Welcome to your newest ICCRC Entry to Practice Exam Prep lesson on Dependent Children Family Member Sponsorship.
Estimated study time: 3 hours
Determine your eligibility – Sponsor your eligible relatives http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/relatives-apply-who.asp
Sponsor your relatives http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/sponsor/relatives.asp
Sponsorship of adopted children and other relatives — The sponsor’s guide (IMM 5196) http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/applications/guides/5196ETOC.asp
In studying family class and the need to include all family members on the application (as well as updating any new family members who may have been born while the applications is in process), it is absolutely essential to have a professional, knowledgeable immigration professional to give the best advice as it pertains to specific immigration scenarios. Lu v. Canada includes a very thorough description of both of these issues in a real-life scenario.
Liu v Canada gives a great example of R117(10) in action as an erroneous rejection of a sponsorship of a dependent child from a previous marriage. The officer rejected the application by stating that the child had not been declared on the original application, when, in fact the child was declared on the original PR application and the officer chose to not examine him.
Azziz v. Canada gives a great analysis of the proof needed in order to establish if a dependent child is actually a genetic child/grandchild of a Canadian Citizen and how ‘best interests of the child’ is analyzed by the IRCC.
Here is a case of in-vitro fertilization and how it affects dependent child relationship in the context of immigration.
Albajalli v. Canada gives a look at the proof required in establishing whether or not someone is in fact a blood relative.
Samuel v. Canada is a great example of the proof needed in sponsoring a dependent child who is over 19 years old (as was the rule at the time) and is dependent on the sponsor due to medical or physical inability.
Here is a case where a father did not add daughter as member of family class, so the sponsorship was denied: Habtenkial v. Canada
Xin v. Canada is an important read in understanding the sponsorship of dependent children in the unlikely event that a child is abducted at a young age, then not declared on the father’s immigration application, then re-found living in China. The story was found to not be believable due to lack of evidence and the lack of integrity of the parents.
Gonzalo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) gives a great demonstration of how an inadmissible family member can affect a main applicant, even through Provincial Nominee Programs.