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 →