1 / 15

Addendum

Addendum. Regarding ‘family class’ admissions: add Act s. 67 to the list of provisions in your pink syllabus. Family Class Migration. more women than men, more partners than any other relation a picture of the family Canada values

ollie
Download Presentation

Addendum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Addendum • Regarding ‘family class’ admissions: add Act s. 67 to the list of provisions in your pink syllabus

  2. Family Class Migration • more women than men, more partners than any other relation • a picture of the family Canada values • idiosyncratic and contextually limited definition of family also here • Madsen article and cases on Thursday

  3. 3 Aspects to Address • Sponsorship: who, how and appeals • Who can be sponsored: membership in the family class • Special provisions

  4. Sponsorship: The Centrepiece • Act s.13(1): citizens or PRs and 13(2) undertakings are binding • Key regs are 130-137 • 18yrs + resides in Canada** + application • Undertaking to reimburse for social asstc payments (3 yrs, 10 yrs, turning 25) • Promise to provide ‘basic requirements’ + for self + no impediments to doing so • Minimum necessary income: Stats Can LICOs, exemption for close family if that is small (s133(4))

  5. Bars to being a sponsor • not lying about intent • not subject to a removal order • not in jail or other like institution • not convicted of sexual or domestic violence offences (unless, long ago, pardoned, rehabd etc) • not in default on debts where the state has a stake (eg. other undertakings) • not receiving social assistance other than disability

  6. Sponsorship Appeals • Immigration Appeal Division • 3 possible outcomes (s. 67): error, NJ breach, humanitarian and compassionate grounds • two key criteria: • no access if sponsoree rejected bc of the ‘very bad’ admissibility rules • no h+c considerations unless ‘member’ of the family class and ‘sponsor’ defns satisfied

  7. Membership 1: Partners • married: dbl validity marriage rule • common-law partner: 1 yr cohabiting ** • conjugal partner: conjugal relp for one year • bad faith provision (reg 4): both aspects now relevant • unacceptably relationships (reg 5) • N.B. former fiance visa is gone

  8. Membership 2: Others • dependent child: basic age 22 + unpartnered, see s. 2 in regs • mother or father • grandparents • a dependant in a guardianship relp in specified cases • young single orphaned siblings, nieces/nephews and grandchildren • intended adoptees in specified circumstances • one other ‘relative’ if n=0 in all other membership sets • if not declared at time of application, never a member

  9. Special Provisions to Note • family related inadmissibility (Act s 42, Regs s 23) • accompanying + very close unaccompanying • ‘excessive demand’ aspect of health inadmissibility limited for close family In sum, an ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ circle of family prevails throughout these provisions

  10. Correction to Syllabus notes re exam • All exams are on the same day – Friday Dec 10th

  11. Lu v Canada 2004 I.A.D. • bad faith test to be read ‘conjunctively’: key sttty interp point • consider types of evidence presented (or absent) • language: appellant and applicant • intention to reside permanently as evidence of genuineness only • N.B. de novo hearings • issue estoppel not important • what would your own assessment of this story be?

  12. Macapagal v Canada 2004 I.A.D. • test for conjugal relationship: interdependence and 7 indicative factors • after this estd move on to bad faith analysis (? likely to fail here?) • N.B. use of Phillipine law • consequences of tribunal level decision • how does the evidence here compare with Lu? As counsel, what evidence would you submit?

  13. Vong v Canada 2004 I.A.D. • ‘mother’ is undefined in the IRPA and IRPR • nuturing relationship, recogzd in the community + possibly other factors, more than one mother is possible • looks to old Act and draws conclusion on the basis of a lack of definition • intent of Parliament to anticipate shifting attitudes toward family (??) • note comments re H&C considerations

  14. Natt v Canada 2004 FC • adoption validity and adding members to the family class • they were her dependent children at all times • culture context of understanding of adoption • what legislative purpose [seems to] animate s 117(9)(d)?

  15. Nguyen v Canada 2003 FCTD • remember trial division no longer exists • modern purposive approach to statutory interpretation: look to the object and purpose of the legislation, n.b. use of objectives clause • what do you think of the statement that “…such an interpretation is consistent with the principle of family reunification…” (at para 17)? • what does para 19 mean?

More Related