Filipiniana News
– October 2019
by
Maria Deanna P. Santos
Regardless of the outcome of the Federal elections, we will most likely
see further changes to Canada’s immigration policies in the months and years ahead.
Among others, we hope that these changes
will include further reforms that will facilitate family reunification and
remove unjust laws such as section 117(9)d of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations.
For those who do not already know what section 117(9)d of the IRPA
Regulations is all about, this law provides that if a person failed to declare
an immediate family member or qualified dependent in their own permanent
residence application, the undeclared family member can never be sponsored for
permanent residence under the family class by the non-declarant.
Many prospective sponsors have been shocked to learn of the harsh
impact of section 117(9)d, especially if the non-disclosure was inadvertent or
was based on erroneous advice. Since
this provision had resulted in countless families being unable to reunite in
Canada, there had long been a clamor for the repeal of section 117(9)d.
Instead of repealing the controversial provision however, the
government launched a two-year pilot project that began on 9 September 2019
(and will end on 9 September 2021), which will exempt two classes of immigrants
from this law hence will be allowed to sponsor their previously undeclared
dependents. These two exempt classes are
those who became permanent residents as refugees/protected persons and as sponsored
family members.
Therefore, the pilot project still excludes the undeclared family
members of those who became permanent residents under the economic classes, which
traditionally comprise the majority of Canada’s annual immigration intake.
Moreover, the pilot project announcement itself warns that, “As with
all public policies, this public policy may be cancelled at any time.” So despite
the fact that the pilot project was meant to be in effect for two years, this
may even be shortened if the policy is cancelled prior to the expiry of the two-year
period on 9 September 2021.
While the pilot project did not go far enough to include all classes of
permanent residents, it is a significant first step that will hopefully lead to
a more encompassing repeal of section 117(9)d and other similarly harsh
provisions in the IRPA and its Regulations.
For now, what are the possible remedies for those who are caught by
R117(9)d but who were not granted an exemption under this pilot project?
The most obvious remedy is for the undeclared family members to apply
for permanent residence independently (if they qualify) instead of being
sponsored under the family class. Alternatively,
they can initially try the temporary residence routes either as a temporary foreign
worker or international student before eventually applying for permanent
residence under one of the economic classes once they meet the relevant
qualifications.
If all else fails, there is also the option of requesting an exemption
from R117(9)d on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. Although this is a highly-discretionary remedy,
it may be worth pursuing if there are strong enough H&C factors that may justify
the grant of an exemption.
However, before pursuing any of these alternative routes of applying
for temporary or permanent residency, the parties must also be made aware of
the possible risks involved.
That is, the permanent resident family member who failed to disclose a qualified
dependent in their own permanent residence application may still be charged
with misrepresentation and eventually removed from Canada if found guilty of
this particularly serious offence in Canada’s immigration law.
Fortunately, all permanent residents have a right of appeal and in most
cases, are entitled to invoke H&C factors in requesting special relief from
the harsh consequences of being issued a removal order. Due to its highly discretionary nature, an
H&C request can become rather arbitrary as the final decision may vary from
one decision-maker to another. These decision makers are board members of the
Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board who can differ
widely in their views and interpretation of their H&C discretion.
Hence, due to the limited reach of the recent pilot project that seeks
to exempt sponsors from the harsh impact of R117(9)d, it is extremely important
that affected sponsors and their family members are able to obtain accurate and
competent legal advice before pursuing any further action. Otherwise, they may be risking not just
permanent separation from close family members, but also the possible loss of permanent
resident status for the sponsoring family member.
If the government leadership and ensuing political climate shifts after
this election season, then we can expect further significant changes in this
highly volatile field of immigration law and policy.
This
article is meant for information purposes only and not as specific legal
advice. Each case is unique and is best
discussed in detail with a qualified, experienced and trusted immigration legal
professional to increase the chances of success.
The author is a Filipino-Canadian immigration
lawyer and may be reached at deanna@santoslaw.ca
or tel. no. 416-901-8497.
Comments
Post a Comment