Sponsorship Appeals: Medical Inadmissibility - Audio Recording

My client sponsored his parents and their dependent child (his sister) to Canada. 

The sponsorship was refused on the grounds of medical inadmissibility because his sister was diagnosed with Schizophrenia. 

My client appealed that refusal to the Immigration Appeal Division, which has equitable jurisdiction and can allow the appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. 

A well-worn passage of Chirwa as to what constitutes compassionate considerations points to: 

Those facts established by the evidence which would excite in a reasonable man in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another, so long as these misfortunes warrant the granting of special relief from the effects of the provision of the Immigration Act.

Key to this appeal was our extensive review of the medical officer's opinion. We provided a contrasting opinion by Dr. Meghan Davis who noted disparities in the diagnosis and prognosis of the condition. 

I'm surprised that Stephanie Mathyk-Pinto, the CBSA Hearings and Appeals Officer did not consent to the appeal given that the peculiar fact scenario. In this case, we were able to establish a strong relationship between the appellant and his sponsored family members; a clear reason why he was sponsoring them; no evidence that the applicant required hospitalization, rehabilitation services/specialized programs and no indication as to when such treatment will likely be required. 

As a result, while there may be a medical condition, the only available evidence was that it was being effectively managed on an out-patient basis. 

With my client's permission, I am attaching an audio recording of the proceeding. My submissions start at the 1:16:30 mark.   Download Vb0-03005.mp3

No decision has yet been rendered on this case, but I'm confident that relief will be granted. 

 

Raj Sharma JD LLM

Partner

Comments

[Raj Sharma]

Positive decision was received by my office this last week. As I suspected, we were able to make out the case for discretionary relief based on a number of factors including: the nature/prognosis of the condition (no evidence of hospitalization); the establishment of the sponsor in Canada; the relationship between the sponsor and the applicants; and the ability of the sponsor to attenuate costs. The medical opinion we provided was not given a lot of weight, however, I have a feeling that the further medical 'opinion' hurt their case because it overstated and made inferences that were not supported.