Stewart Sharma Harsanyi Immigration Law Firm Blog

The Marriage Appeal

Summary: A visa officer outside Canada determines the genuineness of a marriage or common-law relationship for immigration purposes. If the family class sponsorship is refused, the sponsor has the right to a substantive review or appeal at the Immigration Appeal Division within 30 days of receiving the refusal. The appeal can be resolved through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) or a full hearing if ADR is unsuitable. The full hearing is held in Calgary or Edmonton, typically for a full day, with the Board Member, Minister's counsel, the appellant (sponsor), and counsel in attendance. The hearing begins with an introduction by the Board Member and questions and cross-examination by both counsels. The appellant and applicant need to present evidence to establish the genuineness of their relationship and the Board will consider factors such as knowledge of each other, contact with family, financial support, and the couple's intent. The outcome of the hearing can be affected by the particular Board Member and the CBSA hearing officer, so it's recommended that the couple seek assistance from an experienced immigration lawyer to prepare for the hearing. A visa officer (for a sponsorship submitted outside Canada) is tasked with determining whether a marriage or common-law... Read more →

Consequences on Findings of Misrepresentation for Overseas Spousal Work Permits

Summary: The author is a Canadian immigration lawyer who has dealt with several refusals of work permit applications for spouses seeking to join their partner in Canada. These refusals were made by the same officers at the same office (CHC Delhi) and resulted in findings of misrepresentation, which posed significant obstacles for the intended future application for permanent residence. The author notes that these findings are very serious and can only be reviewed by the federal court, with no de novo appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division. The author argues that the officers made an error in equating Section 4 of the IRPR with Section 40 of the IRPA, and that the officers rely on their own stereotypes about marriages in India and rely on an unrecorded interview to make their decision. The author states that there is a lot of jurisprudence on this issue and that findings of misrepresentation must be supported by compelling evidence and that the legal tests to determine misrepresentation and bona fides are two different things. The author believes that the officers at CHC Delhi are under a misapprehension regarding spousal work permit misrepresentation and wants to raise awareness of this issue at the federal... Read more →

Exploitation, Abuse and False Promises

Summary: The article is about the exploitation of foreign workers by certain consultants and practitioners and the lack of regulation and oversight in the industry. The author has personal experience with this issue and testified before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Immigration. The author suggests that the government needs to improve regulation and oversight, but bringing consultants under the supervision of lawyers or eliminating the industry altogether may not solve the problem. The real issue is the lack of enforcement by agencies like CBSA, who are not doing enough to bring these scofflaws to justice. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke A recent Globe and Mail article about the exploitation of foreign workers and the "industry" that has sprung up to take advantage of these vulnerable individuals is not terribly shocking; and, now, after so many years bearing witness to it all, it fills me with weary resignation rather than anger. I discussed some of these transgressions during my testimony before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Immigration (CIMM) two years ago. Unlike the CBA, I did not argue for the elimination of immigration consultants altogether and restrict the practice... Read more →