As we are getting more informed about spousal sponsorship development and strategies, it would be great to know some interesting sponsorship cases. We’ve compiled three of them in this article with the purpose of providing our readers with further details related to citizenship, sponsorship, and immigration matters in Canada.
A.P. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 906
This case is considered the number one most interesting and intriguing spousal sponsorship case in 2020. This is due to its potential of expanding the common family class interpretation. Justice Fuhrer was the one who reviewed the Immigration Appeal Division’s decision regarding the sponsorship of a gay man by his straight female friend. Justice Fuhrer discovered the IAD’s decision to be unreasonable since it focused mainly on the “mixed-orientation couple” and disregarded other conjugal factors, including the fact that they co-parent a child.
This case shows that the IAD was not considering the possibility of a mixed-orientation relationship based on the idea of a joint family unit to meet the statutory criteria, no matter the degree of sexual intimacy.
Khandaker v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 985
This case became popular because of the issues it has raised rather than the case’s result itself. The interesting issue here is about determining the impact of a request for an exemption based on the Spouse or Common-Law Partner’s eligibility requirement in Canada Class in R. 124.
In this 2020 case, the sponsor of the applicant is not eligible to be a sponsor because she had gained a permanent residence by a sponsorship within the previous five years. The applicant then requested to be exempted from this prohibition on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. The application is also requested to be processed in an inland sponsorship.
IRCC viewed the application as a humanitarian and compassionate application and passed the application to the H&C processing office. The office issued a negative decision. Some concerns arise, such as whether an exemption request from an eligibility requirement turns the application into an H&C application or will the request for exemption be waived within the permanent residence class. Justice Little pointed out that the procedure done by the CIC and its negative decision was indeed reasonable.
What makes this decision a significant one is that it deprives the applicants of a more straightforward process of requesting an exemption based on the requirement of R. 124 on H&C grounds. Instead, it makes the application be in the H&C stream wherein a wider range of factors are taken into consideration to find out whether a permanent residency is justifiable.
McLeish v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 747
This third case highlights the need to provide explanations in applications without documents to prove cohabitation. In this specific case, there was no documentation to attest the cohabitation of a couple who submitted an application in the Spouse or Common-Law Partner Class, aside from correspondence from their friends, neighbours, and family members. The judge mentioned that the officer was unreasonable not to explain why the letters were considered insufficient as evidence of cohabitation.
Although Mr. McLeish failed to provide things that show where he is living, he explained why he was not able to present such evidence.
The nature and progress of policy developments when it comes to the reunification of partners and spouses during the pandemic reveals the significance of the family class to lawmakers. Also, inconsistent rules and technical requirements at the ports of entry may confuse people and make the process more complicated. This is why professional immigration representation must be sought to understand the rapidly emerging policies amidst the pandemic.
If you’re looking for professional help from a trusted firm, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org or call 1-888-404-8472.