Been Refused? Don’t give up!

Wait, I am not talking about Donald TRUMP! Just because one Immigration Officer refused your application does not mean that your application was without merit. Several times this year I have been successful representing clients that had submitted applications that had been previously refused. Each time I discovered that the Immigration Officer that issued the refusal did so based on the lack of supporting information provided by the client and their Counsel.

This is not a blog about Immigration Consultants being better than Immigration Lawyers or about me being better than another Regulated Consultant. This blog is about you weighing your options as to why you should continue arguing you deserve to be approved.

For some who get refused it is difficult to accept that you are not deserving of being approved. Many can’t accept that they did anything wrong and look to blame others including their previous Counsel. What needs to be considered is what evidence was in the application that caused the Immigration Officer to refuse your application.

When refused the Immigration Act and its Regulations offers opportunities to appeal decisions to the (IAD) Immigration Appeal Divisions, the (RAD) Refugee Appeal Division, Federal Court of Canada or allows you to reapply. It does not matter if your Study Permit, Work Permit, Asylum Claim, Spousal Sponsorship, Humanitarian and Compassionate application, etc. was refused you have options.

Take a long look in the mirror asking yourself if there was anything that you could have done better to assist that decision maker. Review everything that was submitted by you and your Counsel to find anything that was lacking. Many times, the refusal is based only on the evidence that you submitted.

Case #1

Couple after having their asylum claim refused submitted a Humanitarian and Compassionate application based partly on the best interests of their four children.  Each parent was a citizen of a different country. The Father and the eldest daughter were Greek citizens. The Mother was a citizen of Georgia and the other three children were Canadian citizens. Legal Counsel took the initial refusal to Federal Court and lost based on their submissions.

The Immigration Officer said she could see no reason why “they” could not leave Canada together and apply for permanent residency from abroad. Virtually no information was provided to the Immigration Officer as to what would be required by the two different countries to get both parents and all four children into the same country legally. The Father and the oldest daughter would have to be removed to Greece and then apply to migrate to Georgia from Greece. Nothing was submitted as to how the children’s education would be affected since both parents’ countries used a different alphabet and the children only spoke English.

Case #2

Two foreign students from the same country attending a College in London, Ontario met at a party hosted by other foreign students. They shared some common interest and over a few years slowly became friends. About three years after meeting, they became boyfriend, girlfriend. When he returned to China they stayed in touch until she went home, married, and submitted a sponsorship application. When answering in the forms how their relationship developed, she used an app to explain. Her narrative she wrote stated  after he drove her home they became “intimate”   and the next paragraph said they were just “ordinary friends like fellow students”. Only if she had others reread her own submissions as to how their relationship developed.

Case #3

Canadian daughter wanted to sponsor her mother who was visiting her in Canada to become a permanent resident. The daughter had insufficient income to sponsor her mother so an Immigration Counsel suggested submitting a Humanitarian and Compassionate application for landing from within Canada.

The reasons to show the Mother compassion were based on the problems her daughter experienced in her marriage by her ex-spouse and his new wife. Nothing was submitted as to reunification of family being an objective of the Immigration Act. A 3 (1) (d) The Mothers grandson relationship was only mentioned in one sentence of the submissions. The difference in processing times for applicants who are in Canada never got metioned even though the section 15 (1) of the Charter states every individual has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.