Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

The Humanitarian and Compassionate Application and the Supreme Court decision in Kanthasamy Explained

Section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of Canada allows an officer to exempt an applicant from almost every requirement imposed on applicants for permanent residence. This exemption is based on "humanitarian and compassionate" grounds and has been part of immigration legislation and the discretionary powers of the executive in this country for decades. Section 25 overcomes non-compliance with the Act and most inadmissibilities. It is, in essence, a safety net allowing an officer to consider all the facts and determine whether relief is warranted. The section allows immigration officers to "soften the sometimes harsh consequences of the strict application of IRPA". It is fundamentally a subjective analysis. The scope of this discretion is incredibly broad (and broadly worded) and in my opinion, constitutes a separate immigrant class (and always has). And a lean, silent figure slowly fades into the gathering darkness, aware at last that in this world, with great power there must also come–great responsibility! There is no requirement that immigration officers making such decisions have a legal background; they are expected to deal with legislation, Federal Court jurisprudence, counsel submissions, country conditions (in a return scenario) and, often, expert medical and psychological reports. The guidance... Read more →

A half truth is a whole lie. Misrepresentation Explained.

A great deal of our practice deals with allegations by CIC of misrepresentation committed by those that seek to enter, remain or bring others to Canada. As with most things in life, prevention is the best cure. Despite what anyone tells you, do not: list someone else's child as yours simply to bring them to Canada; lie about the ages of children so that they meet the definition of a dependent child; provide false employment letters or other documents to establish you meet the requirements when you don't; commit marriage fraud (collusion or otherwise); exaggerate your time in Canada to meet the residency requirements for Permanent Residents or Citizenship; fail to mention children, spouses, common-law partners; fail to mention residency in other countries; Bear in mind, that this is not an exhaustive list. Even if you succeed in coming to Canada despite leaving something important out, or outright deception, you will find yourself in the unenviable situation of waiting for the other shoe to drop for years waiting, hoping against hope, that CIC will not discover your half-truth, un-truth, omission or outright falsehood. Finally, Justice Strickland's comments in Goburdhun v. MCI 2013 FC 971 are of assistance: [43] I also... Read more →

Blog Posting - Parental Sponsorship Reopens January 4, 2016

The Family Class Sponsorship of Parents and Grandparents will re-open as of January 4, 2016. Based on our experience if you wish to sponsor under this category, applications should be prepared and couriered out so CPC-Mississauga receives them on January 4, 2016 itself. The program is so popular that last year there were courier trucks lined up outside their office on the first morning of processing in 2015. Please note, that Canada Revenue Agency documents are the only acceptable form of proof of income for these applications. Family size includes the sponsors, their dependents and any and all family members included in the sponsorship (including age eligible children of the applicants). Employer letters, bank statements and T4s for 2015 will not be acceptable evidence of income. If you are planning on applying for sponsorship, then call the CRA at 18009598281 and obtain all relevant Option C Notices of Assessment for each sponsor for the years: 2012, 2013 and 2014. Evidence of income in 2015 will not be considered. The relevant minimum sponsorship income chart is attached below: Federal Income Table for sponsors of parents and grandparents The following table applies to residents of all provinces except Quebec. For each of... Read more →

Mandamus to Compel Action on Your Citizenship File

My client was facing enforcement action by CBSA. It was a years long, seemingly interminable investigation as to her first marriage. After securing a response to an Access to Information Request (which yielded interesting details, including the fact that her citizenship application had been "put on hold") I filed an Application for Judicial Review and sought the prerogative writ of mandamus, which, in essence, compels the Respondent to do something that they're supposed to do (in this case, make a decision on that investigation). My thinking was that if a decision is made to close that file, then processing on the citizenship will follow; if a decision was made to write and refer a report alleging inadmissibility, then my client would be able to challenge that at a hearing before the Immigration Division and, if necessary, appeal any removal order to the Immigration Appeal Division. Leave was granted; at the hearing in July of this year it was clear that the presiding Justice was reluctant to grant mandamus in this sphere; he urged me to challenge the decision to suspend processing on the citizenship application instead (based on just one line that survived redacting in hundreds of pages). The client... Read more →