 
 
 
  
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 : VB8 -00167  
 
Client ID no. / No ID client : 5550 -7226  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP  
   
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  AGATEP  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
   
Respondent  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  Intimé (e) 
   
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  July 31, 2019  Date(s) de l’audience  
   
   
   
Place of Hearing  Heard by videoconference between  Lieu de l’audience  
 Vancouver, BC and Edmonton, AB   
   
   
Date of Decision  September 11, 2019  Date de la décision  
   
   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
   
   
Counsel  for the  N/A  Conseil(s) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) /  
Appellant(s)   des appelant(e)(s)  
   
   
   
Designated   N/A  Représentant(e)(s)   
Representative(s)   désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil du ministre  
   
2019 CanLII 128305 (CA IRB)
IAD Fil e No. / N° de dossier de la SAI : VB8 -00167  
 
 
 REASONS FOR DECIS ION  
 
[1] These are the reasons and decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) in an appeal 
by ShaXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Appellant) from a refusal to approve the application for a 
permanent resident visa for her mother XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Applicant).  The A ppellant’s 
father did not complete a medical examination as required under subparagraph  30(1)(a)(i) of the 
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations  (IRPR)1 and therefore the application was 
refused pursuant to subsection  16(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act  (IRPA )2 as 
the Applicant had failed to provide evidence and documents within a specified timeframe in order 
to assess admissibility.  
 
 
BACK GROUND  
 
[2] The Appellant is a 38 year old citizen of the Philippines who became a permanent 
resident of Canada on May 27, 2009.   
 
[3] The Appellant applied to sponsor her mother to Canada as a permanent resident.  Her 
father was included in the application as a non -accompanying spouse.  The Applicant and her 
spouse were required to undergo medical testing as part of the application process.  
 
[4] The Applicant went for medical testing and submitted the results.  Her husband did not 
and according to the testimony, refu ses to do so.  As the Applicant’s husband’s medical results 
were not submitted, the sponsorship application was refused.  
 
2019 CanLII 128305 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB8 -00167  
 
 
 
 
 ISSUES  
 
[5] The Appellant does not challenge the legal validity of the refusal.  Therefore, the issue in 
this case is whether pursuant to  paragraph 67(1)(c) of the IRPA  the IAD should use its authority 
to grant discretionary relief.  The Appellant must establish that taking into account the best 
interests of a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionat e 
considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.  
 
 
DECISION  
 
[6] The Appellant has not met the onus of proof.  Based on the evidence before me and on a 
balance of probabilities, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the 
decision, there are not sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant 
special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.  The appeal is dismissed.  
 
 
ANALYSIS  
 
[7] The Appellant testified at the he aring and provided additional documentary evidence.  I 
have considered the testimony, the materials in the Record, the documentary evidence, and the 
parties’ submissions.  
 
[8] The documentary evidence establishes that the Appellant’s father was contacted on se veral 
occasions and asked to submit the results of a medical examination.  The Appellant did not 
dispute the allegation.  Having assessed the evidence before me, I find that the degree of non -
compliance is significant .  I find that the determination to ref use the sponsorship application per 
subsection 16(1) of the IRPA is legally valid.  
2019 CanLII 128305 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB8 -00167  
 
 
 
 
 [9] The IAD has the authority to consider special relief and allow an appeal despite a legally 
valid ground of refusal.  The test to be applied in the exercise of that jurisdict ion is that the IAD 
must be satisfied that at the time the appeal is disposed of, taking into account the best interests of 
a child directly affected by the decision, sufficient humanitarian and compassionate 
considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.  
 
[10]  The Appellant submitted that there are sufficient humanitarian and compassionate 
considerations to warrant special relief.  The Appellant testified she had considered sponsoring 
her parents previously.  At that time h er father had undergone a medical examination at which 
time he discovered that he had tuberculosis.  He was required to undergo another medical 
examination for the purposes of the sponsorship application which is the focus of this appeal.  The 
father refus ed. 
 
[11]  The Appellant testified to the fact that her mother and father have been separated for a 
number of years.  Initially they lived apart as her mother went to work abroad in approximately 
1987.  When her mother returned to the Philippines in approximatel y 2003 her father was living 
in another province.  Her father then found another partner with which he has had five children.  
According to the testimony it is not possible to divorce in the Philippines and the cost of an 
annulment or separation agreement is prohibitive for the Appellant’s mother.  
 
[12]  The Appellant’s mother was in Canada for approximately five years until approximately 
October 2018 on a visitor’s visa.  The Appellant testified to the fact that she now has two children 
and her mother provides h er with personal support and childcare.  She testified to their strong 
relationship and their mutual desire to reside in close proximity.  
 
[13]  While there were many valid reasons submitted by the Appellant for humanitarian and 
compassionate considerations, the  testimony was not without its difficulties.  The Appellant 
provided little evidence to explain why her father would refuse to undergo a medical examination 
2019 CanLII 128305 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB8 -00167  
 
 
 
 
 for the current sponsorship application when he had undergone a medical examination in the past.  
From the evidence, there has been no change in the relationship between the Applicant and her 
husband between the time of the first medical exam and the request for a second medical exam.  
The evidence submitting that the Applicant’s husband refused to unde rgo a medical examination 
for the current sponsorship application as he had moved on lacks cogency, considering that the 
testimony shows that this was also the case at the time of the first medical examination.  Further, 
there was little evidence to show i f the father’s diagnosis of tuberculosis and the impact that this 
could have on acceptance of the sponsorship application was a factor in the refusal to undergo a 
medical examination.  The Appellant testified that her father had undergone six months of 
treatment though from  the evidence  his current health status is unclear.  
 
[14]  The evidence at the hearing was lacking in many areas.  For instance, there was little 
evidence to show that the XXXXXXXXX’s father had another partner with which he had five children.  
While birth certificates for the children were provided, they stated that the father was ‘padre no 
conocido’.3  At the hearing the interpreter testified that this meant that the father was unknown.  
There was no reasonable explanation given to explain thi s finding.   
 
[15]  The Appellant testified that her mother faces hardship in the Philippines as her home was 
destroyed during a typhoon.  There was little evidence to show that the Applicant was homeless 
or that she could not reside with her son in the Philippi nes.  The evidence shows that the 
Appellant’s brother, wife and three children live in the Philippines and have a relationship with 
the Applicant.  There was little evidence of any barriers preventing the Applicant from coming to 
Canada as a visitor.  The Appellant can travel to the Philippines.  According to the evidence , the 
Applicant has already applied for a visitor’s visa though processing is currently on hold pending 
the outcome of this appeal.  
 
[16]  I must also consider the best interests any children aff ected by the panel’s decision, in this 
case the Appellant’s two children.  There is evidence that they share a close relationship with the 
2019 CanLII 128305 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB8 -00167  
 
 
 
 
 Applicant and benefit from the Applicant’s presence when she is in Canada.  From the evidence, 
there was no suggestio n of any sort of dependency between the Appellant’s children and the 
Applicant , nor was it argued that the Applicant ’s presence in Canada would address any special 
medical or educational needs that the Appellant’s children might have . Grandparents can of 
course enrich their grandchildren’s lives. However, many grandparents do not live near their 
grandchildren and are still able to impart their love and guidance in a meaningful way through 
telephone calls, internet communications and mutual visits. The Appli cant has been able to visit 
the XXXXXXXXX and her children and could do so again.  
 
[17]  Overall, while I find that there would be some hardship imposed on the XXXXXXXXX and the 
Applicant if this appeal is dismissed, when considered alongside all of the other ci rcumstances of 
this case, this is not enough to weigh the balance in the Appellant’s favour.   
 
 
CONCLUSION  
 
[18]  Based on all the evidence before me, I find that on a balance of probabilities the 
determination that subsection 16(1) of the IRPA was contravened i s valid in law, and that there 
are insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant special relief in light of 
all the circumstances of the case.  
 
[19]  The appeal is dismissed.  
 
 
2019 CanLII 128305 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAI  : VB8 -00167  
 
 
 
 
 NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 The appeal is  dismissed.  
 
 
 
(signed)  “XXXXXXXXXXXXX”  
 XXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
September 11, 2019  
 Date  
 
Judicial Review – Under section 72 of 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, 
since there are time limits for this application.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002 –227  (IRPR).  
2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27  (IRPA).  
3 Exhibit A -1. 
2019 CanLII 128305 (CA IRB)

