Cerebral palsy person can pass the medical

[belize]

Dear all my friends,
I am applying my parents as sponsor by next month, and I have sister she is around 30 year of age, and completely depend on my parents, and not taking any medicine or any problem but stay home and helping my mom walk around doing everything her own, so I have to include her in my parents application as a depended. Please advise what problem we could face person has cerebral palsy issues, in medical and what kind of proof I have to show them that she is complete depend on my parents. Please give me your advise which is very special for our family. Thank you in advance.

 

[screech339]

Dear all my friends,
I am applying my parents as sponsor by next month, and I have sister she is around 30 year of age, and completely depend on my parents, and not taking any medicine or any problem but stay home and helping my mom walk around doing everything her own, so I have to include her in my parents application as a depended. Please advise what problem we could face person has cerebral palsy issues, in medical and what kind of proof I have to show them that she is complete depend on my parents. Please give me your advise which is very special for our family. Thank you in advance.

The person with cerebral palsy will likely be rejected on medical concern. There was a story on the news a long time ago that the father wanting to sponsor his daughter with cerebral palsy was rejected on the fact that the daughter will have an impact on cost on health social health care.

Screech339

 

[belize]

thanks for your suggestion, so everyone has cerebral palsy can be rejected? please advise.

 

[screech339]

thanks for your suggestion, so everyone has cerebral palsy can be rejected? please advise.

That I can't say. That is a general sweeping statement.

But in general, applicants with cerebral palsy, are at risk of being denied.

Screech339

 

[keesio]

I thought excessive medical demand could not be a reason for denial for sponsorship applications. Or is that only for spouses?

 

[sunshinemrc]

I thought excessive medical demand could not be a reason for denial for sponsorship applications. Or is that only for spouses?

It does not apply to spousal. Applies to all other classes

 

[screech339]

It does not apply to spousal. Applies to all other classes

Can their children be denied through spousal?

 

[sunshinemrc]

To the best of my knowledge through spousal. No.

 

[keesio]

I was looking into this myself and found the same answer as sunshinemrc said. Also found some case where a dependent (child) of a spouse being sponsored was denied because of health issues.

 

[sunshinemrc]

I was looking into this myself and found the same answer as sunshinemrc said. Also found some case where a dependent (child) of a spouse being sponsored was denied because of health issues.

On appeal it probably the refusal would be overturned. The reason being: if a dependant child of a spouse is inadmissable due to medical automatically the spouse would be inadmissable. And this would be against irb regulations

Cic would probably later refuse for another reason. I call it "phantom refusal"

 

[screech339]

here is the link I found.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/disabled-child-can-t-stay-in-canada-court-1.924913

 

[screech339]

In any case, we are dealing with OP's sister which does not fall in the spousal and spousal dependent issues.

With OP's sister having cerebral palsy, she is at risk of being denied on account of excessive medical demand on Canada Social Health Care. OP would have to be prepared to prove that the sister won't have an excessive demand on social care.

Screech339

 

[jomz]

In any case, we are dealing with OP's sister which does not fall in the spousal and spousal dependent issues.

With OP's sister having cerebral palsy, she is at risk of being denied on account of excessive medical demand on Canada Social Health Care. OP would have to be prepared to prove that the sister won't have an excessive demand on social care.

Screech339

I found the execption tot he rule below, which unfortunately would not apply to her sister. But there have been cases when represented by a diligent and knowledgeable lawyer a refusal in such case may be appealed successfuly:

Classes of persons exempt from "excessive demands"
Section 38(2) of the IRPA specifically states
s. 38(2) (excessive demands) does not apply in the case of a foreign national who (a) has been determined to be a member of the family class and to be the spouse, common-law partner or child of a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations;
(b) has applied for a permanent resident visa as a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances;
(c) is a protected person; or
(d) is, where prescribed by the regulations, the spouse, common-law partner, child or other family member of a foreign national referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).

It should be noted that the exemption set out above only applies to the ground of "excessive demand" and not to the inadmissibility based on "danger to public health" or "danger to public safety". The IRPA objective in s. 3(1)(h) of protecting the public from infectious diseases is not compromised by the family-based exemptions.

 

[screech339]

I found the execption tot he rule below, which unfortunately would not apply to her sister. But there have been cases when represented by a diligent and knowledgeable lawyer a refusal in such case may be appealed successfuly:

Classes of persons exempt from "excessive demands"
Section 38(2) of the IRPA specifically states
s. 38(2) (excessive demands) does not apply in the case of a foreign national who (a) has been determined to be a member of the family class and to be the spouse, common-law partner or child of a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations;
(b) has applied for a permanent resident visa as a Convention refugee or a person in similar circumstances;
(c) is a protected person; or
(d) is, where prescribed by the regulations, the spouse, common-law partner, child or other family member of a foreign national referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c).

It should be noted that the exemption set out above only applies to the ground of "excessive demand" and not to the inadmissibility based on "danger to public health" or "danger to public safety". The IRPA objective in s. 3(1)(h) of protecting the public from infectious diseases is not compromised by the family-based exemptions.

Unfortunately for his sister, she doesn't fall under this exception to the "excessive demand". Onus will be on OP to prove that his sister won't be a considered "excessive demand".

Screech339

 

[jomz]

Dear OP. Please note that there is a chance to have the file approved, however you will require most likely a lawyer who is experienced in medical inadmissability issues. For starters you may wish to read the information in the below links, which will help you understand how CIC reviews these types of cases and what would most likely be needed from you to be successful in overcoming a possible refusal.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2008/ob063.asp

www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf01-eng.pdf