Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

Interpreting MNI with Changing Family Size

Kaur v. MCI, 2025 FC 602 is an interesting case -it's about a refusal of a sponsorship due to failure to meet the MNI. Now -there are two boxes on the top of the application -the one on the left if ticked means the sponsor wants to withdraw if ineligible and gets a refund; the other on the right tells IRCC to continue processing notwithstanding ineligibility. The one on the right allows for appeal rights for MNI issues and anomalies or variances can be addressed via the IAD which allows for a de novo appeal and H&C considerations. This is the box that should be ticked. If the one on the left is ticked, the application is returned with no recourse to the IAD. In such cases (usually unintentional) the only recourse is the Federal Court. That's what happened here. The sponsor sought judicial review of the IRCC decision to refuse based on failing to meet the MNI; an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) officer found Malikpreet Singh ineligible to sponsor his mother, Gulwant Kaur, and minor sister, Muskandeep Kaur, under the parent/grandparent sponsorship program. The core issue is the officer’s interpretation of the income requirements under clause 133(1)(j)(i)(B)... Read more →

Overcoming an overseas spousal sponsorship refusal -Success at the Immigration Appeal Division

Spousal sponsorship appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) often turn on accusations of “bad faith” marriages, where the government questions whether a relationship is genuine or was entered into primarily to gain immigration status. These cases can be complex, placing the burden squarely on the appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that neither prong of bad faith applies. Success hinges on knowing the facts inside out, preparing your client thoroughly, and understanding the legal principles at play to weave a compelling case. This article explores the legal framework, distills key lessons from court rulings, and offers a structured approach to preparation, emphasizing that meticulous groundwork is the foundation of a strong appeal. There are some occasions where it's better to simply re-file a spousal sponsorship application (particularly where validity concerns can be overcome) and if this is at issue it is imperative to consult with experienced counsel. Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, a relationship is deemed bad faith if it was primarily intended to secure immigration benefits or if it lacks genuineness. When a sponsorship application is refused on these grounds, the sponsor can appeal to the IAD, tasked with showing that the relationship is... Read more →

Understanding Canada’s Permanent Resident Residency Obligation: A Guide for Newcomers

For those fortunate enough to have navigated either economic or non-economic pathways to permanent resident (PR) status in Canada, maintaining that status comes with certain responsibilities. One of the most critical is the residency obligation under Section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This requirement ensures PRs maintain a meaningful connection to Canada, but its flexibility—and complexity—can catch some off guard. The Basics: 730 Days in Five Years At its core, the residency obligation mandates that PRs be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days (two years) within every five-year period. This isn’t a static window tied to your PR card’s validity—your card, expiring typically after five years, is just a travel document, not a status marker. Instead, the obligation operates on a “rolling” basis. For PRs of less than five years, the focus is on whether you can meet 730 days by the end of your first five years from landing. For those past five years, it’s about whether you have met it in the five years immediately before an examination—like at a port of entry or during a PR card renewal. The math is generous -well certainly more generous than the pre-IRPA requirements... Read more →

Stay of Removals -Deferral Requests and the Federal Court

Practitioners should be alert to the increasing rate of removals by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), as more deferral requests and Federal Court stay applications will likely follow. A thorough discussion of these issues appears in Inadmissibility and Remedies (co-authored with Aris Daghighian and published by Emond), but here are the basics. Record Scratch -How did we get here? An individual facing an enforceable removal order from Canada may seek a judicial stay from the Federal Court as a last resort when all other statutory, regulatory, or logistical impediments to removal have been exhausted. Under section 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, removal orders become enforceable once all appeal periods and other statutory bars are exhausted. While removals must be carried out “as soon as possible,” officers do retain limited discretion to defer. A judicial stay of removal typically arises in two scenarios: (1) a removals officer refuses a deferral request, prompting a challenge via an application for leave and judicial review, or (2) a decision imposing or confirming a removal order is being contested at the Court, and a stay is required to pause enforcement pending resolution of that underlying challenge. A deferral request can be... Read more →

Deporting a Protected Person -The Danger Opinion

Abbasi v. MCI 2025 FC 442 from March 10, 2025, presided over by Justice Angus G. Grant, dismissing a judicial review application by Daryoush Abbasi against a "danger opinion" issued by a delegate of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. This case highlights the challenges authorities face in removing individuals deemed dangerous, even with refugee protection, and the rigorous legal framework balancing public safety and non-refoulement obligations. It also underscores that past refugee status does not preclude deportation if current risks to society outweigh future risks to the individual. It also -troublingly -reveals significant delay in initiating and following through with inadmissibility and enforcement proceedings against a predator of young girls in Canada. Daryoush Abbasi, a 46-year-old Iranian citizen, arrived in Canada in October 2000 and successfully claimed refugee status based on persecution in Iran due to his Baha'i faith. He became a permanent resident but developed a significant criminal history involving sexual offences against young, vulnerable female children. His convictions began in 2002 with a Sexual Interference charge (a 3 year suspended sentence) -the victim was a 13 year old girl with fetal alcohol syndrome. In 2005 a report was written against him by a CBSA Officer... Read more →

Advocacy Before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada [Summarized]

The following is a summary of a presentation done in 2021 for the SABA Advocacy Webinar. Effective advocacy before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) and the Federal Court of Canada demands thorough preparation and a deep understanding of the facts and applicable legal framework. Mastery of these elements is essential to persuade any decision-maker. There is no substitute for exhaustive preparation. For the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), this means a comprehensive grasp of the Basis of Claim, your disclosure, the National Documentation Package, and the analytical framework under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. At the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), it requires familiarity with the Appeal Record, your materials, and the relevant framework—such as the Ribic and Chieu factors for removal order appeals or the genuineness factors for sponsorship appeals. Before the Federal Court, you must know the Certified Tribunal Record, your submissions, and the Department of Justice’s arguments with precision, defending your cases and distinguishing theirs. Understanding the decision-maker and opposing counsel is equally critical. The RPD and IAD do not disclose presiding Members in advance, though experience reveals their styles over time. At the Federal Court, contacting the registry a week prior... Read more →

The 30 Year War

Vic Satzewich’s 2021 article, "Lawyers, Immigration Consultants and the 33-Year Jurisdictional War," published in the Canadian Review of Sociology (Vol. 58, pp. 186-206), focused on his observations of the 33-year jurisdictional conflict between lawyers and immigration consultants in Canada. Overview of the Conflict: Satzewich examines a 33-year jurisdictional dispute (starting in the 1980s) between immigration lawyers and consultants over the right to practice immigration law in Canada, framing it as a struggle for professional control. He uses an ecological framework (drawing on Andrew Abbott and Sida Liu) to analyze why lawyers, a powerful profession, failed to monopolize this field against consultants, a "weaker profession in the making." Origins and Context: Consultants entered the immigration law field in the 1980s, driven by rising demand for affordable advice amid increasing complexity in Canada’s immigration system (e.g., federal/provincial streams). Lawyers historically dominated this space, sanctioned by the state with high social status, but consultants gained traction, often at lower cost, prompting a defensive response from the legal profession. Key Jurisdictional Events: Mangat Decision (2001): The Supreme Court ruled in Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat that federal law (under the Paramountcy Doctrine) allowed non-lawyers to practice immigration law, rejecting the Law Society’s... Read more →

The Perils of Judging "Subjective Fear": A Reminder Amid Canada’s Refugee Backlog

As a refugee lawyer with over 20 years at hearings, a former refugee protection officer, and someone who tackled unwarranted deference to adjudication in my LLM research, I’ve seen the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) wrestle and sometimes struggle with assessing claims. Today’s Refugee Protection Division (RPD) backlog—260,000 cases and counting—cranks up the pressure. Members face a tough gig: decide fast and get it right. Lives hang in the balance. Revisiting Risk Theory and ‘Subjective Fear’ by Hilary Evans Cameron—a brilliant Canadian lawyer and academic I met during my LLM (2009/2010)—provides a caution to Members basing their decisions on (negative) credibility findings and a touchstone for refugee advocates. Her critique of how adjudicators judge fear is a wake-up call, especially now. Canadian law demands claimants prove objective risk and subjective fear. RPD members lean on three ‘common sense’ beliefs: the truly afraid flee instantly, seek protection in the first safe country, and never return home. Delay, fail to claim at the first opportunity, or go back despite persecution and risk? You’re not scared—and therefore not credible. Cameron torches these assumptions with psychology, sociology, and anthropology research. They’re not evidence-based, she says, but adjudicator-made folklore falls back on the intuitive but... Read more →

Punjabi Language Broadcast Discussing the Political Impasse and the Trump Presidency on Immigration Policy and Processing

Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Lawyers · 2025 01 13 RedFM Interview I was interviewed on January 13, 2025 by Rishi Nagar, the inestimable news director of RedFM Calgary discussing the significant changes that the new year has already brought. The interview started by discussing the impact of the prorogued Parliament on immigration processing and policy. While day to day operations are unaffected by the political stasis no significant legislative change can occur. This is of course a time of great uncertainty and it is very difficult to prognosticate (prognostication being difficult in the best of circumstances). At the time of the interview, Donald Trump was yet to return to the Presidency but it is a certainty that Canada will be impacted on a number of fronts, including immigration processing. I did share on social media my thought that 2025 would be a year of refusals and we will see the ascendancy of integrity over integration and enforcement over facilitation. CBSA will be at the forefront rather than IRCC. Other topics included the Trudeau (Near) Decade has seen asylum claims skyrocket, acceptance rates increase, and now an unprecedented refugee backlog of 260,000. the MIA (missing in action) Home Support Worker Pilot... Read more →