Family reunification

1. The presence of family members is a strong indicator for successful settlement, and assists in small centre retention;
2. The cancellation of the Assisted Relative category has greatly increased the pressure on the Private Sponsorship program.

1. IRPA Regulation 117(9)(d) provides for a lifetime exclusion from sponsoring a family member, with no discretion to consider an explanation, however compelling, or to impose a lesser period of exclusion;
2. Ina significant number of cases, there has been no intention to misrepresent and, in other cases, there are mitigating circumstances that may constitute justification;
3. The application of this article is having an extremely detrimental impact on many innocent children, in violation of Canada’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to take into account the “best interests of the child” concerned in any decision of a public body;
4. IRPA provides for a general inadmissibility of two years in cases of misrepresentation and officers have considerable discretion as to whether even that inadmissibility should be imposed;

1. Current limits on the numbers of immigrants and refugees who can come to Canada each year and the unequal division of these numbers between economic and humanitarian classes of immigrants have resulted in long waiting periods for the re-unification of families and the admission of sponsored refugees;
2. The limits on and division of immigrant and refugee numbers appear to be arbitrary and to have been set without public consultation;
3. It is widely recognized that family reunification is taking too long and the delays in the processing are causing great hardship;
4. The group with the most pressing need for family re-unification is refugees;

Some countries do not allow for adoption and thus persons from those countries are excluded from emigrating with or sponsoring their “de facto” family members.

1. IRPA and the Québec immigration regulations currently prohibit siblings from combining their income in order to sponsor their parents or grandparents and other members of the Family Class;
2. This arbitrarily keeps families apart;

1. Women who have been accepted as refugees or permanent residents in Canada and who are seeking family reunification with their children overseas are required to produce a signed consent form from the father, or a custody order if the parents have separated;
2. This creates an unfair burden on women in some cases, especially in cases of domestic violence;
3. Such demands are leading to delays which, in some cases, compromise the best interests of children affected;

1. Canada is signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
2. Timely family reunification and a full and timely assessment of a child’s best interest are fundamental elements of Canada’s obligations under the said Convention;
3. In February 2005, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration implemented a program to reduce the processing times of sponsorships of spouses living abroad and to prevent, where possible, the separation of spouses in Canada;
4. A child’s interests and rights are of equal or greater concern;

1. Concurrent processing of family members of persons accepted on H&C grounds in Canada was abolished in 2004;
2. This has resulted in a significant delay in family reunification for persons accepted on H&C grounds;
3. Many of these people have compelling humanitarian and compassionate considerations and/or were wrongly refused refugee status;

1. Family Class applicants can appeal a negative visa officer’s decision to the Immigration Appeal Division, including on humanitarian and compassionate grounds;
2. Dependants of protected persons being processed concurrently can only appeal a visa officer’s decision by way of judicial review in the Federal Court;