Any experience with medical inadmissibility? What is their limit?

[legalfalcon]

What I mean is that it is a health condition with a name, that has close to no symptoms but run a higher risk for other health issues.

It is just frustrating to be putting down so much work, stress and tears on the process and then in the end, get thrown out because of some minor health issue. Perhaps I should find an immigration lawyer and ask for their personal advice. I will message this comutergeek then. Thanks

It would be counter-productive messaging a forum member and seeking advice on your medical condition just because he dealt with a medical inadmissibility issue. Had it been asking for a procedure, I would be all for it. It would also be not useful to seek a legal opinion at this stage because before a CIC medical officer considers your medical condition as one that would make you inadmissible, and the grounds they make, no lawyer can give you an opinion based on hypothetical scenarious. No professional would comment without papers and if you anyone does, he is not worth his salt.

As a lawyer dealing with immigration issues (not in Canada), I would strongly advise you to get your medical done. Send the medical report to a reputable law firm that specializes in representing applicants in medical inadmissibility cases for their opinion (it will not be cheap though). Based upon your medical report, the lawyers will be in a much better position to comment. Here, by the medical report, I mean the immigration medical report, not the medical report from your GP. In an immigration medical check, there are only a few specific tests conducted. It may be a case that your medical issue does not even come up. Although, before the medical check the panel physician will ask you to disclose any existing medical condition and will discuss it with you if it needs to be mentioned on the form and disclosed to CIC.

There are many "ifs" and "buts" in your questions and therefore there is no clear answer unless you take a few steps. This is just my suggestion and hope you find it useful.

 

[canuck_in_uk]

What I mean is that it is a health condition with a name, that has close to no symptoms but run a higher risk for other health issues.

It is just frustrating to be putting down so much work, stress and tears on the process and then in the end, get thrown out because of some minor health issue. Perhaps I should find an immigration lawyer and ask for their personal advice. I will message this comutergeek then. Thanks

CIC looks at what you have and what that condition will cost our healthcare system, not what you might get and how much it might cost.

High blood pressure can cause strokes, heart attacks, heart disease etc. However, CIC will look at the costs associated with treating the high blood pressure, not the possible costs of the possible conditions that MIGHT result from it.

It would be counter-productive messaging a forum member and seeking advice on your medical condition just because he dealt with a medical inadmissibility issue.

It would not be counter-productive at all. Computergeek has an incredible knowledge in this area and has helped dozens of people on the forum, if not more. He can provide advice and direct OP to the necessary resources, including a reputable and experienced lawyer.

 

[extendcradle]

Pardon me for upping this thread as I would like to ask/clarify question about medical inadmissibility.

What about the case of a Temporary Foreign Worker and applying for Permanent Residence. She had a medical issue (acinic cell carcinoma) and the recommendation of the doctor is to take out the tumor through surgery. She follow what the doctor said and avail the operation for free (I believe using public healthcare system). Now, the question is, will she still be deem inadmissible because of excessive demands due to the ground of she previously avail public healthcare system before being a permanent residence (which maybe below/above the given threshold). Or the provision of excessive demand will start only when she receive her permanent residence status, not before she receive the status? Thank you!

 

[legalfalcon]

Pardon me for upping this thread as I would like to ask/clarify question about medical inadmissibility.

What about the case of a Temporary Foreign Worker and applying for Permanent Residence. She had a medical issue (acinic cell carcinoma) and the recommendation of the doctor is to take out the tumor through surgery. She follow what the doctor said and avail the operation for free (I believe using public healthcare system). Now, the question is, will she still be deem inadmissible because of excessive demands due to the ground of she previously avail public healthcare system before being a permanent residence (which maybe below/above the given threshold). Or the provision of excessive demand will start only when she receive her permanent residence status, not before she receive the status? Thank you!

When you file for a PR visa, you will start a fresh application, which will include a new set of medical results. These results will determine if an applicant's medical condition will make him inadmissible. If the condition has been taken care of and no longer is an issue, then your past records will not be taken into consideration. See it as getting a procedure from your home country. If the condition is fixed, no need to worry. Even if it does require an ongoing prescriptions, then too it will depend on the kind of situation, its gravity, but this is be from your medical report for the PR application.

 

[extendcradle]

When you file for a PR visa, you will start a fresh application, which will include a new set of medical results. These results will determine if an applicant's medical condition will make him inadmissible. If the condition has been taken care of and no longer is an issue, then your past records will not be taken into consideration. See it as getting a procedure from your home country. If the condition is fixed, no need to worry. Even if it does require an ongoing prescriptions, then too it will depend on the kind of situation, its gravity, but this is be from your medical report for the PR application.

Thank you for the quick response

The situation is like this, she applied for PR application last year of May. She had the medical request last December, however, the surgery was only scheduled January of this year (2016), the operation is successful and a follow-up radiation therapy is needed as recommended by the oncologist to prevent recurrence of the tumor. The timeline is something she is worried about because the operation happen in-between the PR application and the operation. The surgery was done inland Canada, thus, free.

 

[legalfalcon]

A medical condition by itself is not a reason for refusal. The CIC goes by the excessive demand threshold. So nothing can be predicted. It is for the CIC to determine and it subject to judicial review. But, having a procedure done which in the middle of the PR is no way is a reason for inadmissibility. People have had heart surgeries in the past and their medical has been cleared.

I know, I am not being very helpful here. But, it is a very subjective issue which does not have a yes or no answer. All I can confidently tell you is, if after the radiation the issue is fixed, or the cost of the ongoing procedure is not over $6000 a year, she will be admissible.

However, if you feel that there could be an issue, I would highly recommend that you consult a lawyer specializing in medical inadmissibility.

 

[extendcradle]

A medical condition by itself is not a reason for refusal. The CIC goes by the excessive demand threshold. So nothing can be predicted. It is for the CIC to determine and it subject to judicial review. But, having a procedure done which in the middle of the PR is no way is a reason for inadmissibility. People have had heart surgeries in the past and their medical has been cleared.

I know, I am not being very helpful here. But, it is a very subjective issue which does not have a yes or no answer. All I can confidently tell you is, if after the radiation the issue is fixed, or the cost of the ongoing procedure is not over $6000 a year, she will be admissible.

However, if you feel that there could be an issue, I would highly recommend that you consult a lawyer specializing in medical inadmissibility.

Your opinion/comment actually is very helpful. Thanks for that. I believe that it is indeed a subjective issue, which add complexity to the situation. What if the radiation therapy will cost around $10,000 that is only be given once because human body can only take radiation once in his life so it will never become a recurring or yearly activity. Does the 5-year threshold becomes in effect for this particular situation?

 

[Rkhurana]

Hi Seniors,
i am a 5'10" tall guy and weigh in at 330 pounds, hence my BMI is very high.(no sugar/diabetes)
Can this be a reason on inadmissibility?
I am really worried about this.Can seniors please shed some light on this.

 

[extendcradle]

Hi Seniors,
i am a 5'10" tall guy and weigh in at 330 pounds, hence my BMI is very high.(no sugar/diabetes)
Can this be a reason on inadmissibility?
I am really worried about this.Can seniors please shed some light on this.

I am 5'6" with 180.4 lbs weight, hence, fall in overweight category. I pass the medical. My son is overweight also but because he is not required for vital sign checking, they checked his Blood Pressure. I think nobody gets denied because of being too fat. There might be some question if your vital sign is beyond normal.

 

[AnnaBG]

I don't think such issues reflect your medicals and fall under the inadmissability section.
I have a friend who has diabetes and still passed the medicals.
I, for example, have a slight scoliosis, not visible and not problematic at all since it is really slight. However, it is a side one and it was visible on the x-ray and they wrote it in my medical report. Wasn't an issue at all.
They also wrote "abnormal skin" which got me worried insane. It turned out this was the description of my tattoos and they asked to do hepatitis tests.

First thing they will do if something in your results is disturbing is to arrange more tests. So no need to worry for such tiny issues.

 

[Rkhurana]

Thanks for the response Seniors.There was an article about New Zealand not allowing Fat people , that got me worried.
Hopefully there is nothing like this in Canada

 

[McHoagie]

I apologize for reviving this relatively old thread.

Just have a quick question I can't seem to find a concise answer to.
I'm currently taking Testosterone for personal use. Possession as well as personal usage are not illegal.

I already contacted two physicians and received two replies:

A: Any drug or medication that I declare using would have to be represented in the report.
B: It should "not affect my medical".


I suppose if they aren't even looking for recreational drug use in general, such as cocaine, weed, etc., the legal possession for personal of a drug should be fine too.
It's just that there isn't any real info on the matter and I'm not sure if "recreational drug use" would be a deal-breaker.

 

[tormentor]

I apologize for reviving this relatively old thread.

Just have a quick question I can't seem to find a concise answer to.
I'm currently taking Testosterone for personal use. Possession as well as personal usage are not illegal.

I already contacted two physicians and received two replies:

A: Any drug or medication that I declare using would have to be represented in the report.
B: It should "not affect my medical".


I suppose if they aren't even looking for recreational drug use in general, such as cocaine, weed, etc., the legal possession for personal of a drug should be fine too.
It's just that there isn't any real info on the matter and I'm not sure if "recreational drug use" would be a deal-breaker.

Hormonal drugs in Canada are not dispensed over the counter, hence are prescription drugs. This means that during the medical you should (in principal) declare this. In my opinion this should not be a problem at all since the monthly cost of the drugs are way way less than the excessive demand threshold.

 

[legalfalcon]

I apologize for reviving this relatively old thread.

Just have a quick question I can't seem to find a concise answer to.
I'm currently taking Testosterone for personal use. Possession as well as personal usage are not illegal.

I already contacted two physicians and received two replies:

A: Any drug or medication that I declare using would have to be represented in the report.
B: It should "not affect my medical".


I suppose if they aren't even looking for recreational drug use in general, such as cocaine, weed, etc., the legal possession for personal of a drug should be fine too.
It's just that there isn't any real info on the matter and I'm not sure if "recreational drug use" would be a deal-breaker.

This is what the Canadian law says about testosterone and its derivatives <http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/qc/pub/sens-awar/drogue-drug/steroid-eng.htm>

The possession of these substances is legal. Offences related to these substances are included in Schedules I to VIII of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Offences range from possession for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking, importing, exporting, possession for the purpose of exporting, and producing. All these offences are punishable by criminal sanctions.

If you declare in your medical about using testosterone, that should not be an issue depending on which country you are in and the legal status there. Eg. if those drugs are illegal there, you cannot claim that you use them since they are legal in Canada. But if your country allows the use of such drugs, you can declare to your physician and it will form a part of your report (which depends from physician to physician). When I appeared for my medical, I had a discussion (in general since I knew him) with my doctor about taking medication and he informed me that he would not make any medication a part of the report if it did not adversely impact the body. Now the steroids you are using do impact the body and the physician might add them to your report.

If i will impact your medical report, that is debatable as steroids do have long term effect, but if your medical is clear now, there should be no issue.

 

[legalfalcon]

I apologize for reviving this relatively old thread.

Just have a quick question I can't seem to find a concise answer to.
I'm currently taking Testosterone for personal use. Possession as well as personal usage are not illegal.

I already contacted two physicians and received two replies:

A: Any drug or medication that I declare using would have to be represented in the report.
B: It should "not affect my medical".


I suppose if they aren't even looking for recreational drug use in general, such as cocaine, weed, etc., the legal possession for personal of a drug should be fine too.
It's just that there isn't any real info on the matter and I'm not sure if "recreational drug use" would be a deal-breaker.

Read this for further info <http://www.cic.gc.ca/English/resources/publications/dmp-handbook/index.asp>