Sponsor already adopted children

[AKGAZ]

I am an American who was born in the US and have lived here all my life. I have two American-born children (<15) whom I adopted here in the US and whose birth certificates show me as the sole parent.

I also have Canadian citizenship through my parents who were Canadian.

I would like to move to live in Canada and sponsor my American born children as Permanent Residents.

I am going round in circles trying to find the correct application route - dependent children but if adopted follow adoption process which is all about “your province where you live” and covering Canadian RESIDENTS adopting from overseas and paying $20-30,000 each!

Can I just apply as if they are my own children?

Many thanks if anyone can advise me.

 

[armoured]

I am going round in circles trying to find the correct application route - dependent children but if adopted follow adoption process which is all about “your province where you live” and covering Canadian RESIDENTS adopting from overseas and paying $20-30,000 each!

You definitely apply 'as if own children' - can you please clarify which form or step you are running into the difficulties on?

 

[AKGAZ]

You definitely apply 'as if own children' - can you please clarify which form or step you are running into the difficulties on?

Thank you for the prompt response. Big relief!

(https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/family-sponsorship/spouse-partner-children/apply.html

Scroll down to How To Apply:

If you want to sponsor your adopted child or an orphaned family member, follow the instructions to sponsor your ‘adopted child’ instead. (Original a bold link, my ‘ ‘). Links to intercountry adoption. )

 

[armoured]

Thank you for the prompt response. Big relief!

( If one starts on Canada.ca and follows sponsor adopted child….no option for already adopted. I now see that if you just start in the ‘dependent child’ process it keeps all the appovals within the immi process.)

I should have said that I say this provisionally, I'm pretty sure that's the right approach. But yes, the web pages are ambiguous. I'd like to hear from others, but I'd start by preparing this way.

Two minor additional things:
-Depending when you travel, you could cross border with the children using their US passports, and clarify any questions after arriving. The usual issues may arise, mainly health care (in some provicnes they are more liberal about children of citizen-residents getting health care), as in you may need health insurance of your own for them.
-This raises an interesting question about citizenship: they may be eligible for citizenship directly. (If not, they can apply for citizenship as soon as they get PR status and are residing in Canada). Adopted children of Canadian citizens can generally get citizenship, until recently, subject to restriction on passing citizenship by citizens-by-descent (which you are). BUT: supreme court recently told government that restriction (in place since 2009, I think?) violates the charter of rights, and government said it wont' appeal. What does this mean for your case? I have no idea, except that in theory, they could apply for citizenship now.

(The question mark being "we won't appeal" and "what will we replace it with" are different things, at minimum will probably require implementing regulations issued by government - at least for the corner cases which I guess would include your case)

 

[AKGAZ]

I should have said that I say this provisionally, I'm pretty sure that's the right approach. But yes, the web pages are ambiguous. I'd like to hear from others, but I'd start by preparing this way.

Two minor additional things:
-Depending when you travel, you could cross border with the children using their US passports, and clarify any questions after arriving. The usual issues may arise, mainly health care (in some provicnes they are more liberal about children of citizen-residents getting health care), as in you may need health insurance of your own for them.
-This raises an interesting question about citizenship: they may be eligible for citizenship directly. (If not, they can apply for citizenship as soon as they get PR status and are residing in Canada). Adopted children of Canadian citizens can generally get citizenship, until recently, subject to restriction on passing citizenship by citizens-by-descent (which you are). BUT: supreme court recently told government that restriction (in place since 2009, I think?) violates the charter of rights, and government said it wont' appeal. What does this mean for your case? I have no idea, except that in theory, they could apply for citizenship now.

(The question mark being "we won't appeal" and "what will we replace it with" are different things, at minimum will probably require implementing regulations issued by government - at least for the corner cases which I guess would include your case)

I have edited my reply to show the route to the ambiguity.

I was intending to apply from within US. Thank you for the update on the Supreme Court. As it currently stands we are indeed limited to PR for the kids by the restriction in citizens by decent. I will look / follow for any update before applying.

As a footnote..in Jan 2011 I applied for PR for my biological US-born son and they sent it back saying he was a Canadian Citizen and to reapply for confirmation as he was grandfathered to before the 2009 law change. So they were proactive back then in giving him the ‘best’ option.

 

[AKGAZ]

Wow this really is ‘hot off the press’!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/no-appeal-lost-canadians-1.7090649

 

[armoured]

I have edited my reply to show the route to the ambiguity.

Yes, I saw that but the link helpful to others I'm sure.

I was intending to apply from within US. Thank you for the update on the Supreme Court. As it currently stands we are indeed limited to PR for the kids by the restriction in citizens by decent. I will look / follow for any update before applying.

As a footnote..in Jan 2011 I applied for PR for my biological US-born son and they sent it back saying he was a Canadian Citizen and to reapply for confirmation as he was grandfathered to before the 2009 law change. So they were proactive back then in giving him the ‘best’ option.

Amazing, I have to admit I miss how the grandfathering bits worked. Oh - was he born before 2009? Definitely then, straightforward case.

I was furious when I found this out (although I was born abroad, that was a family fluke, rest of the family been in Canada since forever and all my siblings, etc) because it affected my daughter. I considered legal action - but in the end was planning to move to Canada anyway, and sponsored spouse and stepkids and my daughter at one go. She just got citizenship more quickly.

Wow this really is ‘hot off the press’!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/no-appeal-lost-canadians-1.7090649

Yes, it's so recent I doubt anyone knows. Honestly you might consider just submitting the citizenship certificate app - as if it now fully applies to them with no restrictions - and see what happens. (If it were me that's probably what I'd do).

The citizenship forum here may have more info. But again - so hot off the presses hard for anyone to know.

 

[hawk39]

Yes, it's so recent I doubt anyone knows. Honestly you might consider just submitting the citizenship certificate app - as if it now fully applies to them with no restrictions - and see what happens. (If it were me that's probably what I'd do).

The judge suspended her ruling for six months to give Parliament time to amend the Citizenship Act so the limit is technically still in effect. I would advise the OP to hold off until May (the 5th month after the ruling) or until Parliament makes the amendments into law before submitting the applications to avoid the risk of premature rejection. The general timeframe is 9 months, but I heard some getting it in 2 months.

 

[armoured]

The judge suspended her ruling for six months to give Parliament time to amend the Citizenship Act so the limit is technically still in effect. I would advise the OP to hold off until May (the 5th month after the ruling) or until Parliament makes the amendments into law before submitting the applications to avoid the risk of premature rejection. The general timeframe is 9 months, but I heard some getting it in 2 months.

Thank you, I'd missed that nuance, very important point.

I honestly wonder what they'll do though - although the ruling is not technically in effect, IRCC would be opening themselves up to all kinds of challenges or at least extra work down the road. If I had to guess, I'd guess that they'd either just delay them until the government decides what to do, or proceed directly to approving. Or possibly combine the two approaches and start approving cases they consider 'simple' and delay all others (likely informed by what 'they' internally think the solution will end up being).

[My guess on this partly because I think they have approved some, at least a few that were in the cases. But I'm not certain about this.]

Worth watching, anyway.

 

[hawk39]

Thank you, I'd missed that nuance, very important point.

I honestly wonder what they'll do though - although the ruling is not technically in effect, IRCC would be opening themselves up to all kinds of challenges or at least extra work down the road. If I had to guess, I'd guess that they'd either just delay them until the government decides what to do, or proceed directly to approving. Or possibly combine the two approaches and start approving cases they consider 'simple' and delay all others (likely informed by what 'they' internally think the solution will end up being).

[My guess on this partly because I think they have approved some, at least a few that were in the cases. But I'm not certain about this.]

Worth watching, anyway.

Indeed, because if the judge's order is left as-is, by invalidating 3(3) entirely, this would potentially open up citizenship for anyone who had a Canadian ancestor, regardless of how far removed. In my opinion, I believe the judge could have simply ordered that 3(1)(b) be removed from the text of 3(3) and a 'coming into force' paragraph be added to retroactively apply the change; this would have allowed second and subsequent generations born abroad after the 2009 Act to be eligible for citizenship, and change those that were 'by grant' into 'by descent' while maintaining the limit for those that did not follow the law from the previous Acts where they were given an opportunity to claim, which the 2009 Act opened up a blanket claim for the first generation that were ignorant or previously ineligible but prevented second and subsequent generation from retroactively claiming by piggybacking off of the first generation that were granted citizenship by said Act.

I hope Parliament goes forward with their plan to implement a substantial connection test for the second and subsequent generations. I feel it should be only fair to show that the parent has a connection and has contributed to Canada in some way; otherwise, another "Canadian of convenience" situation may arise on a much bigger scale if so many generations of people and their children are allowed to claim and piggyback off of their Canadian ancestor.

 

[armoured]

I hope Parliament goes forward with their plan to implement a substantial connection test for the second and subsequent generations. I feel it should be only fair to show that the parent has a connection and has contributed to Canada in some way; otherwise, another "Canadian of convenience" situation may arise on a much bigger scale if so many generations of people and their children are allowed to claim and piggyback off of their Canadian ancestor.

Indeed. That's fundamentally been my complaint about it ( as someone who just happened to be born abroad and 'returned' to Canada as an infant, then didn't reside abroad until almost 30). I remain astounded that the original version of the law didn't provide for some 'substantial connection' test - which reinforces to me that I think it was enacted in haste and without proper consideration, research and preparation.

In current environment, I worry a bit that even this six months won't be enough - because fears are it will be turned into another punching bag instead of something necessary (irrespective of the content, it will be).

I suspect also that there remains an issue with realizing that to be charter-proof, it may be necessary to implement the 'substantial connection' test to ALL Canadians.