 
IAD.34.1 (October 2007) Disponible en français 
 
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./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984 
  
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision 
 
Sponsorship  
 Appellant(s) Appelant(s) 
YUET  KUEN  DILYS  CHEUNG 
  Respondent Intimé 
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration 
  Date(s) and Place Date(s) et Lieu de of Hearing l’audience 
February 9, 2010 Toronto, Ontario 
 Date of Decision Date de la Décision 
February 26, 2010 
 
 Panel Tribunal 
PatXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  Appellant’s Counsel Conseil de l’appelant(s) 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX  Barrister and Solicitor 
  Minister’s Counsel Conseil de l’intimé 
Doug Baker 
   
 . 
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984  1  
 Reasons for Decision 
Introduction 
 
[1] These are the reasons for the decision in th e appeal of YuXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the appellant) from the refusal of an application fo r a permanent resident visa made by her husband, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the applicant), and his tw o children, XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXX.   Issue and Decision 
 
[2] The appellant, who was represente d by counsel, testified at the de novo hearing. Documentation was submitted which included, inter alia, copies of the appellant’s bank records,  2008 Federal Notice of Assessment, job letters and calling cards, passport, VISA card, money remittances from applicant to appellant and photographs.   Minister’s Counsel provided copies of the Minimum Necessary Income (MNI) effect ive until December 2010 and currency converter for Chinese Yuan Renminbi to Canadian dollars.  [3] To succeed on appeal the appellant must satisf y me that adequate financial arrangements are in place for the care and support of the applicant, in order to support himself and any other persons who are dependent on him other than thos e involving social assistance or evidence of adequate sufficient transferable assets.    [4] Having considered the evidence and submissions of the parties, I find that the appellant has not met her burden of proof in this appeal.  [5] The appeal is dismissed.  Background 
 
[6] The appellant married the applicant in September 2007 and attempted to sponsor him and his two children as members of the family class.  The appellant is a sole parent to her own two children, a son now aged 20 and a daughter aged 13 years.  The applicant has two children, a son aged 22 and a daughter aged 20. 
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984  2  
 [7] In total the appellant’s family unit would be six people: herself and her two children, and the applicant and his two children.  [8] On review of the application, concerns were identified that the appellant’s income did not meet the minimum necessary income required to spons or the applicant.  It was determined a visa post interview was necessary, which the appli cant attended on February 19, 2009 in Hong Kong. Following the interview the applicant was provided with a refusal letter
1 dated February 19, 2009 that reads in part: 
 
I have now completed the assessment of your a pplication and concluded that your application is refused. The reasons and grounds are outlined below.  Pursuant to section 39 of the Immigration and Re fugee Protection Act, I have determined that you are a person who would be unable or unwilli ng to support yourself and any other person who is dependent on you, I have reviewed the documentation you have provided in support of your application, and the information given at your interview of 19, February 2009. You have not satisfied me that adequate arrangements  for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made. As  a result, you are inadmissible to Canada.   Subsection 11(1) of the Act provides that a foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or any other doc ument required by the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following examinati on, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that you are not inadmi ssible and that you meet the requirements of the Act. I am therefore refusing your application. 
 [9] Section 39 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)  sets out a two prong test for a sponsored applicant who falls within  the family class.  It states in part: 
 
39. Financial reasons - A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made 
 [10] The first part of the test for being able to  support oneself involves looking at guides such as the MNI standard to see whether or not it is met.   It must be noted that the MNI is only a guide unlike a requirement to be met when Regulation 133(1)(j) applies.  In this particular case, the MNI for the family of six is to be considered.  Whatever financial standard is used to guide the 
                                                           
1 Record, page 5. 
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984  3  
 needs, it does not rely solely on a calculation of income at the time of application.  What must also be considered and looked at is the potential  income for the applicant once permitted to enter Canada.  [11] The officer sets out the particulars in the CAIPS (Computer Assisted Immigration Processing Systems) notes
2 reflecting that the applicant was informed at his interview that the appellant was required to earn a minimum necessary  income to support six persons of as required under section 39 of the IRPA.  The same CAIPS notes clearly indicate the bona fides of the marriage were not examined as part of the decision.    [12] In light of the information that the appell ant was unable to meet the requirements of section 133 (l)(j)(i) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations), the visa officer found the applicant inadmissible, as a member of the family class, pursuant to sections 39 and 11(1) of IRPA.  [13] Although the sponsor was not subject to  the MNI provisions by operation of subparagraph 133(l)(j)(i) and paragraph 144(4)(b) of the Regulations, I find that the MNI table recommends at least $51,498.00 for six persons in 2009 and then $52,699 MNI for the period ending December 31, 2010.  It is a useful guide  in deciding whether or not settlement arrangements have been met.  [14] As this is a de novo hearing before the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), the onus rests on the appellant to establish that under section 39 of the IRPA 
 
39.  A foreign national is inadmissible for financia l reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other pers on who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangemen ts for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made 
 or that there are sufficient humanitarian and co mpassionate grounds to warrant special relief in her case. 
                                                           
2 Record, pages 29 and 30. 
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984  4  
 Analysis  
 
[15] According to the appellant, the applicant does not speak English, nor do either of his two children who are accompanying him. The appli cant’s children are both students and it is unknown when they will actually be able to gain  employment, let alone employment where they would add to the family unit income suffici ently to meet the recommended $52,699 MNI mark for 2010.   [16] With respect to the provision respecting ade quate arrangements for care and support other than those involving social assistance, evidence
3 shows the appellant generated a net income of $18,329 for 2006, $17,456 in 2007 and $18,424.00 in 2008.
4  I find these amounts fall well short of the recommended MNI for the respective years.  [17] The appellant testified she found anot her job effective September 2009 and now generates a gross monthly earning of $2450 as follows: 
 
Geriatric Centre:  $1000.00 (hourly rate of $14.40)5 - hours vary Insurance Company: $1150.00 (telemarketing since Sept 1/09)
6 Childcare Centre $  300.00 (hourly rate of $11.23)
7 – hours vary  [18] According to her testimony she also receives an additional $1350 monthly income support from her former husband who is father to her two children.  She asserts her total monthly gross income is $3800 or an annual income of $45,600.00.   [19] While I accept the appellant receives support from her former husband of approximately $1350 monthly and that this income was not clai med on her annual income tax submissions, I am not satisfied this level of support will contin ue following her current’s husband’s arrival to Canada.  In making this finding, I note the a ppellant’s testimony that of the monthly $1350, only $700 represents actual child support.  The balance of $650 is dedicated toward her apartment rent 
                                                           
3 Record, pages 87 and 90 
4 Exhibit A-1, page 12. 
5 Ibid., page15. 
6 Ibid., page 14. 
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984  5  
 which the first husband currently pays.  Further, the amount of the appellant’s rent may vary, given that she agrees that she and her two ch ildren, the applicant and his two children will require more space, since her current apartment only has two bedrooms.   [20] The appellant did not provide any documen tary evidence that indicated the first husband’s level of financial support that cu rrently includes her $850.00 apartment rent will continue should her second husband and his childre n arrive in Canada. Therefore, I find that more probable than not, and at best, the appellant’s monthly gross income will be reduced to $2950.00 monthly or $35,400 annually  on her current husband’s arrival to Canada.   [21] Regardless of which amount I use, either amounts, being her submission of CDN$45,600 or my amended amount of CDN$35,400, fall well short of the annual recommended MNI for six people of $52,699.
8    [22] I also considered the appellant’s submission that her husband will bring $46,901 in Canadian funds ($300,000 cash CNY converted
9) to Canada and find it to be overstated.  I make this finding noting the applicant reports his savings at about CDN$23,000
10 at the time he was interviewed in February 2009. Moreover, the doc umentary evidence before me reflects the applicant’s savings total 160,940 RBI ($50,000
11 RBI and $110,94012 RBI); which when converted
13 represents approximately $25,215.45 CDN.   [23] I considered that despite the appellant’s a ssurances to the contrary, and more probable than not, while the applicant’s construction sk ills in the Canadian job market may be transferable, the applicant’s ability to gain employment in Canada or establish his own renovation business will be very limited for quite some time, given that he has no fluency in 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
7  Exhibit A-1, page 1.9 
8  Exhibit R-1 Minimum Necessary In come Sheet to December 31, 2010. 
9  Exhibit R-2, Universal Currency Converter; China Yuan Renminbi to Canadian Dollars as of February 9, 2010. 
10 Record, page 30. 
11 Ibid., page 83. 
12 Ibid., page 84. 
13 Exhibit R-2. 
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984  6  
 either official language and is completely unf amiliar with the Canadian construction industry. The appellant reports she will similarly use her own social network to secure a job for her stepdaughter as an aesthetician while the stepdaughter continues her education.   [24] Again, the applicant’s daughter has no fluency in either of Canada’s official languages, and I am not satisfied she will find employment  easily given this obstacle.  Additionally, the appellant testified the applicant’s daughter will continue her education on arrival to Canada.  [25] Moreover, the appellant has failed to provide any documentary evidence such as offers of employment letters with stated annual inco mes to support her submission her husband and his daughter will be employed quickly, if not immediately, following their arrival to Canada.    [26] Even considering the applicant may brin g approximately $25,000 to Canada on his arrival, and the applicant’s savings which appears to be approximately $15,000, I find the evidence to be insufficient at this time to satisfy me the applicant would not be inadmissible under section 39 of the Act, if he and his dependent children were permitted to immigrate to Canada as members of the family class under the appellant’s sponsorship.  I find that the applicant will be unable to support himself and those dependent on him and that adequate arrangements and support other than those that involve social assistance have not been made.  [27] In considering the existence of any compassi onate or humanitarian considerations in all the circumstances of this case that would warrant the granting of special relief in this appeal, I consider the applicability of XXXXXX.
14   [28] I found the appellant to be credible for th e most part, and I do not dispute she is hardworking and wishes to be united with he r husband and his children. But this desire is insufficient for me to find in her favour.  In maki ng this finding, I consider the applicant is well established in China and holds a meaningful positi on of some authority and his daughter attends 
                                                           
14  XXXXXX v Canada (Minister of Manpower and immigration) (1970) , 4 I.A.C. 338 (I.A.B.), at 350. 
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984  7  
 a post secondary institution although wants to continue her education on arriving in Canada. Neither the applicant nor his two children spea ks either of Canada’s official language.   [29] There is no satisfactory evidence before me that  the applicant is in any dire circumstances or otherwise facing any extreme hardship that will have me exercise my discretionary relief in the appellant’s favour.  All indications are that the applicant and his two dependents are leading normal lives; he works and they are students.  In particular, when considering the best interests of the child, in this case being the applicant’s ch ildren, both are now in their 20s, live with their natural father and attend school.  I do not see any undue hardship accruing to the applicant’s children should I not find in his favour.  I find th e appellant’s thirteen year old daughter would not experience any undue hardship; she has lived with her mother all her life and continues to do so, and is integrated within the Canadian school system.  Similarly, the appellant’s son at twenty years of age is well on his way to reaching adul thood and establishing his independence. Overall, I do not find any hardship that weighs in the favour of the appellant’s children to support approving the appeal. Accordingly, the childre n’s best interests do not support allowing the appeal.  [30] For these reasons and having considered all of  the evidence in its entirety, the evidence before me establishes that the refusal is valid in law and there exists insufficient evidence to warrant the granting of special relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.    [31] The appeal is dismissed.  
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TA9-06492 Client ID No./ N° ID client :  2567-3984  8  
 NOTICE OF DECISION 
  The appeal is dismissed.       “PatrXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
    PatXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX       February 26, 2010  
    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 Contrôle judiciaire – Aux termes de l’ar ticle 72 de la  Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, vous pouvez, avec l’autorisation de la Cour fédérale, présenter une demande  de contrôle judiciaire de la décision rendue.  Veuillez consulter un conseil sans tard er car cette demande doit être faite dans un délai précis. 
2010 CanLII 90958 (CA IRB)

