The words “punished” found in section 64(2) refers to the sentence imposed by the court <strong>and</strong> not the actual time served in prison. 70 Time spent in pre-trial or pre-sentence custody which is computed by the criminal court in arriving at the person’s sentence should be considered part <strong>of</strong> the “term <strong>of</strong> imprisonment” for the purposes <strong>of</strong> section 64(2) <strong>of</strong> IRPA. 71 Compassionate or humanitarian considerations For a complete discussion <strong>of</strong> this subject in sponsorship appeals, see chapter 9, “Compassionate or Humanitarian Considerations”. Where the refusal is valid in law, the IAD may consider whether or not compassionate or humanitarian considerations exist to warrant the granting <strong>of</strong> special relief pursuant to section 67(1)(c) <strong>of</strong> IRPA. In the situation <strong>of</strong> criminal refusals, the fact that the Minister is not satisfied that the applicant has been rehabilitated or that the five-year period has expired does not prevent a consideration <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s rehabilitation under compassionate or humanitarian considerations. 72 70 71 72 Martin, Claudette v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-126-05), Nadon, Sexton, Sharlow, October 25 2005; 2005 FCA 347. Cheddesingh (Jones), Nadine Karen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2453-05), Beaudry, February 3, 2006; 2006 FC 124. Perry, Ivelaw Barrington v. M.C.I. (IAD V94-01575), Ho, November 1, 1995. SPONSORSHIP APPEALS Legal Services January 1, 2008 19 Criminal Refusals – Ch. 2
CASES Aguilar: M.C.I. v. Aguilar, Valentin Ogose, (ADQML-98-00476), Turmel, December 10, 1998 ............................. 10 Alouache, Samir v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-681-95), Strayer, Linden, Robertson, April 26, 1996 ................................. 5 Alouache, Samir v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3397-94), Gibson, October 11, 1995. Reported: Alouache v. <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Citizenship <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>) (1995), 31 Imm. L.R. (2d) 68 (F.C.T.D.).................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Atwal: M.C.I. v. Atwal, Iqbal Singh (F.C., no. IMM-3260-03), Pinard, January 8, 2004; 2004 FC 7........................... 5 Aviles, Martha Alcadia Gonzales v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1036-05), Rouleau, October 7, 2005; 2005 FC 1369.......................................................................................................................................................... 18 Baker v. M.C.I., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (S.C.C.)............................................................................................................. 17 Barnett, John v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4280-94), Jerome, March 22, 1996. Reported: Barnett v. <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Citizenship <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>) (1996), 33 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.).................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Brannson v. <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Employment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>), [1981] 2 F.C. 141 (C.A.)............................... 11, 13 Brar: M.C.I. v. Brar, Pinder Singh (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-6313-98), Campbell, November 23, 1999.......................... 13 Burgon: M.E.I. v. Burgon, David Ross (F.C.A., no. A-17-90), MacGuigan, Linden, Mahoney (concurring in the result), February 22, 1991. Reported: <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Employment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>) v. Burgon, [1991] 3 F.C. 44 (C.A.) ..................................................................................................... 8 <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Citizenship <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>) v. Saini, [2002] 1 F.C. 200 (F.C.A.)............................................. 8 <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Employment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>) v. Burgon, [1991] 3 F.C. 44 (C.A.) ................................ 6, 7, 8, 9 Cheddesingh (Jones), Nadine Karen v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2453-05), Beaudry, February 3, 2006; 2006 FC 124.............................................................................................................................................. 5, 19 Choi, Min Su v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-975-99), Denault, May 8, 2000 ............................................................. 12 Crawford, Haslyn Boderick v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. T86-9309), Suppa, Arkin, Townshend (dissenting), May 29, 1987. Reported: Crawford v. <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Employment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>) (1987), 3 Imm. L.R. (2d) 12 (I.A.B.) ...................................................................................................................... 17 Dance, Neal John v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-366-95), MacKay, September 21, 1995 ......................................... 18 Dayan v. <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Employment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>), [1987] 2 F.C. 569 (C.A.).......................................... 12 Derbas, Rachid v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-1923-07), Shore, November 15, 2007; 2007 FC 1194................................ 4 Dhaliwal, Jagdish Kaur v. M.E.I. (IAD V91-01669), MacLeod, Wlodyka, Singh, March 29, 1993.......................... 18 Dinaburgsky: M.C.I. v. Dinaburgsky, Yuri (F.C., no. T-234-04), Kelen, September 29, 2006; 2006 FC 1161..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Drake, Michael Lawrence v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4050-98), Tremblay-Lamer, March 11, 1999. Reported: Drake v. <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Citizenship <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>) (1999), 49 Imm. L.R. (2d) 218 (F.C.T.D.) ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Driessen, Kenneth Leroy v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-9044-04), Snider, November 1, 2005; 2005 FC 1480......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Gill: M.E.I. v. Gill, Hardeep Kaur (F.C.A., no. A-219-90), Heald, Hugessen, Stone, December 31, 1991 ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Halm v. <strong>Canada</strong> (Minister <strong>of</strong> Employment <strong>and</strong> <strong>Immigration</strong>), [1995] 2 F.C. 331 (T.D.). The Federal Court – Trial Division, in Howard, Kenrick Kirk v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5252- 94), Dubé, January 4, 1996 ..................................................................................................................................... 11 SPONSORSHIP APPEALS Legal Services January 1, 2008 20 Criminal Refusals – Ch. 2
- Page 1 and 2: Immigration Appeal Division SPONSOR
- Page 3 and 4: Introduction Introduction This pape
- Page 5 and 6: A decision of the Immigration Appea
- Page 7 and 8: Chapter One Financial Refusals and
- Page 9 and 10: jurisdiction if the application was
- Page 11 and 12: Requirements for the Sponsor A spon
- Page 13 and 14: different methodology and reliance
- Page 15 and 16: Transitional Issues The transitiona
- Page 17 and 18: Singh Chahal, Balwinder v. M.C.I. (
- Page 19 and 20: This chapter will therefore deal on
- Page 21 and 22: convictions under Canadian federal
- Page 23 and 24: The Canadian criminal law provision
- Page 25 and 26: • “serious criminality” - equ
- Page 27 and 28: There is a distinction between para
- Page 29 and 30: elements correspond. One must, of c
- Page 31 and 32: In a judicial review from a visa of
- Page 33 and 34: o o o they have not in the last 10
- Page 35: applicant provided material to esta
- Page 39 and 40: Perry, Ivelaw Barrington v. M.C.I.
- Page 41 and 42: (ii) their admission would cause or
- Page 43 and 44: (d) in the case of public safety, "
- Page 45 and 46: ecause the medical reports had expi
- Page 47 and 48: Where the Medical Notification form
- Page 49 and 50: The failure to avail oneself of the
- Page 51 and 52: It is therefore open to an appellan
- Page 53 and 54: medical officer to re-consider. Thi
- Page 55 and 56: addicted to drugs automatically bri
- Page 57 and 58: insured health services is expressl
- Page 59 and 60: Thangarajan 104 and in Yogeswaran 1
- Page 61 and 62: IRPA now sets out the impact of an
- Page 63 and 64: Colaco, Peter Anthony v. M.C.I. (F.
- Page 65 and 66: Mahey: M.C.I. v. Mahey, Gulshan (F.
- Page 67 and 68: Chapter Four Adoptions A child who
- Page 69 and 70: country in which the adoption takes
- Page 71 and 72: whether or not the child is an only
- Page 73 and 74: *“declaratory judgment”: a judg
- Page 75 and 76: the child into Canada so that he co
- Page 77 and 78: [i]t is the opinion of the Board th
- Page 79 and 80: the absence of cogent evidence, tha
- Page 81 and 82: sponsor’s biological father in an
- Page 83 and 84: In Singh 76 the Immigration Appeal
- Page 85 and 86: (iii) where the adoption is an inte
- Page 87 and 88:
followed in the country of convicti
- Page 89 and 90:
An issue that arose after the IRPA
- Page 91 and 92:
Dooprajh, Anthony v. M.C.I. (IAD M9
- Page 93 and 94:
Taggar: Canada (Minister of Employm
- Page 95 and 96:
a foreign national from being consi
- Page 97 and 98:
the relationship is not genuine and
- Page 99 and 100:
The validity of a marriage in the j
- Page 101 and 102:
The Immigration Appeal Division has
- Page 103 and 104:
The validity of the marriage “und
- Page 105 and 106:
A prior marriage is dissolved by di
- Page 107 and 108:
The criteria enunciated in M. v. H.
- Page 109 and 110:
The question is essentially whether
- Page 111 and 112:
Section 1(2) of the IRP Regulations
- Page 113 and 114:
The relationship of “conjugal par
- Page 115 and 116:
also considered an offence under Ca
- Page 117 and 118:
Note, however, that local legislati
- Page 119 and 120:
Note also that subsection 22(3) of
- Page 121 and 122:
The constitutionality of s. 117(9)(
- Page 123 and 124:
According to s. 4 of the IRP Regula
- Page 125 and 126:
turn around and resume their previo
- Page 127 and 128:
CASES Adjani, Joshua Taiwo v. M.C.I
- Page 129 and 130:
Laforge, Robert v. M.C.I. (IAD MA3-
- Page 131 and 132:
Taggar: Canada (Minister of Employm
- Page 133 and 134:
In 2004 2 a new provision, Section
- Page 135 and 136:
adopted before having attained 19 y
- Page 137 and 138:
section 4(3) of the former Regulati
- Page 139 and 140:
prong of the new test? It will also
- Page 141 and 142:
As noted by the Court in Roopchand
- Page 143 and 144:
the couple. 53 In Froment, 54 the C
- Page 145 and 146:
couple. The conclusion reached by t
- Page 147 and 148:
An issue that often arises in a sec
- Page 149 and 150:
D) Marriage after commencement, but
- Page 151 and 152:
B) Doctrine of Res Judicata Res Jud
- Page 153 and 154:
Abuse of process is a particularly
- Page 155 and 156:
F) Using Res Judicata and Abuse of
- Page 157 and 158:
evidence justifying a new hearing i
- Page 159 and 160:
Immigration Appeal Division panel h
- Page 161 and 162:
not just applications by foreign na
- Page 163 and 164:
Chow, Wing Ken v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86
- Page 165 and 166:
Lundrigan Group Ltd. v. Pilgrim (19
- Page 167 and 168:
Tabesh, Rita v. M.C.I. (IAD VA3-009
- Page 169 and 170:
Membership in the family class is d
- Page 171 and 172:
(b) a genuine parent-child relation
- Page 173 and 174:
and/or her right to security of per
- Page 175 and 176:
The transitional provisions 44 of t
- Page 177 and 178:
The current definition refers to th
- Page 179 and 180:
In Bains, 61 the issue was whether
- Page 181 and 182:
or not the condition was diagnosed
- Page 183 and 184:
CASES Adjani, Joshua Taiwo v. M.C.I
- Page 185 and 186:
Chapter Eight Misrepresentation Int
- Page 187 and 188:
In Wang 4 the IAD adopted the Immig
- Page 189 and 190:
An inadmissibility report prepared
- Page 191 and 192:
Transitional Issues Section 192 of
- Page 193 and 194:
Chapter Nine Non-compliance with th
- Page 195 and 196:
Meaning of “permanently” The or
- Page 197 and 198:
Timing In appeals where the issue i
- Page 199 and 200:
Failure to answer truthfully or pro
- Page 201 and 202:
Molice, Antoine Anel v. M.E.I. (IAD
- Page 203 and 204:
(f) complies with international hum
- Page 205 and 206:
[…] The need to establish the con
- Page 207 and 208:
Along with these considerations the
- Page 209 and 210:
EVIDENCE Burden of Proof Before a d
- Page 211 and 212:
The Immigration Appeal Division has
- Page 213 and 214:
Given the open ended language of su
- Page 215 and 216:
• the relative availability of he
- Page 217 and 218:
CASES Ahmed, Muhammad Jamail v. M.E
- Page 219 and 220:
Thamber, Avtar Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C
- Page 221 and 222:
Content of the Duty of Fairness Gen
- Page 223 and 224:
Delay In order for delay in process
- Page 225 and 226:
addresses reopening in a removal or
- Page 227 and 228:
MPSEP v. Cha, Jung Woo (F.C.A., no.
- Page 229 and 230:
This means a person is admissible w
- Page 231 and 232:
CASES Sahakyan, Sergey v. M.C.I. (F
- Page 233 and 234:
Section 196 of IRPA applies to spon
- Page 235 and 236:
Refusals based on the sponsor’s f
- Page 237 and 238:
‣ Refusals based on financial gro
- Page 239:
CASES Alleg, Sahila v. M.C.I. (F.C.