in a conjugal relationship; that the cohabitation during that year be continuous rather than intermittent cohabitation adding up to one year; that the relationship be genuine; and that the relationship not be entered into to acquire an immigration benefit. While cohabitation means living together continuously, short periods of separation due to work, business travel, family obligations, etc., are permitted. After the one-year period of cohabitation has been established, the partners may live apart for periods of time without legally breaking the cohabitation, provided that there is evidence that both parties are continuing the relationship. In Chantladze v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 771, Justice Fothergill stated that it was a reviewable error for an officer to consider the reasons why a couple had lived apart after they had previously lived together for one year continuously. As the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada guidelines note: “According to case law, the definition of a common-law partner should be read as “an individual who is (ordinarily) cohabiting.” After the … Read More
Make Spousal Sponsorships Work to Reunite Families
The following is an article that I wrote for Policy Options. On February 14, 2018, Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), announced that the processing time for spousal sponsorship applications had been reduced from 26 months to 12 months in 80 percent of cases. The Minister attributed the reduction to a “Family Class Tiger Team” that had redesigned application packages and introduced workflow efficiencies. What the Minister didn’t mention was that IRCC achieved its reduction in processing at least in part because it has established an unbelievably strict triage system for marriage-based immigration applications. As reported in several media outlets at the end of January 2018, this intake-management system has in many instances left Canadian families in limbo, caused people who were legally in Canada to lose their status and impeded the ability of the foreign-national spouses of Canadian citizens to work. On the same day that the Minister made his announcement, IRCC issued an Operational Bulletin stating that effective March 15, 2018, IRCC would return as incomplete applications that do not include a detailed form listing personal and address history, and police certificates from countries where applicants have lived. These forms and police certificates were previously … Read More
Customary, Tribal, Video and Proxy Marriages and Immigrating to Canada
Marriage ceremonies vary across the world. Many involve customs and rituals that would be completely foreign to most Canadians.
Addressing Concerns About Marriage Fraud
(The following is an article that I wrote for Policy Options.) On April 13, 2017, the Trudeau government fulfilled a campaign promise from the 2015 federal election by eliminating the status of conditional permanent residency from Canada’s family reunification immigration programs. From 2012 to 2017, under rules implemented by the previous Harper government, immigrants who were married or in a common-law relationship with a Canadian citizen or permanent resident for less than three years before being sponsored by their partner for permanent residency would become conditional permanent residents. The “condition” was that if they separated from their partner within two years of immigrating, they could lose their status and be removed from Canada. The Trudeau government’s decision to end conditional permanent residency was treated with jubilation by most Canadian immigration lawyers and observers; many stakeholders remarked how callous and draconian the Conservatives were to have introduced such a measure in the first place. Indeed, the Liberal government stated when it repealed conditional permanent residency that it was taking this action to uphold its commitment to family reunification, support gender equality and combat gender violence. The implication, of course, was that the Conservatives did not care about any of these … Read More
Who Can Be Sponsored
One of the questions that we are most frequently asked is which family members can be sponsored under Canada’s family reunification programs. Most people rightly assume that Canadian citizens and/or permanent residents can sponsor their spouses, children, and parents. However, many also wonder about sponsoring siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc. Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR“), provide that a Canadian citizen / permanent resident (the “Sponsor“) may sponsor the Sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner. A “spouse” is the Sponsor’s husband or wife. A “common-law partner” is someone who the Sponsor has cohabited with in a conjugal relationship for a period of at least one year. A “conjugal partner” is someone who the Sponsor has been in a conjugal relationship with for a period of at least one year, but who for exceptional circumstances the Sponsor has neither been able to marry nor cohabit with. It most commonly applies to same-sex relationships where the couple is unable to cohabit or marry due to fear of persecution or penal control. IRPR also provides that a Sponsor may sponsor the Sponsor’s dependent child. A “dependent child” is a child who is the biological or adopted child of the Sponsor, and who is under the age … Read More
Bill S-7 – The Zero Tolerance for barbaric Cultural Practices Act
On November 5, 2014, the Leader of the Government in the Senate introduced Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Civil Marriage Act and the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, otherwise known as the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act (“Bill S-7“). Bill S-7 has mainly received media attention because of its arguably inflammatory title. The actual significant impacts for prospective immigrants and practitioners are: Current Proposed Practising polygamy does not result in a foreign national or permanent resident being inadmissible to Canada. A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of practising polygamy if they are or will be practising polygamy with a person who is or will be physically present in Canada at the same time as the permanent resident or foreign national. Marriage requires the free and enlightened consent of two persons to be the spouse of each other. No person who is under the age of 16 years may contract marriage. There will be a new offence that everyone who celebrates, aids or participates in a marriage rite or ceremony knowing that one of the persons being married is marrying against … Read More
The Jurisdiction of the IAD in Considering Procedural Fairness in 117(9)(d) Cases
On April 25, I blogged about how the Federal Court had certified the following question involving s. 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“R179(9)(d)”): In light of sections 72(2)(a), 63(1) and 65 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, and the case of Somodi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 288 (CanLII), [2010] 4 F.C.R. 26 (F.C.A.), where the applicant has made a family class sponsorship application and requested humanitarian and compassionate considerations within the application, is the applicant precluded from seeking judicial review by the Federal Court before exhausting their right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division where the right of appeal is limited pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227? On June 11, 2013, in Fang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (“Fang“), VB2-00332, Member Mattu of the Immigration Appeal Division (the “IAD“) issued a decision which raises similarly broad issues. Andrew Wlodyka, the appellant’s counsel, has informed me that an Application for Leave to Commence Judicial Review is currently underway, as confirmed here, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the litigation resulted in a certified question. The issue is whether the IAD has the jurisdiction to determine whether an officer breached procedural fairness in determining humanitarian … Read More
Guest Post: Safeguarding a Divorce Order Against Social Assistance Debt
(Note from Steven: I met John at the Canadian Bar Association British Columbia branch annual conference in San Francisco. He is currently involved in some fascinating litigation representing an individual who sponsored a spouse only to watch her immediately divorce him after she immigrated. She also left him on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in social assistance payments. I invited John to some write articles for this blog, and here is the third of what will hopefully be many into this issue.) — The issue of resolving a fraudulent marriage tied to an immigration application is completely separate from the need to get divorced. Fraudulent marriage is not grounds for a divorce and it is not necessary to prove that marriage was fraudulent in order to get a divorce. The issue of the fraudulent marriage can only be dealt with in civil court, not family, court as explained in an earlier post. Generally speaking, it is understood that the sponsored spouse may receive social assistance or they may receive maintenance (i.e. spousal support), but they cannot receive both. Where the divorce order or separation agreement explicitly states that maintenance is not to be provided or has been … Read More