Family Class

Question 1

True or False: Taylor is looking to sponsor their parent to come to Canada. His parent’s application, however, has been refused because Taylor has a history of being on social assistance. Refusal of this application because Taylor is on social assistance is discriminatory.

Answer 1

False. In Guzman v Canada, the Federal Court considered whether it was discriminatory to refuse family reunification applications due to a sponsor’s reliance on social assistance. The Court ultimately determined that income and poverty, unlike a physical disability, were not immutable personal characteristics.

Question 2

What is the LICO (Low income cut of) for a given year?

The minimum annual income necessary to support a person or family in a region

The minimum necessary income (MNI) of a sponsor for parent and grandparent sponsorship.

The minimum necessary income (MNI) of a sponsor for all sponsorships.

The minimum necessary income (MNI) of an applicant for sponsorship.

Answer 2

LICO is the minimum annual income necessary to support a person or family in a given region. The MNI for parent and grandparent sponsorship is the LICO in a given year+30%. (IRCC, “Guide 5772 – Application to Sponsor Parents and Grandparents” )

Question 3

On what grounds can a refused application not be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division on humanitarian and compassionate grounds?

If there is insufficient evidence adduced to establish a requirement is met.

Failure of a sponsor to meet certain requirements for sponsorship.

If the basic definition of a sponsor is not met.

If the Immigration Appeal Division is concerned about the genuineness of a relationship.

Answer 3

If the basic definition of a sponsor is not met.

As stipulated by s65 of IRPA, a refused application cannot be appealed to the IAD if it has been decided that the sponsor is not a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations.

Question 4

Lin is the principal Applicant in a sponsorship application for permanent residency in Canada. Her three-year-old daughter, Jenna, will be joining her in Canada. If the application is successful will Jenna also receive permanent resident status?

Yes, because she is an accompanying member of the family class.

Yes, because she is an accompanying family member.

No, a separate sponsorship application will have to be done for Jenna.

No, because Jenna is not a member of the family class.

Answer 4

Yes, because she is an accompanying family member.

According to s 10(3) IRPR, an application is considered to be an application for the principal applicant and their accompanying family members. Jenna meets the definition of a family member as set out by s 1(3) IRPR.

Question 5

True or False: In cases of sponsorship default, provinces can entirely forgive debts owed by sponsors.

Answer 5

False: The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in Mavi 2011 SCC 30 has determined that provinces do not have the discretion to forgive this type of debt entirely.

Question 6

True or False: Waleed is a foreign national and was hired by a corporation incorporated under Canadian law. Accordingly, Waleed can be sponsored as a member of the family class.

Answer 6

False: While a corporation incorporated under Canadian law may engage in sponsorship as per s13(1) of IRPA, this only applies to refugee sponsorships rather than members of the family class as per section 138(b) of IRPR.

Question 7

Cristobal is looking to sponsor his mother as a permanent resident in Canada. Part of Cristobal’s annual income is from a job outside of Canada. Can this income be included in calculating whether Cristobal as the Minimum Necessary Income (MNI) to sponsor his mother?

Yes, if it is Cristobal’s primary income source.

No, only income originating in Canada is used.

Yes, if it is declared on Cristobal’s Notice of Assessment

Yes, as long as Cristobal lives in Canada for up to eight months yearly.

Answer 7

In accordance with the IRCC’s Operational Guidelines “Applications under family class: Assessing the sponsor”, foreign income is generally not accepted unless it is declared by the sponsor to the CRA and is included in the Notice of Assessment.

Question 8

Quinn sponsored Jamie for permanent residency as their spouse. However, shortly after Jamie arrived, they divorced. What happens to the sponsorship agreement that stipulated Quinn is to ensure Jamie is provided for?

The agreement must still be honored.

The sponsor can repeal the sponsorship agreement by appealing.

The agreement is suspended.

The sponsor agreement is terminated.

Answer 8

Sponsorship agreements and undertakings are irrevocable of the undertaking, even in situations of abandonment or abuse. They agreement stipulated by s 132(4) of IRPR is binding on the sponsor and co-signer.

Question 9

Who is a sponsor allowed to pool financial resources within order to meet the commitments in a sponsorship agreement?

A Spouse or common law partner

An Employer

The Sponsored Applicant

All of the above

Answer 9

Co-signers are spouses or common law partners of sponsors who can help the sponsor meet income requirements by signing the sponsorship application along with the sponsor. No one other than the spouse or common law partner of the sponsor may be a co-signer. Co-signers cannot also be the family member being sponsored. S 132(5) IRPR.

Question 10

Lincoln is the sponsor in a sponsorship application. Lincoln can still be a sponsor if he benefits from what social assistance programs? (Choose all that apply.)

Healthcare not provided by public health care.

Disability benefits.

Food and shelter provided by a province.

Employment insurance.

Answer 10

Disability + EI: As stipulated by s 133(1)(k) of IRPR a requirement of a sponsor is that they are not on any type of social assistance for a reason other than disability. In accordance with the definition of social assistance under s2 of IRPR, disability and federal assistance programs, such as employment insurance, are not included in the list of social assistance a sponsor cannot benefit from.

Question 11

Timothy obtained his permanent resident status when he was sponsored by Rob which happened 6 years ago. Their relationship has since dissolved, and Timothy remarried a foreign national. Can Timothy sponsor his new spouse to become a permanent resident?

Answer 11

Yes: A once-sponsored spouse can sponsor a spouse/partner if they have waited five years after becoming a permanent resident in accordance with s 130 (3) of IRPR.

Question 12

Your client is a foreign national whom, along with her sponsoring wife, were both absent at their marriage ceremony. Will a sponsorship application be successful?

Yes, your client is a member of the Family Class.

Yes, your client is a family member.

No, your client is not a member of the Family Class.

No, your client is not a family member.

Answer 12

No, your client is not a member of the Family Class.

Your client will not be able to be sponsored because she is excluded as a member of the family class. Marriages where one or both of the spouses were not physically present are excluded relationships for sponsorship in accordance with 117(9)(c.1) of IRPR.

Question 13

What happens if the financial ability of a sponsor to support an applicant changes after a sponsorship application is approved? (Choose all that apply.)

The sponsor can relinquish responsibility to the sponsored applicant.

The sponsor must still provide for the basic requirements of the applicant.

The sponsor must still provide basic requirements of the sponsored applicant’s family member(s).

The sponsor can relinquish responsibility to the sponsored applicant’s family member(s).

Answer 13

The sponsor must still provide for the basic requirements of the applicant.

The sponsor must still provide basic requirements of the sponsored applicant’s family member(s).

In accordance with s 132(4)(a) and (b) of IRPR the sponsorship agreement stipulates that the sponsor’s financial obligations due not prevent them from honouring their agreement to provide for the basic requirements of the person they are sponsoring and their accompanying family members.

Question 14

Which of these types of sponsorship is exempt from meeting the MNI criteria? (Choose all that apply.)

Sponsorship of parents and grandparents.

Sponsorship of spouse/partner.

Sponsorship of a dependent child with a dependent child.

Sponsorship of a dependent child without a dependent child.

Answer 14

The MNI requirement does not apply to the sponsorship of a spouse, common-law partner, conjugal partner, or dependent child, unless the dependent child also has a dependent child of their own. (see R133(4) of IRPR. )

Question 15

How long does a sponsorship undertaking period last for under a family class sponsorship?

10 years

6 years

3 years

It depends on the type of family relationship.

Answer 15

It depends: The undertaking period varies according to the family member being sponsored. For spouses, common-law partners and conjugal partners it is three years after the foreign national becomes a permanent resident. For dependant children under 22 it is the earlier of either 10 years or the date they attain 25 years of age. For parents and grandparents and their accompanying family members it is 20 years. S132(1) of IRPR.

Question 16

Alek is a permanent resident of Canada who came to Canada as a Convention Refugee. After several years of being in Canada, Alek discovered that he had a six-year-old son that he now wishes to sponsor as a permanent resident. Will Alek be able to sponsor his son?

No, Alek cannot sponsor his son because he was not declared in Alek’s application for permanent residence.

No, Alek cannot sponsor his son because he was not declared in Alek’s refugee claim.

Yes, Alek can sponsor his son even though he was not declared in Alek’s application for permanent residence

Both (a) and (b)

Answer 16

Yes, can sponsor: While section 117(9)(d) of IRPR states that foreign nationals are not members of the Family Class if they are not examined in a sponsor’s previous application for permanent residence, a temporary public policy on May 31, 2019 was introduced to facilitate immigration of those excluded under 117(9)(d). Without this public policy, Alek could still make a humanitarian and compassionate request for the sponsorship to be approved.

Question 17

Junio is the sponsor in a sponsorship application for their family members, Chloe and Lin. Junio completed all of the application forms for Chloe ad Lin. In the application forms Junio wrote that Lin received her college degree even though she had not yet graduated. Junio expected Lin would graduate a month after submitting the application so thought there was no harm in the answer and did not confer with Lin. Because of Covid-19 Lin did not complete her studies and questions are now being raised by the visa officer about Lin’s admissibility.

This scenario is an example of:

Withholding (omission)

Direct misrepresentation

Indirect misrepresentation

Criminal inadmissibility

Answer 17

Indirect misrepresentation: Indirect misrepresentation is when a third party is the one who misrepresents or withholds information on the applicant’s behalf Wang, Xiao Qiang v. M.C.I. and can occur when a sponsor misrepresents on behalf of an applicant. In accordance with s40(1) if IRPA a foreign national can be inadmissible for misrepresentation for indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts.

Question 18

Denali, 44 years old, has been in Canada for several years to take care of her mother. She has held temporary visitor status during this time. Her mother would like to sponsor her for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Which of the following can be used as evidence to prove the ‘establishment in Canada’ factor in this assessment? (Choose all that apply)

The length of time she has been in Canada.

Involvement in language training programs.

Periods of volunteer and community involvement.

Established connections with friends and neighbours in their communities.

Answer 18

ALL: Each of the above factors are common components of determining establishment in accordance with the IRCC Guidelines “Humanitarian and compassionate assessment: Establishment in Canada.”

Question 19

Most criminal inadmissibilities fall under what section of IRPA?

Section 34: Security

Section 35: Human or International Rights Violations

Section 36: Serious Criminality and Criminality

Section 37: Organized Criminality

Answer 19

Section 36: Serious Criminality and Criminality:

As stated in Chapter 9 of Family Class Sponsorship, inadmissibilities under section 36 of IRPA, labelled as “serious criminality” and “criminality” are the most common, whereas inadmissabilities under sections 34, 35, and 37 of IRPA occur relatively infrequently.

Question 20

Zhang and LI had their spousal sponsorship application refused and it is being appealed before the IAD. In their appeal, Zhang and LI are arguing that the application should be approved on humanitarian and compassionate grounds because of the hardship of their separation. In assessing their application:

The hardship from separation is sufficient grounds for a positive determination on H&C grounds.

The hardship from separation is a factor to be considered among others as to whether a positive determination will be granted on H&C grounds.

The hardship from separation is an unfortunate but inevitable result of a refused application and is not considered in an H&C assessment.

Answer 20

The hardship from separation is a factor to be considered among others as to whether a positive determination will be granted on H&C grounds.

In accordance with the IRCC’s Guidelines on Humanitarian and Compassionate stage 1 processioning in Canada, submissions highlighting that the separation of the couple would cause extreme hardship are not necessarily sufficient grounds for a positive determination on their own as the H&C assessment must include all of the factors relevant to the couples’ specific circumstances.

Question 21

In Tharmalingam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) the sponsor appealed a negative decision to sponsor his spouse based on financial inadmissibility pursuant to section 39 of the Act. Here the test for financially inadmissibility was articulated. In his decision the Member found that a foreign national is financially inadmissible if: (Choose all that apply)

They have a poor history of sound financial management.

They are or will be unable or unwilling to support themselves and their dependents.

Adequate arrangements have not been made for care and support other than social assistance.

There is a low likely they will obtain sustainable employment.

Answer 21

They are or will be unable or unwilling to support themselves and their dependents.

Adequate arrangements have not been made for care and support other than social assistance.

The two-part test is detailed in paragraph 18 of Tharmalingam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CanLII 99597 (CA IRB).

Question 22

Jason is a foreign national who currently resides outside of Canada. He would like to make an application for a permanent resident visa under the family class sponsorship class on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Which statement is true?

Jason can make this application from outside of Canada.

Jason will not be able to make this application from outside of Canada as H&C applications can only be processed from within the Canada.

Jason will be able to make this application from outside Canada, if he has spent a minimum of two of the last five years living in Canada.

Jason will be able to make this application from outside Canada, if he has spent a minimum of three of the last five years living in Canada.

Answer 22

He can apply from outside:

Under s. 66 of the IRPR, a foreign national who is outside of Canada may make an application on H&C grounds through making a request in writing accompanied by an application for a permanent resident visa. There are no residency requirements.

Question 23

An applicant in a sponsorship application cannot be found medically inadmissible if: (Choose all that apply)

They are a member of the family class.

They are a member of the family class and are the spouse or common law partner of the sponsor,

They are a member of the family class, and the sponsor has no relatives living in Canada.

They are a member of the family class and are a child of the sponsor.

Answer 23

They are a member of the family class and are the spouse or common law partner of the sponsor

They are a member of the family class and are a child of the sponsor.

Section 38(2)(a) of IRPA stipulates that a foreign national is not inadmissible on health grounds if they are determined to be a member of the family class and to be the spouse, common-law partner or child of a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations.

Question 24

True or False: The H&C provision only allows for an exemption for Canadian children born directly to the applicant.

Answer 24

False: The child or children under examination do not need to be Canadian born, but can also include a foreign-born child or children, or a child or children residing outside of Canada. Furthermore, the relationship between the applicant and the child or children does not even have to be a parent-child relationship. “Any child directly affected” could be any child in the applicant’s life who would be adversely affected should the applicant be required to leave. This could include a grandchild, niece or nephew, adopted child, foster child, or child otherwise de facto dependent.

Question 25

An applicant under the Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada Class (SPLPC) may request a s.25(1) exemption to overcome any one of the criteria under the class. When they do so, which of the following statements is true? (Choose all that apply)

The application will continue to be processed under the SCLPC.

The application will be transferred to the H&C processing queue.

The application will continue to be processed under the SCLP as long as the applicant remains the subject of the sponsorship application.

The application will continue to be processed under the SCLP as long as the applicant remains the spouse or common-law partner of the sponsor and they cohabitate in Canada.

Answer 25

The application will continue to be processed under the SCLP as long as the applicant remains the subject of the sponsorship application.

The application will continue to be processed under the SCLP as long as the applicant remains the spouse or common-law partner of the sponsor and they cohabitate in Canada.

They will continue to be processed as part of the SCLPC as long as they meet the requirements for the class set out in s124 of the IRPR. This was affirmed in Khandaker v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Question 26

Which of the following applicants is not restricted from benefiting from a humanitarian and compassionate assessment under s 25(1) of IRPA to overcome requirements not met in a sponsorship application?

Anyone who has a refugee claim pending before the Refugee Protection Division.

Anyone who filed a refugee claim with the Refugee Protection Division.

Anyone who abandoned their refugee claim in the previous twelve months.

Anyone who had a rejected refugee claim in the previous 12 months.

Answer 26

Anyone who filed a refugee claim with the Refugee Protection Division.

According to s25(1.2) of IRPA, the Minister may not examine an H&C request in the case of (a), (c), and (d). Accordingly, a foreign national whose refugee claim was rejected or abandoned more than 12 months prior may benefit from an H&C assessment.

Question 27

Kimberly is sponsoring Zahid for permanent residency as her spouse. During stage 2 of the processing, however, concerns were raised with respect to Zahid’s involvement in an organization in his home country that has led to security concerns. In assessing whether or not Zahid is inadmissible the visa officer will assess:

If the security concerns exist on a balance of probabilities.

If there are reasonable grounds to believe the security concerns exist.

If it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the security concerns exist.

If there is suspicion that security concerns exist .

Answer 27

If there are reasonable grounds to believe the security concerns exist.

The standard of proof for inadmissibility to Canada is defined under section 33 of the IRPA as “reasonable grounds to believe.”

Question 28

Keya is looking to sponsor her spouse Arjun as a permanent resident in Canada. Arjun is currently living to Canada as a temporary resident. Arjun, however, has an eighteen-year-old son abroad, Abeer, who has criminal convictions which make him inadmissible to Canada under section 36 of IRPA. Will Arjun also be inadmissible?

Yes, Arjun will be found inadmissible because Abeer is inadmissible

No, Arjun will not be inadmissible because Abeer is a non-accompanying dependant.

No, Arjun will not be inadmissible because he is a temporary resident.

No, Arjun will not be inadmissible because Abeer is inadmissible under section 36.

Answer 28

In accordance with section 42(1) or IRPA and section 23 of IRPR, Arjun will be inadmissible for permanent residence because Abeer is inadmissible.

Arjun can, however, still be admissible as a temporary resident because Abeer is not inadmissible under sections 34, 35, or 37 of IRPA. 42(2) IRPR.

Question 29

Samuel is looking to sponsor his wife, Janette for permanent residency. Janette, however, is concerned that she will be found inadmissible on health grounds because of her positive HIV status. An officer, in determining Janette’s admissibility will need to assess: (Choose all that apply):

Janette’s particular circumstances.

Janette’s likely demand on public services.

Janette’s eligibility to access public services.

Janette’s intention and ability to pay for health services.

Answer 29

ALL except Janette’s eligibility to access public services.

The Supreme Court in Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R determined that, in assessing admissability on health grounds, the above factors must all be considered with the exception of (c) :” the wording of the provision shows that medical officers must assess likely demands on social services, not mere eligibility for them.” para 54.

Question 30

Kalvin submitted a sponsorship application 12 moths ago and is waiting for the result. Kalvin has a 22-year-old son that he did not include on his initial application but would not like to include him as a dependent on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. What next steps should Kalvin take?

Withdraw his application and submit a new application including his son on H&C grounds.

Wait until a decision has been made then request that his son be added as a dependant to the application on H&C grounds.

Submit an application for the son to be included as a dependent on H&C grounds while the original sponsorship application is being processed.

Kalvin cannot add his son as a depend to his application.

Answer 30

Submit an application for the son to be included as a dependent on H&C grounds while the original sponsorship application is being processed.

A request for an exemption is permitted to take place at any time throughout the processing of the application. However, the request must include all of the information, evidence and factors to be considered on H&C grounds and must be submitted before a final decision has been made on the sponsorship application. IRCC Guidelines 5291- Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations.

Question 31

Jordan’s common law partner is being sponsored through the Spouse or Common Law Partner in Canada Class. Jordan’s partner would like to visit the partner’s home country to attend a family’s member’s wedding. What advice should you give Jordan’s partner?

a) Advise Jordan’s partner not to travel internationally as doing so will lead to an automatic cancellation of the sponsorship application;
b) Advise Jordan to travel to their home country for the wedding as there is no risk to the sponsorship application
c) Advise Jordan not to travel internationally as doing so may cancel the sponsorship application if they are refused entry back into Canada

Answer 31

C: The IRCC’s instructions concerning the Spouse or Common Law Partner in Canada Class note:
“If your spouse or common-law partner leaves Canada before becoming a permanent resident, they may not be allowed to come back. This is especially true if they need a Temporary Resident Visa or an eTA to enter Canada. If your spouse or partner can’t return to Canada, you must submit a new overseas sponsorship application.”

It is prudent to advice clients against international travel, unless absolutely necessary, while the application is processing. If international trips will be frequent or lengthy and may result in a break in co-habitation, this may be reason to prefer the outside Canada sponsorship option rather than the inside Canada option.

Question 32

In the secondary processing stage of a Family Class sponsorship application, an admissibility assessment of the Applicant on health grounds is conduced unless the Applicant is:

a) A dependent child of the sponsor
b) A spouse, common-law or conjugal partner of the sponsor
c) A parent of the sponsor
d) A grandparent of the sponsor

Answer 32

a) A dependent child of the sponsor
b) A spouse, common-law or conjugal partner of the sponsor

The admissibility assessment on health grounds does not apply to applicants applying on the basis of spouse, common-law and conjugal partner and dependent child relationships. Such applicants cannot be refused permanent reunification with their sponsor due to health concerns.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c.27, s. 38(2)(a).

Question 33

A bad faith relationship is defined as a

1. relationship entered into primarily for an immigration purpose and/or
2. relationship that is not genuine

Which of the following statements is/are true?
Select all that apply

a) The genuineness of a relationship is assessed in the present
b) The genuineness of a relationship is assessed in the past (i.e. at the time of marriage)
c) The primary purpose of the relationship is assessed in the present
d) The primary purpose of the relationship is assessed I the past (i.e. at the time of marriage)

Answer 33

A & D: The Federal Court has determined that the relevant time for the primary purpose of the test is in the past (i.e. the time of marriage); (and) the relevant time for the genuineness test is the present (i.e. the time of the decision).

Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2020 FC 633 at para 44

Question 34

A sponsorship application will be suspended in which of the following circumstances:

Select all that apply

a) If the IRCC initiated proceedings to revoke the citizenship of the sponsor
b) If the IRCC initiated proceedings concerning the inadmissibility of a sponsor who is a permanent resident
c) If the sponsor is charged with an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum of 10 years
d) If the sponsor is charged with an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum of 5 years

Answer 34

ALL except D:

Section 136(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states:
(1) If any of the following proceedings are brought against a sponsor or co-signer, the sponsorship application shall not be processed until there has been a final determination of the proceeding:
(a) the revocation of citizenship under the Citizenship Act;
(b) a report prepared under subsection 44(1) of the Act; or
(c) a charge alleging the commission of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
Subsection 44(1) of the Immigration and refugee Protection Act states:
An officer who is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which report shall be transmitted to the Minister.

Question 35

What factor is not listed in Liu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) for determining the genuineness of a marriage?

a) the parties’ cultural understanding of marriage
b) levels of continuing contact and communication
c) knowledge of and contact with extended families of the parties
d) the conduct of the parties at the time of meeting, engagement and/or the wedding

Answer 35

A: Liu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) lists the Chavez factors for assessing the genuineness of the marriage including:

(i) the intent of the parties to the marriage
(ii) the length of the relationship
(iii) the amount of time the spouses spent together both before and after the wedding
(iv) the conduct of the parties at the time of meeting, engagement and/or wedding
(v) behaviour subsequent to the wedding
(vi) knowledge of each other’s relationship histories
(vii) levels of continuing contact and communication
(viii) provision of financial support
(ix) knowledge of and sharing of responsibility for the care of children brought into the marriage
(x) knowledge of and contact with extended families of the parties; and
(xi) knowledge of each other’s daily lives.

While the parties’ cultural understanding of marriage was not included in the above list, the factors listed are non-exhaustive. Accordingly, in Elahi v Canada the Federal Court found that the IAD failed to take into account the cultural context of an arranged marriage.

Question 36

Nemee and Eliot were married by proxy in the United States. They have been living together in Canada for the past two years. Nemee applied to sponsor Elliot as her spouse through the Spouse or Common Law Partner in Canada Class. This application will be refused because proxy weddings are not legally valid in Canada. True/False?

Answer 36

False: Though Nemee cannot sponsor Eliot as her spouse, the sponsorship application may continue to be processed by assessing whether or not a common law partner relationship exists between Nemee and Eliot.

The process of assessing a spousal relationship in a different relationship category is referred to as a “Tabesh conversion”. In Tabesh v Canada, the IAD recognized that if a refusal is based on the formal invalidity of the marriage, “it is incumbent to consider whether the person could be either a conjugal or common-law partner.”

Question 37

What family class sponsorship Applicants generally undergo more scrutiny by the IRCC?

a) Parents
b) Grandparents
c) Children
d) Spouses

Answer 37

D: Generally, if a sponsor can demonstrate familial ties to family class applicants such as parents, grandparents and children through legal documents such as birth or marriage certificates, the application moves to secondary processing which focuses on the applicant’s admissibility.

However, applicants with spousal, common-law and conjugal partner relationships undergo more rigorous scrutiny by IRCC. The sponsor and applicant must demonstrate not only the technical legal validity of the relationship, but also that they are in a genuine relationship and that the relationship was not entered into primarily to obtain immigration status.

Note: . Adopted children are also assessed to determine whether the adoption was entered into for immigration purposes and whether it created a genuine parent-child relationship: Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, R4(2)

Question 38

Chris and Jamie have been in a relationship for two years and have lived with one another in Canada for the past 18 months. Chris is a Canadian citizen and would like to sponsor Jamie under the Spouse or Common Law Partner in Canada Class, but Jamie is without status.

Public policy will allow Chris to sponsor Jamie on humanitarian and compassionate grounds unless Jamie’s lack of status is because they:

a) Overstayed their temporary resident permit
b) Entered Canada through misrepresentation
c) Worked or studied without proper authorization
d) Overstayed their study permit

Answer 38

B: IRCC’s “Public Policy Under A25(1) of IRPA to Facilitate Processing in accordance with the Regulations of the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada Class” reduces barriers for spouses and partners who lack status. However, this does not extend to applicants who:

• Entered Canada through misrepresentation or
• Failed to obtain a required authorization to return to Canada after removal

Question 39

A Canadian citizen or permanent resident may sponsor a child 22 years old and older as long as:

a) the child has depended on their parents for financial support since before the age of 22
b) the child is unable to financially support themselves because of a mental or physical condition
c) answer a or b is true
d) both answers a and b are true.

Answer 39

D: Section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations stipulates that a child 22 years of age or older is a dependent child if they have depended substantially on the financial support of the parent since before attaining the age of 22 years of age AND are unable to be financially self-supporting due to a physical or mental condition.

Question 40

Jamal and Simon are from Nigeria where they were in a same-sex relationship for three years. They were unable to live together in Nigeria due to a risk that their sexual orientation would be discovered and they would be persecuted. Same sex marriage is illegal in Nigeria.
Jamal has recently come to Canada and received refugee protection. What step should Jamal take to get Simon permanent residency?

a) Include Simon as a dependant in his own application for permanent residency.
b) Sponsor Simon as a member of the Family Class after receiving permanent residency.
c) Neither (a) or (b) are available for Jamal.

Answer 40

A: Jamal and Simon were in a conjugal relationship. Conjugal partners typically cannot be included as dependants in applications for permanent residency and therefore can only be sponsored once the sponsor received status.

However, because Jamal and Simon were unable to cohabitate due to persecution and penal control, subsection 2 of the IRPR recognizes Jamal and Simon as common- law partners. Jamal is therefore able to include Simon as a dependant in his application for permanent residency as a common-law partner.

IRPR SOR/2002-227, R 1(2).

Question 41

When an Officer is assessing the timing of a marriage in determining the genuineness of a relationship:

a) a marriage occurring under three months after the applicant and sponsor have met should be treated with suspicion
b) a marriage occurring under six months after the applicant and sponsor have met should be treated with suspicion
c) a marriage occurring under one year after the applicant and sponsor have met should be treated with suspicion
d) there is no benchmark to determine whether a marriage happened at an appropriate time

Answer 41

D is correct. The Federal Court in Zhou v Canada states, “While the speed with which a relationship develops can be a relevant consideration, it must be approached with care. Affairs of the heart seldom unfold fully rationally. There is no objective benchmark by which to determine whether a given relationship developed at the appropriate speed or not.”

Question 42

Which of the following factors are assessed in an Officer’s determination of a conjugal relationship?
Select all that apply

a) Economic interdependence
b) Societal perception of the couple
c) Cohabitation
d) A couple’s subjective belief about their relationship

Answer 42

A, B and C: (a)(b) and (c) are proposed factors for determining conjugal relationships listed in Molodowich v Pentinnen and adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in M v H.

According to Amandeep v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), (d), a couple’s subjective belief about their relationship status, does not factor into the definition of a conjugal relationship. An officer must base their decision on the objective evidence before them.

Question 43

Under what circumstance may the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations still consider a foreign national to be a spouse for immigration purposes:

a) when the foreign national is under 18 years of age
b) when the foreign national is the spouse of another person
c) when the foreign national has previously been married
d) when the foreign national is not physically present at the marriage ceremony and neither the sponsor or foreign national are members of the Canadian Forces

Answer 43

C: A, B, and D are incorrect in accordance with regulation 5 or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulation which state:
For the purposes of these Regulations, a foreign national shall not be considered
(a) the spouse or common-law partner of a person if the foreign national is under the age of 18 years;
(b) the spouse of a person if
(i) the foreign national or the person was, at the time of their marriage, the spouse of another person, or
(ii) the person has lived separate and apart from the foreign national for at least one year and is the common-law partner of another person; or
(c) the spouse of a person if at the time the marriage ceremony was conducted either one or both of the spouses were not physically present unless the person was not physically present at the ceremony as a result of their service as a member of the Canadian Forces and the marriage is valid both under the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place and under Canadian law.
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, R5

Question 44

The collection of biometrics (biographical information, fingerprints, and photographs), at the secondary processing state of a sponsorship application. is used to:
Select all that apply

a) Prevent identity fraud
b) Efficiently determine a prospective immigrant’s criminality
c) Efficiently determine a prospective immigrant’s immigration history
d) Facilitate the sharing of personal information with immigration authorities

Answer 44

ALL: A, B, C, D have all been cited by the Canadian government as reasons for the collection of biometrics.

IRCC, “Evaluation of the Biometrics (Steady State) and Canada-United States Immigration Information Sharing (IIS) Initiatives”, Evaluation Division, October 2019 online: .
Government of Canada, “Canada is expanding its biometric program Facilitating travel to Canada while keeping Canadians safe”, News Release online: .

Question 45

An assessment of the genuineness of spousal relationships stems from which one of IRPA’s policy goals?

a) To see that families are reunited in Canada
b) To enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society
c) To maintain the integrity of the Canadian Immigration system
d) To promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada

Answer 45

C: The substantive assessment of the spousal relationship stems from the principal of integrity. The development and application of the genuineness test serves to avoid the misuse of immigration policies for fraudulent purposes through “relationships of convenience” where the end goal is permanent resident status rather than a genuine future together as a couple.

Question 46

A foreign national intending to immigrate as the conjugal partner of a sponsor must provide evidence that:

a) they have maintained a conjugal relationship with their sponsor for at least one year
b) they have cohabitated with the sponsor for at least one year
c) they are in a committed and mutually interdependent relationships of some permanence and have combined their affairs to the extent possible
d) there has been an inability for the foreign national and sponsor to get married

Answer 46

A & C: IRCC’s Guidelines for assessing conjugal relationships states that a foreign national intending to immigrate as the conjugal partner of a sponsor must provide evidence that
• they have maintained a conjugal relationship with their sponsor for at least one year; and
• they are in a committed and mutually interdependent relationships of some permanence and have combined their affairs to the extent possible.
Answer B in incorrect as the cohabitation requirement is for common law partners.
Answer D is incorrect as the inability to marry cannot be an absolute requirement forcing couples to marry who may have chosen not to. They key to determining whether an individual is a conjugal partner is whether they are in a conjugal relationship with their sponsor and whether there is a compelling barrier to continuous cohabitation.

Question 47

Taylor sponsored Avery for permanent residence as their common law partner. Taylor and Avery were in a common law relationship for eighteen months but at the time Avery arrived in Canada they were experiencing a breakdown in their relationship. While Avery was making efforts to reconcile the relationship, Taylor was showing no efforts of reconciliation and no longer wanted to live with Avery. Should Avery report the breakdown of this relationship to the IRCC?

a) No. Because Avery has already arrived in Canada they have no duty to report the relationship breakdown to the IRCC.
b) No. Because Avery was still making efforts to reconcile the relationship there was no need to report the relationship breakdown to the IRCC.
c) No. Given that Taylor and Avery had met the one-year cohabitation requirement they have no duty to report the relationship breakdown to the IRCC.
d) Yes. Not disclosing Taylor’s lack of effort in reconciliation and the fact that they no longer want to live with Avery may amount to misrepresentation.

Answer 47

D: The Federal Court in Brar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2016 FC 542 notes that reporting a relationship breakdown is part of an applicant’s duty of candour to provide “complete, honest, and truthful information in every manner when applying for entry into Canada.”

In Azimi v Canada after arriving in Canada Ms. Azimi began experiencing relationship challenges with her sponsoring husband. Though she had made efforts to reconcile with her husband, her did not want to live with her and showed no efforts of reconciliation. Failure to disclose this relationship breakdown was sufficient to characterize the situation as misrepresentation.

Question 48

Sarai is in the process of sponsoring her partner as a member of the Family Class. The sponsorship has been approved in principle and the secondary processing stage has successfully been completed. Before coming to Canada the IRCC will send Sarai’s partner:

a) A permanent residence card
b) A Confirmation of Permanent Residence form
c) A temporary resident visa
d) A Canadian passport

Answer 48

B: Before a sponsored Applicant arrived in Canada they are sent a Confirmation of Permanent Residence form. When the applicant arrives in Canada this document is signed at the port of entry in front of a CBSA office who also signs the form. At that point the applicant becomes a Canadian permanent resident and a permanent resident card will follow by mail within a matter of weeks.

Temporary resident visa’s are not issued in this circumstance and Canadian passports are only granted by application to Canadian citizens.

Question 49

What relationships are not prohibited under the Regulations?

a) Polygamous marriages
b) Marriages between first cousins
c) Marriages between half-siblings
d) Marriages without consent

Answer 49

B: (a) Incorrect. The regulations do not consider a foreign national to be a spouse if at the time of their marriage the foreign national or sponsor was the spouse of another person. Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, R117(9)(c)(i).

(b) Correct. The regulations define marriage as marriage that is valid both under the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place and under Canadian law. While the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act prohibits lineal relationships, this does not include first cousins who can marry in Canada.
(c) Incorrect. The regulations define marriage as marriage that is valid both under the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place and under Canadian law. The Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act prohibits marriage between full siblings and half siblings, including siblings by adoption.
(d) Incorrect. The regulations define marriage as marriage that is valid both under the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place and under Canadian law. As the Canadian Civil Marriage Act requires free and enlightened consent, a marriage without consent is prohibited. Civil Marriage Act (S.C. 2005, c.33), s.2.1 to 2.3.

Question 50

Due to Covid-19 travel restrictions, Sam (a Canadian citizen living in Canada) and Taylor (a citizen of the United States living in the United States) held a virtual wedding ceremony on Zoom. The Marriage Certificate was issued in Utah, the State where Taylor is living. Sam is a physician and Taylor is a teacher, neither have any military experience.

Having received the marriage certificate Sam is now able to sponsor Taylor as his spouse. True/False?

Answer 50

False: The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations define marriage as a marriage that is valid both under the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place and under Canadian Law. Canadian law stipulates that both spouses must be physically present for the marriage ceremony unless one party is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. Sam and Taylor’s virtual ceremony is therefore not recognized under Canadian Law and Sam will be unable to sponsor Taylor as their spouse.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, R2 [definition of “marriage”].

Question 51

Genevieve’s IAD hearing is determining whether or not she is inadmissible on the grounds of criminality as she has been convicted in Canada under the Criminal Code. In assessing the evidence before them the IAD will use what standard of proof to determine if Genevieve is inadmissible?

a) They will assess if the facts that lead to a finding of inadmissibility occurred on a balance of probabilities.
b) They will assess if the facts that lead to a finding of inadmissibility occurred beyond a reasonable doubt.
c) They will assess if there are reasonable ground to believe the facts occurred that would lead to a finding of inadmissibility.
d) They will assess if there is a serious possibility that the facts occurred that would lead to a finding of inadmissibility.

Answer 51

C: In accordance with s 33 and 37 of IRPA, the facts that constitute inadmissibility concerning criminality (for convictions inside of Canada) are facts in which there are reasonable ground to believe they have occurred.

Question 52

True or False: The Immigration Appeal Division, is a federal administrative tribunal and as such is bound by the same rules of evidence for proceedings as the Federal Court of Canada.

Answer 52

False: In accordance with s 175(1)(b) of IRPA, The IAD, in ay proceeding before it, is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence.

Question 53

Sam and Jo are in a same-sex conjugal relationship and Sam is trying to sponsor Jo in his application for permanent residence. The initial application, however, was refused as there were concerns about the genuineness of their relationship.

In assessing the appeal, the IAD should take which of the following factors into account (Choose all that apply):

A) That it may be difficult for the couple to display their relationship publicly.

B) That it may be difficult for the couple to corroborate the relationship by showing evidence of economic support for one another.

C) That the couple’s relationship may not evolve along the same trajectory as that of an opposite-sex couple.

D) That it may be difficult for the couple to corroborate the relationship by showing evidence of living together.

Answer 53

ALL: Each of the above factors should be considered by the IAD in assessing the genuineness of a SOGIE-diverse relationship in accordance with Sections 10.1 and 10.2 of the Chairperson’s Guideline 9: Proceedings Before the IRB involving SOGIE.

Question 54

Charlie, a Canadian Citizen, and Hayden, a foreign national, are appealing a sponsorship application that was rejected based on the genuineness of their relationship. To assist them in their appeal they have reached out to Hayden’s sister who is in Canada and would like her brother to be in Canada as well. Charlie and Hayden have asked her to speak to the strength of their relationship.

Which statement is true concerning the IAD’s treatment of this support letter?

a) The IAD should not admit this letter into evidence because it is self-serving.
b) The IAD should admit this letter into evidence as letters from family members are not classified as ‘self-serving’ evidence.
c) The IAD should admit this letter into evidence even though it is self-serving and then assess its weight.
d) The IAD should not admit this letter into evidence as it has little probative value.

Answer 54

C: In accordance with the IRCC’s Guidelines on weighing evidence. Hayden’s sister’s letter is self-serving in that it was created for the purpose of the hearing to bolster the case. The Federal Court has repeatedly criticized the rejection of evidence provided by relatives and family members of an applicant solely because such evidence is self-serving.

In Magonza, the Federal Court observed that it is a reviewable error to dismiss evidence in its entirety for the sole reason that it is self-interested. As such the evidence should be admitted and the IAD should assess its weight.

Question 55

Priyanka and Arjun have just received the reasons for the refusal of Arjun’s permanent resident application where Priyanka was sponsoring Arjun to come to Canada. The visa officer, in their decision found that there was insufficient evidence to show that their marriage was not entered into primarily to acquire status.

In their appeal of the refusal before the IAD, which statement is true?

The burden of proof is on the visa officer to prove, on a balance of probabilities that the marriage was entered into primarily to acquire status.

The burden of proof is on the visa officer to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the marriage was entered into primarily to acquire status.

The burden of proof is on the appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities that the marriage was not entered into primarily to acquire status.

The burden of proof is on the appellant to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the marriage was not entered into primarily to acquire status.

Answer 55

The burden of proof is on the appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities that the marriage was not entered into primarily to acquire status.

As stated in Mann v Canada 2005 CanLII 56894 (CA IRB) at an IAD hearing, the appellant has the burden of pricing, on a balance of probabilities, that the marriage was not entered into primarily to acquire status (at para 3).

Question 56

Jose is the sponsor in his wife’s permanent residence application which has been refused on the grounds that Jose does not meet all of the requirements of a sponsor. During an IAD hearing Jose testified concerning the humanitarian and compassionate reasons as to why the sponsorship application should still be approved despite the requirements not being met. Following his testimony, Jose opted not to call his wife to testify though she was at the hearing and able to do so.

Which of the following statements is correct?

A) The IAD should draw a negative inference from Jose’s wife not testifying because she was available to testify.

B) The IAD should draw a negative inference from Jose’s wife not testifying as both the sponsor and applicant are required to testify in an appeal before the IAD

C) The IAD should not draw a negative inference from Jose’s wife not testifying as an applicant is not required to testify in all appeals.

D) Both A) and B)

Answer 56

C: In accordance with Mann v Canada 2005 CanLII 56894 (CA IRB) (at para 9), “the applicant is not required to testify in all appeals. In many cases, the oral evidence of the appellant (i.e. sponsor) – often in conjunction with the documentary evidence—will be sufficient to determine whether the legislative test is met.”

Question 57

In her appeal before the IAD, Marcela submitted a letter from an adoption agency as part of her evidence to prove that the adoption of her son was not done for the primary purpose of acquiring status. The adoption letter, however, was full of typographical errors and inconsistencies which led the IAD to question its genuineness.

The evidentiary issue in this scenario concerns the _________ and _________ of the evidence. (Choose two).

a) credibility
b) probative value
c) relevance
d) weight

Answer 57

A & D: The issue at hand directly speaks to the credibility of the evidence. In accordance with Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 (para 16) credibility is the answer to the question “is this a trustworthy source of information?”

The issue, however, also concerns the weight of the evidence as the weight of evidence is a function of both credibility and probative value. As such, credibility concerns will impact the weight an officer gives a piece of evidence. (para 29)

Question 58

Shortly after Kallum moved to Toronto in 2019 he filed a sponsorship application for his mother to come to Canada. The sponsorship application was refused and Kallum is appealing the refusal before the IAD. The hearing is scheduled for later this year in Toronto. Kallum, however, has since moved to Ottawa and would like to have the hearing there. Kallum doesn’t have a car and is not comfortable taking public transportation back to Toronto with the Covid-19 pandemic.

In deciding if the hearing can be moved to Ottawa the IAD will consider all except which of the following factors:

a) Whether the change in location would allow the proceeding to be full and proper.
b) Whether the change in the location is in the best interest of the appellant.
c) Whether the appellant is residing in the location where they want the proceeding to be held.
d) Whether the change in location would likely delay or slow the proceeding.

Answer 58

B: All of the above factors must be considered by the IAD when assessing if a change of location can be made for an IAD proceeding with the exception of B in accordance with rule 47(1) of the IAD Rules.

Question 59

Jenny is an Immigration consultant representing her clients before the IAD whose sponsorship application has been refused as the sponsor did not meet income requirements. Three months before the hearing Jenny comes into possession of updated financial information for the sponsor that they would like to rely on at the hearing.

In disclosing the documents Jenny is required to do which of the following? (Choose all that apply.)

A) Provide a copy of the documents to the other party.

B) Provide a copy of the documents to the IAD no later than 30 days before the hearing.

C) Provide a written statement to the IAD of how the copy of the documents was given to the other party.

D) Provide a copy of the document to the IAD no later than 10 days before the hearing if it is responding to another document provided by the other party.

Answer 59

(A) and (D) are all required when disclosing documents with the IAD in accordance with IAD rule 30. B is incorrect as there is a requirement to disclose documents before the IAD no later than 20 days before the hearing.

Question 60

With respect to the admissibility of evidence, which of the following statements is correct?

a) Probative value is a matter of degree and relevance is a binary concept.
b) Probative value is a binary concept and relevance is a matter of degree.
c) Probative value and relevance are binary concepts.
d) Probative value and relevance are matters of degree.

Answer 60

A: As stated in Magonza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 14 (para 23): “while probative value is a matter of degree, relevance is a binary concept [i.e. something is either relevant or not relevant[. As long as a piece of evidence has some probative value, it is relevant.”

Question 61

You have been hired to represent your client in an appeal of their refused sponsorship application before the IAD. A notice of appeal has already been delivered and you are waiting for a copy of the appeal record from the CBSA.

The appeal record must contain (Choose all that apply):

a) Your client’s application for sponsorship and the sponsor’s undertaking.
b) Any documents the CBSA has that are relevant to an issue in your client’s appeal.
c) The written reasons for refusal.
d) Requests for further evidence to be submitted by your client

Answer 61

A, B and C: As stipulated by Section 4(1) of the IAD Rules,

4 (1) The Minister must prepare an appeal record that contains

(a) a table of contents;
(b) the application for a permanent resident visa that was refused;
(c) the application for sponsorship and the sponsor’s undertaking;
(d) any document that the Minister has that is relevant to the applications, to the reasons for the refusal or to any issue in the appeal; and
(e) the written reasons for the refusal.

Question 62

Clarence is the sponsor in a refused permanent residence application for his spouse. After submitting his notice of appeal before the IAD, a request was made by the IAD for Clarence to participate in an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Process.

The IAD may request an ADR in order to: (Choose all that apply)

a) Clarify issues regarding the refusal of the application.
b) Have the Minister’s counsel and Clarence reach an agreement as to how the appeal should be resolved.
c) Avoid an oral hearing.
d) Discuss options available and particular to the appeal.

Answer 62

ALL: The above reasons are mentioned in Chapter 10 of Family Sponsorship by Michael Battista and Adrienne Smith as reasons for an Alternative Dispute Resolution process in accordance with section 20 of the IAD Rules.

Question 63

True or False: In the process of sponsoring her common law partner for permanent residence, Liz was given a procedural fairness letter from the IRCC to address inconsistencies in the application regarding her partner’s education.

After responding to the procedural fairness letter, the application was refused. The reasons for the refusal noted that there were concerns about Liz’ ability to meet the requirements of a sponsor.

In responding to the procedural fairness letter Liz should have updated the IRCC on her ability to meet the requirements of a sponsor so that her application would not have been refused.

Answer 63

False: In responding to a procedural fairness letter, the Applicant only needs to address the issues and concerns raised by the immigration officer in the letter.

As detailed in Jin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 612, an applicant can only be expected to respond to issues which are raised to them, and the failure to raise the concerns may be a breach of procedural fairness.

Question 64

Sanji is a visa officer who is assessing a request for reconsideration of a grandparent sponsorship application.

What factors may Sanji take into consideration when assessing this request? (Select all that apply)

a) The length of time between the date of the original decision and the reconsideration request.
b) Whether any concerns over fraud or misrepresentation have been raised.
c) Whether the principles of procedural fairness were not complied with in rendering the original decision.
d) Whether new evidence (which is material and reliable), based on new facts which arose after the original decision was made has been presented.

Answer 64

ALL: IRCC sets out a non-exhaustive list of possible factors that may be taken into consideration during a reconsideration, which includes all of the above factors.

IRCC, “Admissibility and final decisions on applications in family class”, Operational instructions and guidelines”

Question 65

Jael tried to sponsor her husband, Carlo, and his two daughters (ages 17 and 6) for permanent residence in Canada.

The sponsorship application was refused. In an appeal before the IAD, an application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration was submitted based on the best interests of the children.

Because of the age of Carlo’s youngest daughter, Jael’s counsel would like to request that Carlo’s oldest daughter be her designated representative in the IAD hearing.

Will this request be granted?

Answer 65

No: In accordance with section 19 of the IAD Rules, while Jael’s counsel can provide the contact information to the IAD of a person they believe should act as a designated representative for Carlo’s youngest daughter, Carlo’s oldest daughter will not be able to act as a designated representative as she is not age 18 or older.

Question 66

Kyondra would like to appeal a sponsorship refusal before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD). The first step in doing so is to submit a notice of appeal and the Officer’s written reasons for the refusal with _____ days after receiving the written reasons for the refusal.

a) 15
b) 20
c) 30
d) 40

Answer 66

30: A Notice of Appeal must be received by the Immigration Appeal Division no later than 30 days after the appellant received the written reasons for the refusal. Section 3(2) IAD Rules.

Question 67

Eli’s application for permanent residence was refused as it was found that he did not have a genuine relationship with his sponsor, Sumaya.

This was the only reason given in the reasons for refusal.

In an appeal before the IAD, the IAD found that sufficient evidence was submitted to demonstrate a genuine relationship, however the application was refused as there were new concerns regarding Sumaya’s ability to meet the financial obligations of a sponsor.

Was the IAD permitted, in this circumstance, to refuse the application?

a) No, the IAD can only consider issues in the original reasons for refusal.
b) No, the IAD must send the application back to the Immigration Division for reconsideration regarding issues not in the original reasons for refusal.
c) Yes, the IAD can consider issues that were not in the original reasons for refusal.
d) Both (a) and (b)

Answer 67

C: Because a sponsorship appeal presented to the IAD constitutes hearing de novo, the IAD must hear the whole case and can consider any additional facts and evidence brought to its attention. The IAD can therefore consider issues in the appeal that were not before the immigration officer in the original decision. Kahlon v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)

Question 68

Which actors are present in an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) conference requested by the Immigration Appeal division?

a) The appellant, and the Minister’s counsel.
b) The appellant, the Minister’s counsel, and an IAD member.
c) The appellant and an IAD member.
d) The Minister’s counsel and an IAD member.

Answer 68

B: In accordance with section 20 of the IAD Rules, both parties and their counsel participate in the alternative dispute resolution process before a member of the IAD who acts as a dispute resolution officer.

Question 69

Chandler has sponsored Monica under the Spouse and Common Law Partner in Canada Class (SCLPC). Monica’s application for permanent residence was, however, refused. In challenging the refusal, Monica can take what steps?

a) Appeal the decision before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD)
b) Make an application for Judicial Review before the Federal Court.
c) Neither A or B
d) Both A and B, provided an attempt to appeal the decision before the IAD is done before an application for Judicial Review.

Answer 69

B: Section 63(1) of IRPA provides that, “A person who has filed in the prescribed manner an application to sponsor a foreign national as a member of the family class may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision not to issue the foreign national a permanent resident visa”

Applicants who submitted applications under the SCLPC class are therefore not eligible for an appeal before the IAD. They may still make an application for Judicial Review before the Federal Court in accordance with section 72 of IRPA.

Question 70

True or False: Parsa’s application for permanent residence as a member of the Family Class was refused as he was found to be inadmissibility on the grounds of serious criminality. You are Parsa’s representative and are submitting an application for Judicial Review. You believe that the officer, in refusing Parsa’s application, conducted the wrong legal test for inadmissibility.

In line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Vavilov, the Federal Court will apply the “reasonableness” standard in assessing the officer’s error.

Answer 70

False: While the Supreme Court in Vavilov set out that the presumptive standard of review if reasonableness, this is not the case for questions of law where the standard of review is correctness. Accordingly, the Federal Court will need to ask if the Officer correctly applied the right legal test.

Question 71

Natali is sponsoring her adopted daughter to come to Canada. In assessing her application, the visa office is concerned that there is not enough evidence to show that there is a genuine parent-child relationship.

What step will the IRCC generally first take when they are not satisfied with the documents submitted for an application?

a) Refuse the application
b) Send the application to a senior officer for a second look at the application.
c) Send a letter to the Applicant requesting more evidence and information.
d) Send the application to the appeal division.

Answer 71

C: The letter is called a “procedural fairness letter” (PFL). This letter gives the applicant an opportunity to provide additional information and evidence to overcome the insufficiency in their original application.

The duty of procedural fairness in applications for permanent residence was detailed in Chawla v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).

Question 72

Who represents the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at an appeal hearing before the IAD? (Choose all that apply)

a) IRCC Officers
b) CBSA Officers
c) The Department of Justice
d) Immigration Appeal Division Officers

Answer 72

B and C: CBSA hearing officers are the persons who most commonly represent the Minister in any immigration proceeding once an appeal has been launched. The Department of Justice may be relied on in rare circumstances.

CIC, “ENF 19 Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)”, at 14 and 15.

Question 73

The duties of the PSEP and the CBSA do not include which of these?

a) The establishment of policies to bring about the enforcement of the IRPA, including inadmissibility.
b) The enforcement of the IRPA including arrests, detentions, and removals.
c) Examinations at Canadian ports of entry.
d) Interpretation of the IRPA at border entry points to entrants.

Answer 73

D: The PSEP, and by extension the CBSA, is the authority responsible for the administration of the IRPA as it relates A, B, C above.

CIC, “ENF 19 Appeals before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)”, at 14 and 15.

Question 74

Maitland’s permanent residence application as a member of the family class was refused. Maitland believes that the visa officer, in processing the application, made an error.

Which of the following is not a remedy for a refused permanent residence application?

a) An appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).
b) An application for judicial review in the Federal Court.
c) Responding to a procedural fairness letter by providing additional evidence.
d) Making a request for reconsideration.

Answer 74

C: Responding to a procedural fairness letter by providing additional evidence is done before the application has been refused.

An appeal before the IAD and Federal Court are remedies for a refused application as et out in s62 and s72 of IRPA respectively.

The authority to entertain a request for reconsideration comes from common law (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kurukkal.

Question 75

Dae-jung and Ji-Min are same-sex common law partners. Dae-jung is a Canadian citizen and was the sponsor in Ji-Min’s application for permanent residence. The application, however, was refused for misrepresentation.

Ji-Min would like to challenge the decision before the Immigration Appeal Division. Will he be permitted to do so?

a) Yes, the IAD hears all appeals concerning misrepresentation.
b) No, the IAD does not hear appeals concerning misrepresentation.
c) Yes, while the IAD generally does not hear appeals for misrepresentation Ji-Min meets one of the exceptions for when it will.
d) No, there are certain exceptions for when the IAD will hear appeals for misrepresentation but Ji-Min does not fall into those categories.

Answer 75

C: According to Section 64(3) of IRPA, no appeals may be made before the IAD based on a finding of inadmissibility on the ground of misrepresentation unless the foreign national is the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner, or child.

Question 76

According to the SOGIE Guidelines which of the following statement is true:

a) Relationships involving diverse SOGIE will usually evolve along the same trajectory as non-SOGIE relationships therefore the genuineness of the relationship should be evaluated in the same manner
b) Individuals who claim diverse SOGIE should be treated with suspicion if they have had heterosexual sexual experiences or relations.
c) In a removal order appeal, whether a person with diverse SOGIE would have to conceal their identity to avoid harm, should be taken into consideration.

Answer 76

Answer A is incorrect. Section 10.2 of the SOGIE Guideline states “Relationships involving individuals with diverse SOGIE may not evolve along the same trajectory as non-SOGIE relationships, therefore preconceived notions about how partners should behave with one another, or with their friends and family, should ne avoided when evaluating the genuineness of the relationship.

Answer B is incorrect. Section 6.1 of the SOGIE Guidelines state that decision makers should not rely on stereotypes including that individuals with diverse SOGIE would not have had heterosexual sexual experiences or relations.

Answer C is correct. Section 10.4 lists concealment to avoid harm as a hardship factor to be considered by a decision maker when making a decision to grant discretionary relief on H&C grounds in a removal order appeal.

Question 77

Maria is looking to sponsor her adopted daughter, Sara, to come to Canada. Her daughter is living in her home country where girls are at particular risk of violence and would like to see her daughter come to Canada quickly. Maria’s sponsorship application was initially refused, in part, because there was insufficient evidence to show that the adoption of Maria’s daughter is legal for immigration purposes. Maria has now challenged the decision before the IAD.

The IAD in making its decision:

a) Must take into account the violence Sara faces in her home country, regardless of whether the adoption is legal.
b) Has the discretion to take into account the violence Sara faces in her home country, regardless of whether the adoption is legal.
c) Can only take into account the violence Sara faces in her home country if the adoption was legal

Answer 77

C: If the IAD determines that the applicant is not a member of the family class or that their sponsor is not a sponsor within the meaning of the Regulations pursuant to Sections 130 or 117 or IRPR, it cannot exercise its equitable jurisdiction to consider humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors. (Section 65, IRPA) In other words, the IAD cannot consider H&C factors unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a member of the family class or the sponsor meets the requirements of the regulations.

If Sara has not been found to be a member of the family class, any hardship factors (including risks of violence) for assessing H&C relief cannot be considered by the IAD.

Question 78

When bringing arguments forward in submissions it is appropriate to begin your statements with which of the following: (Choose all that apply)

a) “I believe…”
b) “I submit…”
c) “It is the claimant’s position that…”
d) “I think…”
e) “In my opinion…”

Answer 78

B and C: Language used needs to be appropriate for the hearing. Language should never express your personal opinion or belief. Given that answers A,D and E express personal opinion or belief, they are incorrect.

Question 79

Which statement is true regarding the admission of new evidence before the IAD:

a) The IAD has limited powers regarding the admission of new evidence as it is bound by the same legal and technical rules of evidence as regular courts
b) In an appeal of a sponsorship application, the IAD can only consider evidence submitted with the application being reviews
c) IAD hearings are not limited strictly to reviewing the evidence that led to the refusal of a sponsorship application
d) The IAD cannot base a decision on evidence received after the original refusal was made even if the evidence is considered credible

Answer 79

C: IAD hearings are de novo and therefore not limited strictly to reviewing the evidence that led up to the refusal or removal order. In Kahlon v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1989) 7 Imm. L.R. (2d) 91; 97 N.R. 349 (F.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal established that the IAD must hear the whole case and consider any additional facts brought to its attention.

The IAD has broader powers regarding the admission of evidence than regular courts since it is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence (Section 175(1)c) IRPA). During a hearing, the IAD may receive, and base a decision, on evidence it considers credible or trustworthy in the circumstances, even if the strict rules of evidence have not been met by either party to the proceedings.

Question 80

Under what circumstance(s) will the Immigration Appeal Division not consider a sponsorship application appeal?

a) If a foreign national or permanent resident is found to be inadmissible on the grounds of criminality.
b) If a foreign national or permanent resident is found to be inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality.
c) If a foreign national or permanent resident is found to be inadmissible on security grounds.
d) If a foreign national or permanent resident is found to be medically inadmissible.

Answer 80

B and C: If a foreign national or permanent resident is determined by an officer or the Immigration Division to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality, they do not have a right to appeal to the IAD. Section 64 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Question 81

True or False: Tomas successfully received refugee protection in Canada in 2005 due to a fear of persecution in their home country as a trans person. They are now a Citizen of Canada and are looking to sponsor their mother to come to Canada. She still lives in Tomas’ home country. Unfortunately, Tomas’ sponsorship application was refused as their mother is inadmissible due to a medical condition. Because the decision to refuse the sponsorship application contains no errors in fact or law, Tomas’ cannot bring an appeal of the decision before the IAD.

Answer 81

False: The IAD has the authority to reverse a valid decision on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In the case at hand, though Tomas’ mother is inadmissible the decision may be reversed given that Tomas cannot return to their home country due to a fear of persecution. This separation may amount to hardship and be a ground for appeal. (SOGIE Guidelines, 10.3 )

Question 82

It can be disproportionately difficult for individuals in SOGIE diverse relationships to corroborate the relationship with indicators commonly used to evaluate a genuine spousal or conjugal relationship. According to the SOGIE Guideline, these indicators include: (Choose all that apply)

a) Societal perception of the couple
b) Social activities
c) Shared shelter
d) Economic support

Answer 82

ALL: The SOGIE Guidelines note that it may be difficult for individuals to corroborate the following indicators because they may not be able to display their relationship in public or disclose the relationship to others: shared shelter; personal behaviours; social; activities,. Economic support, and the social perception of the couple.

SOGIE Guideline, 10.1

M v H (1999) 2 SCR 3

Question 83

Brennan has been in Canada for 12 years on student and work visas. He is now being sponsored by his common law partner, Claudia, who is a Canadian Citizen. The sponsorship application, however, has just been refused due to Brennan’s past criminal charges and he is facing a removal order.

These charges do not amount to serious criminality. In an appeal of the decision before the IAD, one of Brennan’s arguments is that he should be allowed to remain in Canada because he has been in Canada for 12 years. Must the IAD consider that Brennan has been in Canada for 12 years in making their decision?

a) Yes, it is required.
b) No, it is not required.

Answer 83

Yes: The IAD has an equitable jurisdiction, which allows it to consider factors that may warrant an appeal being allowed despite the fact the decision is valid in law.

Factors to be considered by the IAD in appeals of removal orders include:

the seriousness of the offence leading to the removal order, where applicable;
the possibility of rehabilitation, where applicable;
the length of time spent in Canada and the degree to which the appellant is established here;
the family in Canada and the dislocation to the family that the deportation would cause;
the support available to the appellant, not only within the family but also within the community;
the degree of hardship that would be caused to the appellant by their return to their country of nationality, provided that the likely country of removal has been established by the appellant on a balance of probabilities.
Ribic v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] I.A.B.D. No. 4 (QL); Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84

Question 84

True or False: Jamie’s Family Class sponsorship application for their same-sex partner, Chris, was denied and the application is now being appealed before the IAD. Chris is in a country where it is illegal to be in a same-sex relationship. Chris is worried that their same-sex relationship will be discovered in their home country if information from the hearing is exposed.

Unfortunately Chris will have to face the risk of exposure as IAD hearings are public.

Answer 84

False: As noted in Section 5.2 of the SOGIE Guidelines

Safeguards for the protection of sensitive information may be considered, upon request by the parties or on the initiative of a decision maker, to limit public dissemination of this information. Decision-makers may, pursuant to section 166 of the IRPA, order that particularly sensitive information ne treated as confidential where the factors under section 166 have been met. In such cases, a decision-maker may make a confidentiality order to further protect the information in question.

Question 85

What practices in making oral submissions at the IAD can help ensure a decision maker is following along: (Choose all that apply)

a) Using introductory sentences when transitioning form one argument to the next.
b) Being aware if the decision maker is taking notes and pausing to allow them to finish writing.
c) Using “up-talk”—raising the pitch at the end of your sentences.
d) Avoid holding a pen or other object during your submissions

Answer 85

Answers A, B, and D are all good practices which enable IAD decision makers to follow submissions and limit distractions.

Answer C is incorrect. The use of “up-talk” makes sentences sound more like questions. It makes a speaker sound tentative and uncertain and can be irritating to the listener.

(Advocacy for Paralegals, 2nd Edition, Chapter 8 – Presentation Skills)

Question 86

Simi is a permanent resident of Canada who married his college girlfriend, Lea, and submitted an application to sponsor her through the Philippines. While he was visiting his spouse they decided to try to get her a temporary resident visa to Canada (TRV) so she could return to Canada with him. The TRV was accepted but is due to expire.

What requirements must Lea meet to apply for an extension of her TRV?

A) Lea has complied with all of the conditions imposed on her entry into Canada.

B) Lea makes the application for extension by the end of the period authorized for her stay .

C) Lea is not inadmissible.

D) Lea holds a passport or other document she may use to enter the country that issued it or another country.

E) All of the above.

F) A and B.

Answer 86

ALL: Section 181 of IRPA provides that

(1) A foreign national may apply for an extension of their authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident if
(a) the application is made by the end of the period authorized for their stay; and
(b) they have complied with all conditions imposed on their entry into Canada.
(2) An officer shall extend the foreign national’s authorization to remain in Canada as a temporary resident if, following an examination, it is established that the foreign national continues to meet the requirements of section 179.

Answers (a) and (b) are explicitly referred to in 181(1) while answers (c) and (d) are in accordance with 181(2) as they are listed under section 179 of IRPA.

Question 87

Applications made in writing before the IAD must include the following, except:

a) The decision that the applicant wants the IAD to make.
b) Requests for non-disclosure of information.
c) Reasons why the IAD should make the decision.
d) Evidence that the applicant wants the IAS to consider when it renders its decision.

Answer 87

B: Applications made in writing must:

state the decision that the applicant wants the IAD to make;
give reasons why the IAD should make the decision;
state whether the other party agrees to the application; and
include any evidence that the applicant wants the IAD to consider when it renders its decision.
(Section 43 of the Immigration Appeal Division Rules. )

While requests for non-disclosure of information must be made by way of application these requests are not required when there are no concerns regarding disclosure.

Question 88

Nicolas is 8 years old and is the dependent child of his mother, Claire, who is being sponsored as the spouse of a Canadian Citizen. The sponsorship application was initially refused, and an appeal was brought before the IAD based on the Best Interests of the Child. Counsel believes the IAD should designate a representative to represent Nicholas at the hearing and is aware of a person in Canada who meets the requirements to do so.

What steps must counsel take to have the designated representative represent Nicolas? (Choose all that apply.)

a) Notify the IAD in writing that the IAD should designate a representative
b) Provide the IAD with resume and qualifications of the designated representative
c) Provide the IAD with the designated representatives contact information
d) Provide the IAD with a consent letter from the designated representative.

Answer 88

A and C: If counsel for the appellant or Minister believes the IAD should designate a representative for the subject of the appeal because they are under 18 years of age or unable to appreciate the nature of the proceedings, they must notify the IAD in writing. If counsel is aware of a person in Canada who meets the requirements to be designated as a representative, they must provide the person’s contact information in the notice of appeal (IAD rule 19(1))

Question 89

To file an appeal to the IAD after a sponsorship application is refused, the sponsor must submit a notice of appeal and the officer’s written reasons for refusal to the IRB registry no later than _____ after the reasons for the refusal of the application are received.

a) 20
b) 30
c) 10
d) 60

Answer 89

B: To file an appeal to the IAD under IRPA, the sponsor must submit a notice of appeal and the officer’s written reasons for refusal to the IRB registry no later than 30 days after the appellant received the reasons for the refusal of the application. (IAD rule 3(2))

Question 90

What statements below are correct concerning the role of the IAD?

a) The IAD can examine sponsorship refusal decisions for possible errors in law, fact and, and mixed fact and law.
b) The IAD can reverse a valid decision on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
c) The IAD cannot examine sponsorship refusal decisions for possible failures in observing principles of natural justice.
d) The IAD cannot reverse a valid decision solely on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

Answer 90

A and B: The IAD is an administrative tribunal that provides an independent review of decisions made under the immigration program where a right of appeal exists. The IAD examines cases before it for possible errors in law, in fact, and mixed law and fact, or for failure to observe a principle of natural justice. It also has the authority to reverse valid decisions on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. (Section 67 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act)

Question 91

True or False: Gina is in the process of sponsoring her mother as a member of the Family Class. Her application, however, was refused as she was unable to show that she could meet the financial obligations of a sponsor. In a hearing before the IAD Gina would like to put forward proof that she can now meet the financial obligations of a sponsor due to a substantial raise she received at work after the sponsorship application was submitted.

The IAD should accept this proof of earnings and factor it into their decision.

Answer 91

True: Appellants may submit new evidence of income relating to the period preceding the date of filing of their sponsorship application. In such cases, officers are required to take into account the new evidence of income in determining the IRCC’s position at the appeal hearing.

Officers should argue that evidence of income relating to the period that follows the receipt of the sponsorship application result is not a valid indication of a sponsor’s ability to meet the requirements in Section 134 IRPR for authorization to sponsor. The IAD should not take such evidence into account in deciding on the basis of a question of fact or law. Where the sponsor’s financial situation has improved, the option to submit a new sponsorship application is available.

Question 92

Article 4 of the RCIC Code of Professional Ethics states:

a) A Member shall be courteous and civil in all professional dealings with the courts, the IRB, government Officers or officials, clients, Members, Agents and the ICCRC itself.
b) Every Member shall discharge, in good faith, all responsibilities to Clients, government agencies, the IRB, colleagues, and any others affected in the course of the Member’s practice.
c) A Member must be honest and candid when advising Clients.
d) A Member shall at all times continue to be competent to perform any services the Member undertakes for a Client in the Member’s practice, and shall not undertake any task or service that the Member is not fully competent by knowledge and experience to handle. A Member shall perform all services on behalf a Client competently.

Answer 92

Answer A is correct. It is Article 4.3.1 of the RCIC Code of Professional Ethics

Answers B-D are found in different subsections of the Code.

B: 3.1.1; C:7.1.1.; D 5.1.1

Question 93

Sam, an immigration consultant, has a hearing before an IAD member who she has previously had poor experiences with. In the hearing, of out frustration, Sam begins questioning the member’s qualifications as she believes the member is not fit to perform their role. What Article(s) of the RCIC Code of Professional Ethics is Sam not upholding? (Choose all that apply)

a) Article 4.2.1
b) Article 4.3.1
c) Article 10.1.1
d) Article 4.1.1

Answer 93

Sam’s conduct can be seen as breaching Articles 4.3.1 and 10.1.1 of the RCIC Code of Professional ethics which state:

4. 3.1 - A Member shall be courteous and civil in all professional dealings with the courts, the IRB, government Officers or officials, clients, Members, Agents and the ICCRC itself.
5. 1.1 - When acting as the Client’s advocate before government officials or the IRB, the Member should present the Client’s case firmly and persuasively and within the limits of the law, while treating the IRB members, the Minister, Officers and other parties with courtesy and respect

Question 94

In general, when filing evidence with the IAD, documents must be filed no later than ______ days before the hearing.

a) 20
b) 30
c) 10
d) 60

Answer 94

20: Documents must be filed with the IAD no later than 20 days before the hearing with a written statement saying how and when the documents were provided to the other party. (Section 30 of the Immigration Appeal Division Rules)

Note: Medical documents related to a refusal based on inadmissibility for health grounds must be filed no later than 60 days before the hearing. The earlier filing of medical documents is intended to provide sufficient time for parties to evaluate any new medical evidence in advance of the hearing and, consequently, to help prevent adjournments.