Dear Forum Members,
I am seeking legal guidance regarding the refusal of my sponsorship application under the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP). The refusal was issued by the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) Case Processing Centre, Mississauga, and reaffirmed upon reconsideration.
The decision to refuse my application appears procedurally unfair, inconsistent with IRCC guidelines, and results in financial discrimination. Below are the key points of my case:
1. Procedural Unfairness: Contradictory Family Size Calculation & Financial Responsibility
IRCC included my separated spouse in my family size calculation while disregarding his income, contradicting its own policy guidelines. Their stated guidelines indicate that a filed divorce application can be sufficient evidence to exclude a spouse from family size calculations. Despite providing proof of my filed divorce application, my ex-spouse was still counted, unfairly inflating my financial responsibility.
IRCC Policy Contradiction:
- IRCC’s official correspondence addressed me stated that a filed divorce application, order, and certificate would be sufficient to exclude a separated spouse.
- Proof of my divorce application was submitted, yet my ex-spouse was still included in my family size calculation.
- IRCC’s inconsistent application of this rule imposes undue hardship.
Unequal Financial Consideration:
- If IRCC counts my ex-spouse in my family size, they should also consider his income.
- Excluding his substantial income while holding me solely responsible is discriminatory and creates an unfair financial burden.
2. IRCC’s Own Guidelines Permit Exclusion of a Separated Spouse
Despite IRCC acknowledging that a filed divorce application could serve as proof of separation, they continued to count my ex-spouse in my family size, contradicting their own stated requirements. Additional evidence of his engagement to be married and a signed affidavit confirming his new relationship were not considered.
The refusal disregards the reality that divorce finalization is a lengthy process. This situation has caused significant distress, affecting my ability to manage responsibilities related to my immigration case, business, and parental obligations.
3. Economic Discrimination & Unfair Financial Burden
By excluding my ex-spouse’s income while still counting him as part of my family size, IRCC’s decision results in financial discrimination. This precedent could negatively impact other sponsors in similar situations, penalizing individuals for delayed divorce proceedings beyond their control.
- The decision artificially inflates financial obligations, preventing the fulfillment of sponsorship rights.
- It enables financial abuse by placing responsibility on one party while allowing the other to avoid accountability.
- The approach contradicts fairness principles and the intent of sponsorship programs.
Additionally, my ex-spouse has deliberately stalled the divorce proceedings by failing to submit necessary documents, creating legal limbo. To counteract this, I am in the process of filing a motion with the Superior Court to expedite the process. This delay negatively impacts my ability to move forward financially and personally.
Despite these challenges, I exceed the Minimum Necessary Income (MNI) for sponsorship, as demonstrated by my most recent tax assessments. My financial stability is further supported by property ownership and other assets, yet IRCC failed to account for these factors.
Without my parents' permanent residence approval, I will face severe disruptions to my ability to work and provide for my child, as their presence is crucial for support. This decision could force me to either shut down my business or make difficult decisions regarding custody arrangements, exacerbating financial and emotional strain.
4. IRCC Has Previously Reversed Eligibility Decisions
IRCC initially approved my sponsorship eligibility when my ex-spouse co-signed the application. However, when he withdrew, IRCC reversed that decision, even though my financial circumstances remained stable.
This demonstrates that IRCC has the ability to reconsider eligibility decisions based on changing circumstances. Given the new evidence regarding my ex-spouse’s engagement and my filed divorce application, I am requesting a similar reconsideration to correct this unjust refusal.
Conclusion
This refusal appears to be based on an arbitrary and contradictory application of IRCC policies, unfairly penalizing me. IRCC failed to provide clear guidelines and did not account for my ex-spouse’s new relationship, leading to an inflated family size calculation.
I would appreciate any guidance from those who have successfully appealed similar refusals. What are the best next steps in challenging this decision, and how can I strengthen my appeal? Any advice on legal representation or case precedents would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and insights
