 
Immigration and  
Refugee Board of Canada  
 
Immigration  Appeal 
Division    
Commission de l’immigration  
et du statut de réfugié du Canada  
 
Section d’appel d e l’immigration  
 
 
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP  
 
 
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
   
 The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration   
Respondent  Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration  Intimé(e)  
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  June 1, 2015  Date(s ) de l’audience  
   
   
Place of Hearing  Toronto, Ontario  Lieu de l’audience  
   
   
Date of Decision  June 18, 2015  Date de la décis ion 
   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
   
Counsel for the 
Appellant(s)  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil(s) de 
l’appelant(e) / des 
appelant(e)(s  
 Barrister and Solicitor   
   
   
Designated 
Representative(s)  N/A  Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
   
   
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil du ministre  
     
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
 
  
REASONS FO R DECISION  
INTRODUCTION  
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in the appeal of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the appellant), 
from the refusal of an application for permanent res ident visas by his mother, XXXXXXXXXXXXX and 
father, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the applicants).  
[2] The sponsored application for permanent residence was refused because the applicant s 
did not produce relevant requested evidence and documents that the officer reasonably required, 
pursuant to section 16(1) of the Immigra tion and Refugee Protection Act1 (IRPA ). Specifically, 
the applicants failed to provide police clearances from Bangladesh and the United States  of 
America ’s (USA)  Federal  Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  
BACKGROUND  
[3] The appellant applied to sponsor the applicants in 2008. The appellant engaged the  
assistance of his first cousin to aid him in the application process. The Record at pages 26 
onwards confirms that in the course of processing the sponsored applications for permanent 
residence of the applicants, the visa post requested police clearances on 14 May 2013 and 20 
November 2013, and the application was subsequently refused on 29 January 2014 with a refusal 
letter being issued on 31 January 2014, pursuant to section 16 of the IRPA.  
[4] Subsequent to the refusal, correspondence was received at the v isa post indicating that the 
applicants had been unable to secure Bangladeshi police clearances and the FBI certificates had 
been delayed. This information was considered and did not change the decision of the visa post. 
The appellant filed his appeal on 2 4 March 2014.  
ANALYSIS AND DECISION  
[5] The appellant provided FBI clearances at this appeal. The absence of Bangladeshi police 
clearances, however, continues to be an issue at this appeal.  
                                                 
1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27.  
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
 
 2 
[6] At this appeal the appellant and respondent were both of the view th at there were 
sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to allow the appeal, however, while the 
appellant submitted that there were sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to 
dispense with the requirement for Bangladeshi police clearances , the respondent submitted that 
the appellants continued to bear the obligation to establish their admissibility to Canada by 
providing police clearances or a letter from the Bangladeshi government confirming that police 
clearances would not be forth coming . 
[7] I am not prepared to agree with the appellant’s position that there are sufficient 
humanitarian and compassionate grounds to dispense with the requirement for Bangladeshi 
police clearances and find that they are necessary, with any exemptions from same t o be 
provided by the visa post directly, since the visa post is best positioned, on a local level, to 
establish whether Bangladeshi police clearances are not forthcoming despite the applicant s’ goo d 
faith efforts to secure them.  
[8] To be specific, the Ministe r’s counsel at this appeal recommended that, in the event 
Bangladeshi police clearances could not be provided, a letter be instead obtained from officials 
of the Bangladeshi government confirming no such document could be provided, or, 
alternatively, that it be left up to the visa post to make a determination that the Bangladeshi 
police clearances are no longer required for continued processing. I find that this is a reasonable 
submissions and order that the appellant either provide the necessary documents to effect an 
admissibility assessment, these being the requisite police clearances, or provide a letter from the 
appropriate Bangladeshi police authorities confirming that no police clearances are forthcoming. 
With respect to th is latter option, however, I  find that the visa post is best situated to decide what 
constitutes an acceptable confirmation that the Bangladeshi authorities will not be issuing police 
clearances to the applicants and that sufficient, reasonable good faith efforts have been made to 
secure same so as to exempt the applicants  from the requirement to provide police clearances.  
[9] To this end, I find the decision of the visa officer is legally valid. I further find that there 
are sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to war rant the exercise of special 
relief to allow the appeal in order to provide the applic ants with further opportunity to file the 
requisite police clearance certificates with the visa post or, alternatively, to file proof of the 
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
 
 3 
Bangladeshi government’s refu sal to provide police clearances which is acceptable to the visa 
post for the purpose of dispensing with the need for police clearances. The decision to refuse the 
application for permanent residence is set aside and the matter is referred back to the visa  post 
for further processing. My analysis follows herein.  
[10]  The permanent resident application underlying this appeal was refused , pursuant to 
section 16(1) of the IRPA  which states:  
A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to 
them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant 
evidence and documents that he officer reasonably requires.  
[11]  It must be remarked that the appellant provided evidence of concerted efforts being made 
to secure the necessary  police clearances, with the appellant engaging the assistance of his first 
cousin in Canada who served as an unpaid representative and endeavoured to secure the 
necessary police clearances himself , and  by engaging the assistance of other persons residing 
abroad, as well as others who were travelling fr om Canada abroad. The appellant’ s documentary 
evidence bears out the efforts made  to secure the American  and Bangladeshi police clearances, 
the former being issued late, and the latter not being issued at all .  
[12]  The testimony provided by the appellant and his first cousin, who was a witness at this 
appeal, is that Bangladeshi police clearances were not issued because the applicants  have no 
proof that they resided in Bangladesh. Eventually, some success was had in securing Red Cross 
residency certificates, which are found at Tab 2 of Exhibit A -2 and which confirm that the 
applicants were repatriated from (Dacca) Bangladesh to Pakistan in 1974; this serves as 
confirmation that the applicants, being repatriated fro m that region, would have resided in that 
region. I received no good evidence to explain why, following the receipt of the Red Cross 
confirmations, no efforts were made to utilise these documents to establish past residence in 
Bangladesh and on this basis to request Bangladeshi police clearances.  
[13]  Although the testimony  at this appeal was that no Bangladeshi police clearances would 
be forthcoming without proof that the applicants resided in Bangladesh, I note that the 
Bangladesh i Police printout found at pa ge 52 of Exhibit A -1 does indicate that “Foreigners or 
people, bearing foreign passport, will be able to collect PCC by submitting aforesaid 
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
 
 4 
documents”, though, paradoxically, the aforesaid documents refer to proof that the applicants 
resided in Bangladesh  by way of passport of identity documents . It is, of course, unfair and 
circuitous to expect foreigners or  persons bearing a foreign passport (such as the applicants’ 
Pakistani passports) to provide proof they reside or resided in Bangladesh by way of Bang ladeshi 
passport or Bangladeshi ID document when such foreigners or persons bearing foreign passports 
were not issued any such proof. In this case, however, I note the applicants now possess proof of 
past residence in Bangladesh via the Red Cross confirmat ions that indicate they were repatriated 
from Bangladesh to Pakistan and reasonably would have had to reside in Bangladesh if they 
were to be repatriated from there. The fact that the Bangladesh i Police website considers police 
clearance applications from person with foreign passports also contradicts any intimation that the 
applicants were not issued police clearances because  they hold Pakistani passports.  
[14]  In light of the above, having considered the humanitarian and compassionate aspects of 
the case, I fi nd there are sufficient grounds to allow the appeal in order provide the applicants 
further opportunity to provide police clearances or an official refusal to issue police clearances 
that is acceptable to the visa post.  
[15]  For the reasons that follow , I do no t find there are sufficient humanitarian and 
compassionate grounds to dispense with the applicants’ onus to prove their admissibility to 
Canada b y providing police clearances. The appellant was not forthcoming with regard to his 
pare nts’ status in the USA , as to why they had not applied to regularize their st atus in that 
country  and why they chose to remain there illegally for 15 years. While the appellant’s brother 
in the USA clarified some of these concerns, no unequivocal, reliable testimony was provided  as 
to why the applicants have opted not to return to Pakistan for 15 years, remaining illegally in the 
USA  this entire time. The appellant avoided questions in this regard, which leaves a rather 
significant void,  one that could touch on the applicant s’ inadmissibility. Equally, his mother, the 
principal applicant, provided testimony that was internally inconsistent and unclear. This, 
combined with the failure to provide Bangladeshi police clearances, leaves insufficient 
information before me upon which to find that I can safely forego the need to ascertain the 
applicants’ admissibility to this country.  
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
 
 5 
[16]  It is also not credible that the appellant, who claims to share a close enough relationship 
with his parents that he wants them to live in his care, has fail ed to secure even the slightest 
amount of information as to their efforts to remain in the USA, and, if there are personal safety 
issues with regard to leaving the U SA, why he has not discussed the se with them. The complete 
lack of knowledge claimed by the  app ellant regarding the applicants’  objectives and needs as 
pertains to their decision to leave Pakistan for 15 years to reside illegally in North America is not 
indicative of a closeness that would warrant allowing the  appeal despite the applicants’ 
unre solved admissibility to Canada.  
[17]  The applicants secured Canadian V isitor ’s Visas  approximately 15 years ago. The 
applicants  testified that they do not  own property in Bangladesh or Pakistan. The testimony is 
that the applicants have only two sons, one in th e USA  and one in Canada. The applicants 
testified that they possess Pakistani passports and identity documents.  
[18]  From Canada, the applicants entered the USA  as visitors and have resided there ever 
since, with their son  and two gra ndchildren in the USA . Oth er than their temporary status as 
visitors, which they did not renew in the USA , the applicants have not held any other legal status 
in that country. They have resided for the past 15 years in the care of their son, who himself has 
held temporary resident status in the USA  (as an employee), is presently being sponsored for a 
Green Card by his older, American -born son. The applicants’ son in the USA  testified that he 
plans to sponsor the applicants if and when  he secures permanent  status in that country . 
[19]  Inasmuch as the best interests of the children are concerned, the appellant has two 
children, ages  13 and 16. Another child whose inter est is engaged is the applicants’ 16 -year -old 
American grandchild. The appellant testified that one benefit of having his pa rents join him in 
Canada is that they wo uld be able to pass down their cultural traditions to their Canadian 
grandchildren. I note, however, that applicants are visited by their Canadian grandchildren 
annually  and speak to them by telephone  weekly. Given t hat the Canadian grandchildren are in 
their teens,  I do not consider that their need for - and the benefit f rom - their paternal 
grandparents’  personal care is so great that, together with the other factors of the case, it 
outweighs the need to dispense wi th ensuring that the appli cants are admissible to Canada.  
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
 
 6 
[20]  Moreover, I note that the applicants have a son and two grandchildren in the USA as 
well, and have spent the last 15 years as members of that family. Given the current ages of their 
American grandch ildren as testified to by the appellant, the applicants would have entered the 
USA and begun living with these grandchildren when the latter were aged approxim ately 1 and 
5, respectively.  I must therefore also turn my mind to the best interests of the 16 -year-old 
American grandchild who has been raised in his or he r grandparents’  presence for the past 15 
years and who would also benefit, if not from their ongoing care, then at a minimu m from their 
ongoing presence. My  decision will not prohibit the Canadian  children fr om continuing  the 
relationship they have always shared with their grandparents while ensuring the American 
grandchild continues to benefit from the relationship he has shared with his or her gran dparents 
for the past 15 years.  
[21]  I have also turne d my mind to the fact that dispensing with the need for Bangladeshi 
police clearances would facilitate the applicants’  permanent residence in Canada thus alleviating 
the obvious burden of residing in the USA  illegally. The reality of this burden was suffic iently 
evide nced by the principal applicant’ s emotional reaction when asked about her status in the 
USA  and her feelings toward this status. Dispensing with the need for police clearances w ould 
also provide the appellant and the applicants’  American relati ves with the peace of mind of 
knowing their elderly parents finally have status in North America and would not fear having to 
return to Pakistan, something they have avoided doing for 15 years. Such peace of mind, 
however, is available to any appellant who  wins his or her family reunification appeal in any 
number of cases – this ground alone, or in combination with the other humanitarian and 
compassionate factors of the case, are insuffi cient to by -pass the applicants’  onus to establish 
that they are not in admissible as permanent residents of Canada. The weight these factors  would 
have in favo ur of the appellant’s  case is also minimized by the knowledge any reasonable person 
would have, that residing illegally in a country for a prolonged period of time, jus t like 
immigrating away from one’ s parents, is bound to cause a proportional emotional impact.  
[22]  I appreciate that the appellant ’s wife has suffered from cancer in the past, that she still 
requires assistance, that the appellant works 12 hour days, and that  he has two teens to care for. 
Though I am certain that, emotionally, it would be beneficial for the appellant and the applicants 
to be reunited in Canada, the evidence does not support a finding that bringi ng in two elderly 
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
 
 7 
parents - one of whom clearly t estified to having memory issu es - will lighten the appellant’ s 
already heavy burden; even if this was the case, this factor would not sustain a finding that the 
humanitarian and compassionate factors of the case are so great as to dispense with the  need t o 
ensure the applicants’ admissibility to Canada, primarily because the security of the Canadian 
public generally trumps family reunification objectives.  
[23]  Specifically, the Supreme Court of Canada has established that the objectives of the 
IRPA , as expresse d in Section 3, indicate the intent to prioritize security. In weighing the 
conflicting objectives outlined by section 3(1)(d), promoting the reunification of families in 
Canada, versus  section 3(1)(h), promoting the protection of the safety of Canadians a nd 
maintaining the security of Canadian society, security takes precedence .2 Having considered the 
humanitarian and compassionate grounds of the appeal, including the appellant and the 
applicant s’ desire to reunite in Canada , as well as the best interests of the appellant’s children, I 
do not find that, in this case, these outweigh the objective of ensuring the protection of the 
Canadian public which necessitates ensurin g that the applicants  are not inadmissible to Canada.  
[24]  I have also considered the import ance of maintaining the integri ty of Canada’s 
immigration laws. D ispen sing with the need to prove one’ s admissibility to this country prior to 
entering as a permanent resident is not to be taken lightly. Ensuring the integrity of Canada’s 
immigration laws and admissibility requirements, combined with the importance of maintaining 
the security of Canadian society, together trump the humanitarian and compassionate aspects of 
the case and do not  overcome the need to ascertain admissibility.  
[25]  For all of the abov e reasons, I find there are insufficient humanitarian and compassionate 
grounds to trump the n eed to establish the applicants’  admissibility to Canada, but find, however, 
that there are sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to provide the appel lant and 
applicants with further opportu nity to establish the applicant s’ admissibility .  
DECISION  
[26]  The appeal is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to the visa  
                                                 
2 XXXXXXXXXX v. M.C.I ., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 539 . 
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB4 -02843  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  3971 -8416  
 
 
 8 
post for further reconsideration having regard to the requirem ents that the applicants establish 
their admissibility or alternatively, provide evidence that satisfies the visa post that the 
Bangladeshi government refuses to issue police clearances to the applicants , despite their best 
good  faith efforts to secure sam e. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
 The appeal is allowed. The officer’s decision to refuse a permanent resident visa is set 
aside, and an officer must continue to process the application in accordance with the reasons of 
the Immigration Appeal Division.  
 
 
   “V. Zanfir”    
   XXXXXXXXX  
 
 
   18 June 2015    
   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 decis ion, 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.  
2015 CanLII 80994 (CA IRB)

