 
 
 
  
Immigration and  
Refugee Board of Canada  
 
Immigration Appeal Division    
Commission de l’immigration  
et du statut de réfugié du Canada  
 
Section d’appel de l’immigration  
 
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
Client ID no. / No ID client : 372 3-4363  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP  
   
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXX  SANDHU  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
   
Respondent  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  Intimé (e) 
   
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  February 2, 2018  Date(s) de l’audience  
   
   
   
Place of Hearing  Vancouver, BC  Lieu de l’audience  
   
   
   
Date of Decision  May 23, 2018  Date de la décision  
   
   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
 XXXXXXXXXXX   
 A.E. Anselm   
   
   
Counsel for the  XXXXXXXXXXXXX  Consei l(s) de l’appelant(e) /  
Appellant(s)  Barrister and Solicitor  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)  
   
   
   
Designated 
Representative(s)  N/A  Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil du ministre  
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD Fil e No. / N° de dossier  de la SAI : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 REASONS FOR DECISION  
 
[1] These are the reasons and decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) in the 
appeal made by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ( the “ appellant ”), from the refusal to approve the 
permanent resident visa application made by his adopted son and biological nephew, GurXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ( the “ applicant ”), from India.  
 
BACKGROUND  
 
[2] The visa officer found that the applicant did not meet the definition of dependent child in 
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations  (the “ Regulations ”).1 The visa officer was 
not satisfi ed that an adoption ceremony had occurred, that the applicant’s ties with his natural 
parents had been severed, or that there was a genuine parent -child relationship established with 
his adoptive parents.2 
 
[3] The a ppellant is 40 years old. He is a Canadian c itizen. He was sponsored by his wife, 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, following their marriage in 1999 and came to Canada in 2000. The 
applicant is the appellant’s adoptive son, born on 17 September 1996 . He is the natural son  of the 
appellant’s sister, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, and h er husband, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX . Prior to the 
adoption, he resided with his natural parents and his natural brother and sister in India.  Since the 
adoption, he has resided with his grandfather, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, the father of the appellant 
and the appellant’s sister, in India.  
 
                                                           
1 Section 2, Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002 – 227.  
2 Appeal Record, pp. 261 -262.  
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 [4] The appellant, his wife, his father, the applicant and the applicant’s natural fa ther testified 
at the hearing. The appellant provided documentary evidence.3 We have considered the 
testimony, the documents and the part ies’ written submissions.  
 
 
ISSUES  
 
[5] At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the parties agreed that there were two issues 
before the panel:  
a. whether the adoption created a genuine parent -child relationship between the appellant 
and the applicant;  
 
b. whethe r the adoption was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring status or 
privilege under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (the “ Act ”).4 
 
[6] To succeed on appeal, the appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the 
adoption crea ted a genuine parent -child relationship and was not entered into primarily for the 
purpose of acquiring status or privilege under the Act .  
 
 
DECISION  
 
[7] We find that the appellant has not met the onus on him of establishing , on a balance of 
probabilities , that the adoption created a genuine parent -child relationship and was not entered 
into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Act . The appeal is 
dismissed.  
 
                                                           
3 Exhibit A -1. 
4 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27 . 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 STATUTORY PROVISIONS  
 
[8] The following provisions of the Regulations  are applicable to this appeal:  
117(2) Adoption – under 18 – A foreign national who is the adopted child  
of a sponsor and whose adoption took place when the child was under the age  
of 18 shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of the  
adoption unless  
(a) the adoption was in the best interests of the child within the meaning  
of the Hague Convention on Adoption; and  
(b) the adoption was not entered into primarily for the purpose of 
acquiring  any status or privilege under the Act . 
 
117(3) Best inte rests of the child – The adoption referred to in subsection (2)  
is considered to be in the best interests of a child if it took place under the 
following  circumstances:  
[…]  
(c) the adoption created a genuine parent -child relationship; […]  
 
 
ANALYSIS  
 
Genuinene ss 
 
[9] Genuineness of an adoption may be assessed by considering a number of factors.  While 
each appeal is unique and the importance of individual factors may vary, in the context of this 
case , the panel’s consideration has included the following factors:5 
 Motivation of the adopting parents and to a lesser extent the motivation and 
conditions of the natural parents ; 
 
 Authority and influence of the adopting parent over the adopted child ; 
 
 Supplanting of the authority of the natural parents by the adopting pare nts; 
                                                           
5 See XXXXXXXXX  v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Imm igration) , [1995] I.A.D.D. No. 1248  
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
  Relationship between the adopted child with the natural parents after adoption ; 
 
 Relationship between the adopted child and the adopting parents before the 
adoption ; 
 
 Treatment of the adopted child versus natural children by the adopting parent ; 
 
 Chan ges flowing from the new status of the adopted child; for example records 
and entitlements including documentary acknowledgement that the child is the 
son or daughter of the adopting parents ; 
 
 Arrangements and planning for the adoptive child.  
 
[10]  The witnesse s testified that the appellant adopted the applicant in 2007 when the 
applicant was ten  years old. An adoption ceremony was held in the appellant’s ancestral village 
in India on 26 February 2007 . The appellant was present together with the applicant, the 
applicant’s natural parents, the appellant’s father and approximately 200 to 250 other persons. 
An adoption deed was executed on 7 March 2007.6 
 
[11]  The appellant testified that he first raised adopting the applicant with his wife after the 
birth of his second daughter, born in 2003. He explained he wanted a son and loved the 
applicant, having spent time with him when the a pplicant was a young child. He discussed 
adopting the applicant with his wife and she agreed.  The testimony of the appellant’s wife was 
gener ally consistent with that of the appellant. She said she also wanted a male child and liked 
the applicant.  She further explained that in their religion it is required to have a son and that the 
son carries out funeral ceremonies.  
 
[12]  The appellant testified t hat his sister agreed to the adoption because of the applicant’s 
close attachment to him and because he could provide the applicant with a good education . He 
                                                           
6 Appeal Record, pp.102 -104.  
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 also indicated that the income of his sister and her husband was not very good.  When pressed on 
that point, he admitted that he was not sure and was guessing about their income.  
 
[13]  The appellant’s wife testified that the applicant’s natural parents agreed to the adoption 
because the appellant had a good relationship with the applicant and she and her hus band could 
treat the applicant like real parents and provide him with a good living.  
 
[14]  On direct examination, the appellant’s father offered several reasons why the applicant’s 
natural parents agreed to the adoption: because the appellant and the applicant’ s natural mother 
are brother and sister and love each other; because the appellant only had daughters and the 
natural parents had two sons; because the appellant and applicant love each other; and because 
the natural parents thought the appellant could pro vide the applicant  with a good education. He 
also indicated that the appellant wanted to educate the applicant and the appellant’s daughters 
want the a pplicant as a brother . 
 
[15]  The applicant testified that his natural parents agreed to the adoption because h e loves the 
appellant very much. He said he has a closer relationship with the appellant than with his natural  
father. He said that the appellant brings him gifts when he visits him in India.  
 
[16]  The applicant’s natural father testified that he and his wife d iscussed the appellant’s 
request to adopt the applicant with their children and they all agreed it would be good if the 
applicant was adopted since the appellant and his wife had only daughters.  He also indicated that 
at the time of the request, the applic ant was more attached to the appellant than to him and that 
from childhood the applicant had wanted to go to the appellant.  
 
[17]  With respect to the attachment between the appellant and the applicant, on direct 
examination the appellant testified that he loved  the applicant and had spent a lot of time with 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 him w hen the applicant was a child. However, on cross -examination the appellant described his 
relationship with the applicant prior to the appellant coming to Cana da as “like uncle and 
nephew”. The appellant explained that when the applicant was a young child, he would pla y with 
him and sleep with him. There was no discussion at that time of an adoption.  
 
[18]  Similarly, on cross -examination the appellant’s wife described her relationship with the 
applicant prior t o the adoption as one of aunt and nephew and she considered the applicant to be 
the son of her sister -in-law.  
 
[19]  The applicant and his natural father testified that at the time of the adoption the applicant 
had a stronger attachment to his adoptive father XXXXX to his natural father.  Up to that point, 
however, the applicant was living with his natural parents and being raised alongside his natural 
siblings in their family home.  There is no evidence that the applicant was marginalized in the 
natural family hom e or that the natural family home was not a loving home.  In noting that the 
appellant left India and moved to Canada in 2000, when the applicant was about four years old, it 
is unclear to the panel why the young applicant, only a toddler when the appellant  departed India, 
was described as being closer to his uncle than to his natural father . The panel accepts that there 
could be a strong bond between an uncle and a nephew, but there was no credible evidence 
provided to show that the relationship between the  appellant and the applicant went beyond that 
of loving uncle and nephew.  The existence of  a strong er attachment is even less credible given 
both adoptive parents described their relationship to the applicant prior to the adoption as one of 
uncle/aunt and nephew.  
 
[20]  The panel also was troubled by significant inconsistencies in the testimony at the hearing 
surrounding the timing of the adoption discussion.  
 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 [21]  The evidence was inconsistent with respect to how the discussion of an adoption with the 
natural parent s took place . For his part, t he appellant testified that after discussing adopting the 
applicant with his wife, in 2006 he went to India to discuss the matter with his sister. He testified 
that he did not speak to the applicant’s natural parents about the prospect of adoption before 
going to India.  In India, the appellant told his sister that he loved the appl icant and wanted to 
adopt him. According to the appellant, his sister said that the applicant would get a good 
education with the appellant and that t he applicant wanted to stay with the appe llant. The 
appellant also testified that his sister’s husband, the natural father, had no objection.  For her part, 
however, the appellant’s wife testified that she and her husband talked about adopting the 
applicant  in 2004, and that in 2006 the appellant, after speaking with his own parents, telephoned 
the applicant’s natural parents and asked them if they would agree to an adoption.  The 
appellant’s wife testified that she participated in the adoption discussion by telephone.  Further, it 
was her testimony that the natural parents agreed to the adoption by telephone.  She testified that, 
thereafter, her husband went to India and talked with his father and the natural parents.  The 
natural father was unable to provide mo re clarity on the point and, in fact, further muddled the 
evidence . It was his testimony that the adoption discussion took place in 2006 when the appellant 
came to India and, as set out above, the request was discussed with their children. Later in the 
XXX ring, however, he said that the appellant spoke to his wife by telephone and she agreed to the 
adoption.  
 
[22]  The panel does not find it credible that the adoptive and natural parents’ recollections of 
the circumstances of the discussion of an adoption would d iffer so significantly given the 
seriousness and significance of the discussion. Reliable evidence fails to establish the timing of 
the adoption discussion and the manner in which the appellant proposed adoption to the 
applicant’s natural family.  
 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 [23]  In anoth er area, the appellant’s wife’s testimony was inconsistent with respect to whe n 
she first met the applicant. In direct examination, she testified that while she saw the applicant 
when she visited India in December 200 7, she had met him previously. When she  was asked by 
the panel, she said that she first met the applicant in December 2007.  On re -direct examination, 
she said that the applicant had been at her wedding in December 1999 when he was a small child 
and she met him again in December 2007.  As the ado ptive mother, the panel would have 
expected her to remember when she first met the applicant, particularly given the alleged strong 
attachment between the applicant and her husband, the appellant.  
 
[24]  Further, at the hearing, the applicant testified that he c onsiders the appellant a nd his wife 
to be his parents. Indeed, initially he professed not even to remember the  names of his natural 
parents. When pressed, he recited their names in a manner that suggested his prior inability to do 
so was contrived.  The pan el finds this raises a significant credibility concern, as the applicant 
was not adopted until he was ten years old, his natural mother is the sister of his adoptive father 
and they continued to be family after the adoption.  There is no reasonable explanat ion for the 
applicant’s inability to name his natural parents at the hearing.  His initial testimony appeared to 
be disingenuous.  
 
[25]  The panel had difficulty with the applicant’s test imony in another area as well. When 
asked on direct examination about contac t with his natural parents, the applicant said that he only 
had contact with them once in  a while, at family functions. On cross -examination, he testified 
that after the adoption he never went back to visit his natural parents, did not talk to his natural 
mother and did not get telephone calls from his natural parents.  This is inconsistent with what the 
applicant told the visa officer at his interview in N ew Delhi on 28 September 2015. When the 
visa officer asked how frequently he visited his natural parent s, the applicant responded that he 
would meet t hem whenever he got a holiday. When asked if he missed them, he said yes, a little 
bit, but  he would then go to meet them.  When asked if he considered them like his parents, he 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 said yes, although he also said he was more emotionally att ached to his adoptive parents. When 
asked if he spoke to his natural mother on the telephone, he said yes, sometimes his natural 
parents would call to see how he is doing.  
 
[26]  When asked about these inconsistencies on cross -examinat ion, the applicant, who is now 
an adult - at the time of the hearing he was 21 years old - was evasive, indicating that he did not 
remember or might have been confused or might have made assumptions.  The panel did not find 
him to be a credible witness and concludes that he was actively misleading the panel with respect 
to the contact he maintains with his natural parents since the adoption.  
 
[27]  The panel also has reason to question the reliability of testimony provided by the 
applicant’s natural father, who te stified at the hearing that he has  no contact with the applicant.  
However, the natural parents accompanied the applicant to New Delhi and were interviewed by 
the visa of ficer. At that interview, the applicant’s natural mother said that the applicant visits  
them when he is off school, that she can call the applicant when she wants, and that she talks to 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX on the telephone every three to four days or every week, for four to five  minutes. 
When asked if they visited too, she said that they visited XXXXXXXXXX in her parents’ house once or 
twice a month.  The panel rejects the natural father’s testimony regarding his contact with the 
applicant.  He is misleading the panel.  
 
[28]  The panel is mindful that this is an intra -familial adoption, and that some degree  of 
ongoing contact between the applicant and his natu ral parents is to be expected. However, in 
their testimony, the appellant, the applicant and the natural father attempted to downplay any 
ongoing contact, which negatively affected their credibility . This necessarily detracts from the 
appellant’s case . 
 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 [29]  Moving on, the panel notes a judgment dated 15 September 2009 in a suit for declaration 
and permanent injunction rendered by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Civil Judge, Junior Division, 
Nakodar, Punjab and related d ecree sheet.7 The appellant, his wife, and the applicant as 
represented by the appellant’s father in India are identified as the plaintiffs in the suit . The 
applicant’s natural parents are the defendants . The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the 
defendants . They sought a declaration that the applicant was the adopted son of the adoptive 
parents as well as a permanent injunction restraining the natural parents from clai ming rights 
over the applicant.  The judgement states that the suit was brought bec ause the natural parents 
denied the adoption and denied the status of the applicant as the adopt ed son of the adoptive 
parents.  It appears that the suit proceeded ex parte  because no one appeared on behalf of the 
natural parents.  The judge found in favour of the adoptive parents.  
 
[30]  At the hearing, the appellant was asked to explain the judgment. He testified that, 
contrary to the allegations in the suit, the natural parents never denied or challenged the 
adoption . He stated that the suit was required in orde r to have the documents of the Central 
Adoption Resource Authority issued.8 The appellant’s wife testified that she was aware of the 
judgment. She said that the natural parents had nothing to do with it and never said they objected 
to the adoption, althoug h she agreed that the natural parents were the named defendants in the 
suit . The appellant’s father testified that he brought the suit on behalf of the appellant in order to 
obtain a court order for permission to adopt.  He did not explain why the suit was instituted after 
the adoption had taken place.  He said he did not know whether the natural parents ever objected. 
The applicant’s natural father testified that he was aware of the suit and that he and his wife had 
no objection to the adoption.  
 
                                                           
7 Appeal Record, pp. 110 -118.  
8 Appeal Record, pp. 78 -79.  
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 [31]  On its face , the judgment would seem to indicate that the suit was necessary because the 
natural parents contested the adoption.  This was denied by the adoptive parents and natural 
father at the hearing. In these circumstances, the basis for the suit is unclear and t he panel does 
not accord the judgment any weight one way or the other.  
 
[32]  The panel also finds it troubling that the appellant’s wife has not returned to India to visit 
the applicant for over ten years.  She has not been back to visit since December 2007.  Nor have 
the applicant’s adoptive siblings spent any time with him since December 2007.  The panel would 
have expected that in a genuine adoption both adoptive parents would have made more frequent 
visits to India to see the applicant. Reasons offered by the appellant and his wife for the lack of 
visits – that it is too hot in India in the summer, that his wife has to look after their other children 
and that his daughters do not have time off from school – are not persuasive to the panel over a 
ten year period . The lack of such visits over time does not support a finding that the applicant 
enjoys the same standing in the adoptive family as do the natural children of the appellant and 
his wife.  
 
[33]  The evidence is clear that applicant’s primary caregiver since his adoption at age ten 
years has been the appellant’s father, pursuant to a power of attorney provided by the appellant.9 
While the appellant generally has visited yearly, the appellant’s wife has not seen th e applicant in 
over ten years. Although the evidenc e showed that the appellant and his wife and daughters 
communicate regularly with the applicant, and are knowledgeable about his life in India, the 
reality is that their involvement in the applicant’s life has been at a distance. They have 
essentially miss ed out on the applicant’s childhood. The panel is not persuaded that a genuine 
parent -child relationship has been established between th e appellant and the applicant.  
 
                                                           
9 Appeal Record, pp. 106 -109 . 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 [34]  There are some positive factors . For example, there is evidence that the appellant has 
provided a level of financial support for the applicant since the adoption, the applicant is 
recognized in school documents and in the community in which he resides as the appellant’s 
adopted son, the appellant plans to make financial arrangements for the a pplicant’s education in 
Canada and prepare a will which includes the applicant as a beneficiary, and assist him in taking 
classes and establishing a career in Canada as a mechanic, and that the applicant will reside with 
the appellant and his family . 
 
[35]  That  said, significant concerns regarding the timing of the adoption discussion, the lack 
of credibility of witnesses in obvious areas such as the applicant’s contact with his natural 
family, and other areas noted above, mitigate against the success of this ap peal.  
 
Primary Purpose  
 
[36]  In light of the panel’s finding with respect to whether a genuine parent -child relationship 
was established, it is unnecessary for the panel to consider the primary purpose of the adoption. 
The panel has considered this issue, howev er, and concludes that the primary purpose of the 
adoption was to permit the applicant to acquire a status or privilege under the Act .  
 
[37]  The panel’s credibility findings set out above also inform the finding on this issue. The 
discrepancies in the evidence  in several areas and, importantly, the testimony regarding the 
timing and substance of the adoption discussion, do not suggest the adoption was entered into for 
a legitimate adoptive purpose.  
 
 
 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 [38]  The panel was struck by the emphasis in the testimony on the  appellant providing the 
applicant with a good education and a better  life in Canada. The evidence strongly supports a 
finding that this was the primary moti vation of the natural parents. While the panel appreciates 
the witness testimony about having a mal e child, the totality of the evidence supports a finding 
that the primary purpose of the adoption was to allow the applicant to acquire permanent 
residence in Canada.  The panel agrees with the submission of Minister’s counsel that it is more 
likely than no t that the appellant is a caring uncle who can secure a good future in Canada for his 
nephew.  
 
 
CONCLUSION  
 
[39]  Having considered the totality of the evidence, the panel finds that the appellant has not 
met the onus on him of establishing, on a balance of pro babilities, that a genuine parent -child 
relationship was created by the adoption. The panel also finds that the adoption was entered into 
primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege in Canada.  
 
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB6 -02561  
 
 
 
 
 NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 The appeal is dismissed . 
 
(signed)  “XXXXXXXXXXXX”  
 XXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
May 22, 2018  
 Date  
 
(signed)  “XXXXXXXXXXX”  
Concurred in by  XXXXXXXXXXX  
 
May 23, 2018  
 Date  
 
(signed)  “XXXXXXXXXXX”  
Concurred in by  XXXXXXXXXXX  
 
May 23, 2018  
 Date  
 
Judicial Review – Under section 72 o f the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you may make an application to the Federal Court for 
judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court.  You may wish to get advice from counsel as soon as possible, sin ce there are time limits 
for thi s application.  
2018 CanLII 81815 (CA IRB)

