Our Recent Immigration Success Stories

Successful Family Reunification in a Complex Sponsorship Case

Our client retained us to assist with their spousal sponsorship application. It would not be anything unusual but the application we were retained for was not this couple’s first attempt to re-unite. Before coming to our office, they filed a sponsorship application which was refused because the officer was not convinced that the relationship was genuine, given that the sponsor was previously married and divorced more than once. While for the applicant it was their first marriage, there was a relatively significant difference in age and education levels of the spouses, and the applicant had previous negative immigration history among other concerns. The couple then appealed the refusal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) and their appeal was refused for the same reason – the IAD Member questioned their credibility and determined that the marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes or the relationship was not genuine. Their application to the Federal Court challenging the appeal refusal was also dismissed. Not willing to accept their continuous separation, they then came to our office to file their second sponsorship application. We thoroughly worked with the couple to prepare a very comprehensive application package with strong arguments in support of the genuineness of their relationship, basing those arguments on evidence. We also assisted them with the preparations for an interview with the immigration officer, and were glad to learn that despite the previous refusals, this time around the officer accepted that the couple’s relationship is genuine. We are extremely happy that we were able to assist this loving couple to finally re-unite in Canada!

 

Overcoming Suspected Inadmissibility for Misrepresentation

Prior to retaining our office, our client had submitted a permanent residence application through the express entry stream, but had failed to disclose that he and his spouse had been removed by United States Immigration. Our client received a Procedural Fairness Letter (“PFL”) alleging that he had misrepresented on his application. We assisted in responding to the PFL, explaining that they had already disclosed this information when they had previously applied for (and been granted) study and work permits, and had accidentally missed selecting the correct checkbox in their PR application. We also included Humanitarian and Compassionate considerations that complimented the response. We are pleased that our clients overcame the suggested inadmissibility finding and have been granted permanent residence in Canada. We wish them the best of luck in Canada!

Judicial Review of Work Permit Application Allowed

Our client retained us following the refusal of his application for permanent residence under the Family class finding him inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We challenged the decision to the Federal Court of Canada, where Leave was granted, and the matter proceeded to a Judicial Review hearing. 

Following the grant of Leave and in preparation for the hearing, we undertook an extensive review of the record and conducted additional case law research. At the hearing, we argued that the refusal was both unreasonable and procedurally unfair.  

We were thrilled to learn the Application for Judicial Review was allowed and the Officer’s decision was set aside. Our client’s application for permanent residence will be remitted back to another Officer for redetermination where he will be allowed to provide additional evidence and legal submissions. We are thrilled with this result and wish our client all the best in his journey to becoming a Permanent Resident of Canada!  

Overcoming Suspected Medical Inadmissibility for an Applicant with Leukemia

We recently worked on a case in which we prepared a Mitigation plan in consideration of suspected medical inadmissibility for an applicant with Leukemia. The individual was in Canada receiving ongoing treatment with expensive medication, funded by the province. We were able to assist in preparing a plan to mitigate the costs over the period under examination (5 years) with the assistance of both the provincial authorities and medical professional specialists here in Canada as well as complimentary research. We also included humanitarian and compassionate considerations that complimented the plan. Although it was a lengthy and involved process, we are pleased that the individual overcame the suggested inadmissibility finding and was granted permanent residence in Canada. We wish them the best of luck in Canada!