Our client, a mother and grandmother came to Canada from Ethiopia where she and her family were marginalized being of Eritrean ethnicity. In Canada, she made a refugee claim which was granted and she applied for permanent residence status. On that application, she included her children, who had, subsequent to their mother's claim, fled their country of nationality, sojourning in Sudan before making their way as refugees themselves to Uganda.
Our client was granted permanent residency in Canada, and for four long years she waited anxiously for Citizenship and Immigration to process the applications for her children. All were refused by a visa officer in Nairobi. The reasons were related but are not reasonable.
The visa officer rejected her 17 year old child (her grandchild) for lack of proper adoption documents. After her underage and unwed daughter had a child, our client raised that child as her own. She disclosed her efforts to legalize this relationship by way of a guardianship certificate but the officer rejected it.
The visa officer fettered his or her discretion: he or she could have considered the first child as a "de facto" family member given the dearth or paucity of legal adoption documents.
A "de facto" family member are those that do not meet the definition of a family member. They are, however, in a situation of dependence. Citizenship and Immigration Canada's own Manual (OP4) expressly notes that "Also included may be children in a guardianship relationship..."
There does not appear to be any evidence that the visa officer considered OP4 in the decision rejecting this young refugee who knows no other mother than his sponsor.
The other children were found not to be dependent children since they were over 22 years of age and had gaps in their education. The visa officer could have considered the realities of life in dealing with the gaps in the education of the other two children. The fact that the gaps in their education were due to their tumultuous lives did not appear to factor in the visa officer's reasons and decision.
The evidence was clear. Both were in substantial compliance with the Regulations. Further, even if they were not in compliance with the Regulations, the officer could have considered humanitarian and compassionate considerations and allow them to reunite with their mother in Canada. This failure to exercise his discretion in this regard makes this an unreasonable decision.
After the refusal, our client, who is of limited means, retained our services to seek judicial review at the Federal Court. We have filed the necessary documents and are seeking review of all three refusals and look forward to the Court's decision.
Raj Sharma JD LLM
Partner
My prayers and heartfelt wishes for success in securing a review of the C&I decision on your client's case.
Posted by: Vida_Jay | October 13, 2013 at 10:46 PM