 
 
 
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:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  4030 -8256  
 
 
Reasons and Decision  Motifs et décision  
 
SPONSORSHIP  
 
 
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Appelant(e)(s)  
   
and   et 
 The Minister of Citizenship and  Immigration   
Respondent  Le ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration  Intimé(e)  
   
   
Date(s) of Hearing  May 8, 2019  
 Date(s) de l’audience  
   
Place of Hearing  Toronto, Ontario  
 Lieu de l’audience  
   
Date of Decision  July 12 , 2019  Date de la décision  
   
   
Panel  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Tribunal  
   
Counsel for the 
Appellant(s)  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  Conseil(s) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX) / 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
   
   
Designated 
Representative(s)  N/A 
  Représentant(e)(s) 
désigné(e)(s)  
   
Counsel for the Minister  XXXXXXXXXXXXX   Conseil du ministre  
     
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:  4030 -8256  
 
 
  
REASONS FOR DECISION  
 
INTRODUCTION  
[1] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (“the appellant”) is a 54 -year -old citizen of Canada who landed in 
Canada on June 5, 2002. On April 7, 2017, the appellant applied to sponsor her adopted niece, 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (“the applicant”), now 19 years of age and a citizen of India.  The  applicant is 
the biological daughter of the appellant’s brother, XXXXX. The appellant adopted the applicant on 
August 1, 2016.  The appellant’s husband, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, is a cosigner on the sponsorship 
application.  
[2] The visa officer in New Delhi who examined the application refused it on July 25, 2018,1 
invoking subsection 11 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act2 ( “the Act ”), and sections 
4(2), 117(1)(2) and (3) of the  Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations3 (the 
“Regulations ”).  In  the refusal letter, the visa officer noted several concerns, including that it did 
not appear as though ties had been severed with the applicant’s natural parents; that the reasons 
given for the adoption were inconsistent and illogical; and that the motiv ation and timeline of 
events was done in such a way as to avoid the requirements for international adoptions.  
Furthermore, the officer was concerned that the required permissions from Ontario and Central 
Adoption Resource Authority in India (“CARA”) had n ot been provided to the visa post.  The 
visa officer was not satisfied that the adoption was in the best interests of the child within the 
meaning of the Hague Convention on Adoption and the adoption was not entered into primarily 
for the purpose of acquir ing any status or privilege under the Act.  The appellant appealed the 
decision of the visa officer on August 7, 2018, and this is the decision in that appeal.   
HEARING  
[3] At the hearing, the appellant was present in person and was represented by counsel.  T he 
appellant was questioned by her own counsel, Minister’s counsel, and the panel during the 
course of the hearing.  The appellant’s husband and the applicant were also questioned by 
counsel and the panel.  
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 2 
ISSUE   
[4] By the date of the hearing, the Minister’s counsel advised that the issues with respect to the 
outstanding documents and letters of consent had been resolved. The parties agreed that the sole 
issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has established, on a balance of probabilities, and as 
requir ed by sections 117(2) and (3) of the Regulations, that the adoption created a genuine parent 
child relationship and that the adoption was not entered into primarily for the purpose of 
acquiring status under the Act.    
DECISION  
  
[5] I find that the appellant has not met the onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, 
with credible and reliable evidence, that the  adoption  created a  genuine  parent -
child  relationship  and that the adoption was not entered into primarily for the purpose of 
acquiring a stat us or privilege under the  Act . The appeal is dismissed.  
  
ANALYSIS  
 
Credibility  
 
[6]   There are numerous significant credibility concerns in this appeal which have not been 
resolved.  The evidence of the appellant and her husband was inconsistent with the previous 
evidence that they had provided at the visa post, and their own documentary  evidence, and 
significant credibility concerns were identified at the hearing.  A close review of all the evidence 
demonstrates that the adoption did not create a genuine parent -child relationship and that the 
primary purpose was to facilitate the immigra tion to Canada by the applicant. I am particularly 
troubled by the lack of evidence establishing a genuine parent -child relationship after the 
appellant and her husband had in their minds, adopted the applicant, by late 2010 or early 2011 
(although all of the legal formalities of the adoption did not take place until 2016).   
[7]  In the case of XXXXXX  v. XXXXXXX ,[3] the Court noted:   
The real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its 
harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 3 
informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those 
conditions.  
Furthermore, in the case of XXXXXXXXX, the Federal Court examined the genuineness of a 
marriage and made a statement about evidence before the Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) 
which I find to be useful i n my analysis of the genuineness of the parent -child relationship in the 
present case:  
The section raises questions of fact with respect to the intent and purpose of the 
sponsored spouse.   As a practical matter, a person’s intent is not likely to be 
succes sfully tested by a grilling cross -examination designed to elicit an admission 
of fraud or dishonesty.   Rather, in the usual case, the trier of fact will draw 
inferences from such things as inconsistent or contradictory statements made by 
the parties, the k nowledge the parties have about each other and their shared 
history, the nature, frequency and content of communications between the parties, 
any financial support, and any previous attempt by the applicant spouse to gain 
admission to Canada.4 
Further, the  onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that the adoption created a genuine parent -
child relationship, and that it has not been entered into primarily for the purposes of immigration.  
Finally, in order to meet the onus on a balance of probabilities, the evidence must be clear, 
convincing and cogent.5 In the present case, the evidence provided by the appellant and her 
husband was contradictory, shifting, and vague and their actions do not demonstrate a genuine 
parent -child relationship with the applicant.  I find the appellant and her husband to not be 
credible witnesses.  
Did the adoption create a genuine parent -child relationship or was the adoption entered 
into primarily for the purpose of achieving a status or privilege under the Act?  
  
[8] Genuineness  of an  adoption  may be assessed by considering a numb er of factors.  I have 
considered the indicia of a genuine parent -child relationship in the adoption context as 
established in XXXXXXXXXX but a close and careful examination of the evidence before me does 
not demonstrate that a genuine parent -child relatio nship has been created through this 
adoption.  While I was mindful of all of these factors in my examination of the evidence, I am 
only addressing those factors which are determinative of the appeal.   
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 4 
[9] Furthermore, and despite there being a significant amou nt of evidence before me in this 
appeal, a close examination and analysis of the evidence demonstrates that the evidence is 
limited to a particular timeframe, and what is particularly missing here is credible objective 
evidence demonstrating an ongoing par ent-child relationship between the appellant and her 
husband and the applicant.  This case is somewhat unique in that the appellant and her husband 
asked the appellant’s brother to adopt the applicant in late 2010/2011, but waited until 2016 to 
formally ad opt her.  The lack of evidence to establish the relationship between 2010 and 2016 is 
telling, as is the evidence that has been provided between the adoption and the refusal, as I will 
discuss below.  Ultimately, I have no difficulty in finding that this i s clearly an adoption which 
was entered into primarily for the purpose of facilitating the immigration to Canada by the 
applicant. In addition, I conclude that the adoption did not create a genuine parent -child 
relationship.  
 Timeline  
[10]  A brief timeline help s to provide some context for this appeal:  
 October 11, 2000:  applicant born in India.  
 
June 5, 2002:   appellant lands as a permanent resident in Canada.7 
 April 30, 2003:   appellant applies to sponsor her husband to Canada.8 
 August 1, 2016:  deed of ado ption signed and executed.9 
 April 7, 2017:   Sponsorship application filed.10  
 December 1, 2017:  Interview of appellant, applicant, birth parents and power of 
attorney.  
 April 4, 2018  Procedural fairness letter sent to appellant.11 
 July 25, 2018:  Sponsorship application refused.12 
 Reasons for wanting to adopt the applicant  
[11]  The reasons for adoption should be clear and consistent.  The evidence provided was 
anything but.  The home study report which was provided indicates that the reason for the 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 5 
adop tion was because the couple is infertile and the applicant’s birth parents are aware of their 
infertility and have offered their daughter for adoption as a result.13 However, at the visa post 
interview, the appellant stated that she was never able to get pr egnant and the reason they wanted 
to adopt the applicant was because the appellant’s brother was “not that financially strong.”14 
The applicant’s birth mother was interviewed at the visa post at the same time, and she said that 
she decided to give her daugh ter up for adoption for purely financial  reasons, and she noted that 
the applicant was very attached to the appellant from a young age.15 At the visa post, the 
applicant herself cited financial reasons as the reason for the adoption.16  
[12]  However, at the heari ng before me, the appellant testified that the applicant’s family was 
not happy when she was born because she was a girl.  Furthermore, when the appellant returned 
to India at the end of 2010, she noticed that her brother and his family were struggling wit h life 
because they were not very financially strong and girls are more expensive in India.  The 
appellant testified that she decided she wanted to adopt the applicant to give her a good 
education and a better life.   
[13]  The appellant’s husband testified that  they wanted to adopt because they had had a 
miscarriage and there was quite a bit of attachment between his wife and the applicant.  He told 
me that he had a conversation with the applicant’s birth parents, and he told them that Canada is 
safer for girls,  and that they would provide her with a good education and do everything good for 
her. He also testified that the applicant’s family could not afford to spend much money on the 
applicant.   
[14]  In addition, he stated that once or twice he saw the applicant’s b irth parents treating her 
badly because she was a girl, and when he was pressed to provide some details, he testified that 
he saw the applicant’s birth parents beat her on several occasions around 2010, shortly before 
they decided to adopt her.  This is a new , fairly shocking reason for the adoption which was not 
cited by the appellant or the applicant, nor is it noted in the home study. If the applicant was 
being abused by her birth parents, this could help to explain the reason for the adoption, but the 
first time this was ever mentioned was at the hearing before me.   
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 6 
[15]  Additionally, if this was one of the reasons for the adoption, and the appellant and her 
husband were aware that the applicant was being abused by her birth parents as early as 2010, I 
would  expect the appellant and her husband to act with haste in order to adopt the applicant and 
ensure she was not exposed to the birth parents who had been violent toward her.  
Notwithstanding this allegation made by the appellant’s husband at the hearing, th e couple did 
not act quickly in proceeding to adopt the applicant, and the reasons for the delay were also 
confusing and contradictory as I will discuss below.   
[16]  The applicant is a relative by blood to the appellant.  The motivation for wanting to bring a 
relative to Canada should be straightforward, but in this case, there are many reasons which have 
been offered, and the evidence has not been consistent.  I find the lack of consistency about the 
reasons for wanting to adopt a child to be an indicator that  this is not a genuine adoption, and I 
further find that the couple’s conduct in waiting so long to adopt the applicant is yet another 
indicator of an adoption which is done to facilitate immigration rather than because it has 
actually created a genuine pa rent and child bond.  
 Early development of relationship between the appellant and the applicant  
[17]  The evidence regarding the early relationship between the appellant and the applicant was 
contradictory.  The home study, a detailed document which examined the  suitability of the 
appellant and her husband as adoptive parents, provides some information about the 
development of the relationship between the appellant and the applicant, and it states that the 
appellant:  
“has developed a close relationship with the applicant since her birth … As when the 
applicant was born, her immediate family members showed dissatisfaction at the birth of a 
female child and did not care for her .  At the time, the appellant who was single assumed 
responsibility for the child and became her caregiver in India  until she immigrated to 
Canada in 2002.”17  
Later in the same home study, it states that the appellant has been raising the applicant since 
her birth  and often refers to her as her child.18  I infer from this that the appellant wa s taking 
care of the applicant on a full -time basis in India for the first 19 months of her life, and this 
would be a strong factor establishing a bond between the appellant and the applicant which could 
be a foundation for the parent -child relationship th at I need to assess.  
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 7 
[18]  At the hearing, the appellant testified that she lived in the family home with the applicant 
in India from the time of her birth in October 2000 until the appellant immigrated to Canada in 
June 2002.  The appellant testified that it wa s during this time that she developed a deep 
attachment to the applicant.  The appellant’s brother, sister -in-law and parents also lived in the 
same house, but they were not particularly happy because the applicant was a girl and they were 
hoping for a boy .  
[19]  However, at the hearing, the appellant also testified that in the short timeframe when she 
and the applicant’s lives overlapped in India, between October 2000 and June 2002, she was 
working full time as an assistant professor at a university in Gwalior.   The appellant was asked 
who provided care for the applicant when she was a baby if she was occupied working full time.  
The appellant testified that care was provided by whoever was available, and that she would help 
out when she was able to do so and wh en her work schedule would permit.  The appellant 
testified that she was worried about the applicant as no one was particularly excited about her 
birth, but when asked if she thought about quitting her job to take care of the applicant, the 
appellant testi fied she did not because they had an intact family and she helped out when she has 
a chance.  
[20]  This is significantly different evidence than that indicated in the home study, which 
suggests that the appellant was the sole caregiver for the applicant during this period when they 
were living in the same house when the applicant was just a baby.   The home study suggests the 
appellant was acting as the mother for the child. I find that the home study has exaggerated the 
relationship between the appellant and th e applicant during these critical early years, and I 
further find that the appellant’s testimony suggests that her relationship with the applicant after 
her birth was one of a caring aunt, but not that of someone who was acting in a parental role to 
the ap plicant.  This undermines the appellant’s assertions of the depth of their bond from the 
early days.    
[21]  I further find that I can assign limited weight to this home study given its hyperbolic 
statements about the appellant’s relationship with the applicant during the early years. The home 
study does not help me understand whether the relationship between the  applicant and the 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 8 
appellant is a genuine parent -child one, or whether the adoption was entered into primarily to 
facilitate the immigration to Canada by the applicant.  
 When did the couple apply to adopt the applicant? Was there a delay?  
[22]  The couple’s evid ence regarding the timing of the adoption application was also 
inconsistent and unclear.  In the home study, which is dated August 21, 2015,19 it indicates the 
application for the home study was received on November 23, 201220 under the heading of 
“motivation” the home study also says the following (appellant and applicant’s names omitted 
for ease of understanding):  
“the couple began their home study in November 23, 2012, with a great desire to adopt the 
applicant.  Unfortunate ly, the appellant lost her job as chemist at CIBA Vision Canada 
Limited in the beginning of 2014 and the adoption plan was kept on hold.  A few months 
later the appellant was able to find employment at the Canadian Analytical Laboratories… 
And the couple t hen began the adoption process.  Closer to the completion of the home 
study, the appellant’s husband’s father took ill and after prolonged illness died on January 
7, 2015.  This incident further delayed the completion of the home study as the appellant’s 
husband had to visit India to take care of his ailing father.”21 
The home study leaves one with the impression that the couple could not pursue the adoption 
after 2012 due to the appellant’s job loss, and the death of the appellant’s husband’s father.  
Howev er, by the time of the hearing, and at the visa post interview, a different explanation had 
been advanced.  
[23]  Counsel has provided a letter, dated January 7, 2011 from CARA, not related to this 
particular case, which states the following:  
“we wish to inform you that CARA India is in the process of revising its intercountry 
family adoption guidelines.  Until such revision takes place, this office will not receive any 
new dossier for intercountry family adoption.”22 
Counsel also wrote a letter,23 in his capacity as the program director for the Worldview Adoption 
Association, in response to the procedural fairness letter from the visa post.  This letter is dated 
April 24, 2018, and it states that the appellant and her husband had applied to the agency on July 
14, 2 012, at which time the applicant was only 11 years old.  Curiously, this submission also 
states “shortly thereafter  CARA suspended the processing of relative adoptions for a number of 
years.”24 Counsel’s information is inconsistent with the letter provided from CARA, from 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 9 
January 2011, which indicates that intercountry family adoptions were no longer being accepted.  
Indeed, it makes little sense that the couple would apply to adopt the applicant on July 14, 2012, 
as it appears there was a bar on these exact  type of adoptions from January 2011, and counsel, in 
his capacity as the program director of the Worldview Adoption Association, should have been 
aware of it, as he filed the 2011 letter from CARA in this appeal.  I find this contradictory 
evidence to sug gest that the couple did not apply to adopt the applicant in 2012, and that this 
suggestion was only made to address the concern about the delay in filing the adoption.  
[24]  Furthermore, in the interview, the appellant stated that she started the adoption proce ss in 
2011 but “by chance they stop the process for Indian adoptions.  Because of that, my process 
became a little extend (sic).  Now I so eager to take her there to enjoy my life me and my 
husband we are both alone in the house.”25 Later in the interview, the appellant confirmed that 
India banned the relative adoptions, and her case was stalled for about two  years.26 At the 
hearing, the appellant testified that the delay was not her fault, that they started the adoption 
process in 2011 (not 2012, as stated b y both counsel and the home study) and that the Indian 
government stopped family adoption for some time and this explained the delay.  She testified 
that to her knowledge, the Indian government refused to accept applications for 3 to 4 ½ years .  I 
make sev eral findings about this evidence.   
[25]  First, I find that the appellant was inconsistent with her own counsel’s evidence about 
when the application was filed. The documentary evidence establishes that she could not have 
applied to adopt the applicant in 2011 , according to the CARA letter. I further find that by the 
time of the hearing, she had extended the delay in processing her applications from the two years 
she had stated at the visa post interview, to 3 to 4.5 years, a timeframe which conveniently helps 
to explain the lengthy delay in their failure to file the application.  I further find that the 
appellant’s reasons for the delay have shifted over time, and at the hearing, she made no mention 
of losing her job or her husband’s father’s death as the reaso ns for the delay.   
[26]  Additionally, despite the couple’s assertions that they are in a genuine parent -child 
relationship with the applicant, and that the appellant was closely bonded with the applicant from 
birth, and despite the medical evidence that docume nts the appellant’s struggles with her fertility, 
dated 2005 and 2006,27 this adoption was not completed until August 2016.  That is a very 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 10 
significant delay, especially in the life of a child.  There was little evidence provided to explain 
why, irrespectiv e of the issues conceiving their own biological child, the appellant and her 
husband did not apply to sponsor the applicant sooner, particularly if they were concerned about 
how she was being treated in the family home .The evidence regarding the explanati on for this 
delay has not been consistent, and I find that those who legitimately have a strong parent -child 
relationship with a child would want to ensure that they are able to spend time with the child 
during these critical early years.   
[27]  I further note that the visa officer  stated in the procedural fairness letter that the reasons 
cited by the couple for the delay in filing the adoption was that the adoption agency was not 
accepting family adoptions at that time. The visa officer found this explanation not credible as 
“the old procedures under HAMA were that the adoption was done in court, and then CARA was 
approached… given this it is not credible that you would have had to wait so long to proceed 
with the adoption in India.”28 Counsel has also filed a l etter,29 unrelated to this particular case 
and dated May 9, 2008 from CARA, which indicates that a court order is required and that an 
adoption deed may not suffice. “Therefore, CARA emphasizes Court Order even if Adoption 
Deed is already available in respe ct of applications originated from a receiving country.”30 The 
court order in this case, which is present in the Record, is dated January 2, 2017.31 The 
appellant’s explanation about the process she followed to adopt the applicant does not explain 
her failur e to obtain a court order at any point prior to 2017.  I find this to be further evidence 
that this adoption did not happen in the manner or in the timeline suggested by the appellant.   
[28]  Irrespective of the reasons for this adoption, I would expect that in dividuals who are 
clearly committed to adopting a child would do everything within their power to have that child 
be physically close to them as soon as reasonably possible.  In this case, the applicant was 
adopted when she was 15 years of age, and the spo nsorship application was filed when she was 
16 years of age.  The reasons provided for the delay are both inconsistent and not credible.  I find 
this to be another indicator that the adoption did not create a genuine parent -child adoption and 
was entered i nto primarily for an immigration objective.  
  
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 11 
Relationship  between the  adopted  child  and the adoptive  parents  before and after  adoption  
[29]   This is a somewhat unusual case in that the appellant and her husband testified that they 
had in their minds, adopted t he applicant after they had the conversation with the appellant’s 
brother in late 2010 and he agreed to give her to them.  However, the actual adoption did not take 
place until six years later, so I think it is important to examine what the relationship wa s like 
between the appellant and her husband and the applicant during the entire time period, and not 
just the period after 2016.  The appellant testified that she and her husband have been paying for 
the applicant’s schooling in India since 2011, when the applicant was 11 years of age.  
[30]  However, there is very limited objective evidence to support this allegation, other than two 
documents from the school —one dated September 14, 2017 indicating that the appellant’s 
husband had paid the applicant school fees,32 and another confirming that the fees have been paid 
in November 2018 by the appellant’s husband.33 These two pieces of evidence establish that the 
school issues documents indicating the payment of school fees and who was responsible for the 
payment, and th e fact there are only two of these documents before me is very telling. Given my 
concerns with the credibility of the appellant and her husband, I do not accept that they were 
paying the school fees for the applicant since 2011 as they allege, other than o n these two 
occasions.  
[31]  In addition, the applicant attends boarding school in India, and she has the months of May 
and June off from her studies, when she leaves the school.  However, the appellant and her 
husband have never  visited India during this timeframe when the applicant is free and could 
spend unlimited amounts of time with them.  The appellant testified that the longest period of 
time she had spent with her daughter was one week when she was present in India for XXXXXXX.  
The appellant thought this was in 2017, but she was unclear as to when this lengthy visit took 
place, and she agreed that generally she only spends a day or two with her daughter when she is 
in India on vacation, as her daughter is normally in school  and sequestered away when they are 
there on their vacations.  I asked the appellant why, after 2011 when she said she had asked to 
adopt her daughter and the birth parents agreed, did she not structure her vacations to be present 
in India during the time when her daughter was available.  The appellant said their schedule was 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 12 
not like that and they prefer to go to India in September.  The appellant’s husband testified that 
he was unable to get leave during those months, but he took his leave in July.  
[32]  There  is evidence before me about the couple’s travel, which is confusing,34 as it is pages 
from passports, and it is unclear where the appellant’s ends and her husband’s begins, so I do not 
know who travelled and when.  However, what is clear from the passport evidence is that this is 
a couple who travels back to India very frequently, but they have never made a trip during the 
timeframe when their daughter would be available to spend time with them.   
[33]  Furthermore, the months of May and June contain holidays whi ch might be significant to 
those in a family including Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, and the birthdate of the appellant. The 
applicant sends emails to the appellant and her husband on these occasions, so it is clearly 
significant to her. The fact the appella nt and her husband never went to India during these 
months to me is the most telling piece of evidence in this appeal.  I believe that if this was a 
genuine parent -child relationship, the appellant and her husband individually or together would 
have struct ured their vacations in such a way so as to spend as much time as possible with the 
applicant.   
[34]  The failure to try to spend time with the applicant is even more troubling as there is 
evidence before me that the applicant’s school is very strict about permitting her to leave the 
premises during the school year, and indeed in March 2018, the headmistress from the school 
refused the appellant’s request for a day off for the applicant as her immigration issues had led to 
her exhausting her balance of leave , as not being regularly in class had negatively affected her 
performance in her exams35.  Deeds speak.  I find the choice by this couple to not prioritize their 
vacation or take a leave without pay to enable them to spend time with their daughter who lives  
on the other side of the world to strongly demonstrate that this is not a genuine parent -child 
relationship, and that this is a sponsorship primarily for immigration purposes.   
 
 Evidence of communications  
[35]  The applicant’s school is restrictive about acces s to the Internet and the telephone, and the 
appellant testified that the girls at the hostel are only allowed to speak to family on birthdays and 
if she wants to speak to the applicant, she has to call the house mistress and ask for permission, 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 13 
or the fam ily can seek permission from the school to have the applicant released for a few days 
for a visit during the school year.  The appellant testified that they email every two weeks to a 
month.  There is some email evidence which has been provided, and which was generated after 
the adoption, where the appellant asked for the applicant to be excused from school from 
November 13, 2017 until November 15, 201736 and from Saturday, August 4, 2018 to Tuesday, 
August 7, 2018 because the applicant has to be physically present at the passport office.37 There 
is also an email from 2017 stating that the applicant needs to be released from school from 
October 28, 2017 to November 5, 2017 in the evening as she was needed for her interview at the 
visa office.38 There is an emai l dated October 4, 2018, where the appellant advises the applicant 
that her husband is coming to see her in November and that she would send a request for a day 
off so that the applicant could spend time with him.39 The appellant has provided in her 
disclos ure one email40 sent to the applicant’s school on January 11th, 2018 where the appellant is 
asking for the applicant to spend a few extra days out of the school because she is unwell.  The 
passport stamps do not place either the appellant or her husband in India at this time, so it does 
not appear that the applicant was out of school spending time with her adoptive parents on this 
occasion.  There appears to be only one email documenting that the applicant needed to be 
removed from school for the purpose of visiting with her adopted parents, and not for something 
related to her immigration to Canada.   
[36]  Furthermore, I have reviewed every single email that has been provided in this matter, and 
I am troubled about these emails for a number of reasons.  First, th ere are 67 pages of emails 
included in the supporting documents provided by counsel, documenting the communications 
between the appellant, her husband and the applicant.41 These emails all post -date the adoption in 
August 2016, and the earliest evidence of communication between the applicant and the 
appellant contained in the disclosure is from April 2, 201742 from the appellant to the applicant 
advising her that they filed the case for immigration.  The Record also contains a few emails 
from 2017, with the e arliest being May 4, 2017.43 There is no written evidence to establish 
communications between the appellant and the applicant earlier than April 2017, despite the 
appellant’s assertion that they had decided to adopt her in 2010/2011.  This is a glaring gap in the 
evidence.  
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 14 
[37]  In addition, and this is also troubling, in all of these emails, there are very few from the 
appellant or her husband, and the limited emails that are provided are primarily focused on the 
immigration application.44 Those that are not focus ed on the immigration application45 are brief 
and somewhat impersonal.  Indeed, the applicant wrote an email to the appellant’s husband on 
November 5, 2017 wishing him a happy birthday, and he did not respond at all and the appellant 
took nearly a month to respond, which she did, on December 3rd, 2017.46  When the appellant did 
respond, she told the applicant that they were busy moving into a new house and that they are 
praying for her to get the visa soon.  The email is signed “yours, mom and dad.”  In addit ion, on 
May 21, 2018, the applicant sent some pictures to the appellant, who responded two days later 
saying “nice pics. Have fun. XXXXXXX.”47 The email evidence prior to the refusal of the 
sponsorship application appears to be very one -sided, with the appl icant sending the lion’s share 
of emails, and receiving very little in reply from her adoptive parents.  
[38]  Indeed, the emails from the appellant only become more detailed, concerned and quite 
frankly responsive to the applicant, after August 6, 2018, almost immediately after the 
application was refused on July 25, 2018.48 These emails are rather striking in comparison to 
those that predated the refusal.   
[39]  I find the emails which have been filed after the refusal to be the appellant attempting to 
bolster the ev idence to support her appeal.  I also find that despite the many emails from the 
applicant, who the couple allege they view as their child, the appellant and her husband only 
intermittently respond to her emails which are frequent and which are pretty typi cal for a 
teenager.  If this were a genuine parent -child relationship, and irrespective of the applicant’s 
access to the internet, I think the appellant and her husband would not be so lax in responding to 
emails from their child particularly when they liv e on the other side of the world and have little 
other means of communicating with her.   
[40]  Indeed, of these limited emails provided by the appellant, several of them are signed 
“XXXXXXX” and not “mom” or Ma.49   In addition, the appellant’s response to the applicant’s 
Mother’s Day email was to refer to herself as XXXXXXX and not XXX or Ma.50 This might not be a 
problem but for the fact at the interview, the appellant testified that the applicant calls her XX 
and  not Parveen.51  The onus was on the appellant to provide clear, credible and cogent evidence 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 15 
that she and the applicant have a genuine parent -child relationship.  There is a paucity of 
evidence of communications to establish a genuine parent -child relation ship, and I find it unusual 
that the appellant and her husband only infrequently reply to their daughter’s emails. The email 
evidence before me clearly demonstrates that this is an adoption which was entered into 
primarily to facilitate the immigration to Canada of the appellant’s niece and not because there is 
a genuine parent -child relationship here.   
 Financial support of the applicant by the appellant   
[41]  The evidence of the appellant with respect to the financial support she provides to the 
applicant was  not clear.  While there is evidence before me demonstrating that the appellant was 
sending money to her brother in India between 2008 and 2010, this predates the conversation 
about the adoption, and it predates the applicant’s enrolment at the boarding sc hool in 2011.52 
These money transfers began in April 25, 2008,53 exactly two months after the death of the 
appellant’s father on February 25, 2008.54 Furthermore, the appellant’s brother was living with 
her parents and the applicant during this time frame, an d given the credibility concerns I have 
identified above, I do not accept their assertions that this money was for the applicant.  I find it 
was equally likely that this money was intended to support the appellant’s mother in India, after 
her father died i n 2008.  I also find it telling that there is no evidence establishing the transfer of 
funds between the appellant and her husband to the applicant or any members of her family 
between 2010 and 2015, despite the assertion that the appellant and her husband  were paying for 
the applicant’s schooling after 2011.  
 Photos    
[42]  The appellant has filed a number of photos in support of this appeal.  No context was 
provided for these photos, nor were any of the individuals in the photos identified at the hearing.  
The re are numerous pictures of the applicant, at various ages, both with the appellant and her 
husband and alone.  The applicant is the niece of the appellant, and they share a close 
relationship.  I would expect there to be pictures of them together, but the se photos do not help 
me understand whether this is a genuine parent -child relationship, or whether it is one entered 
into to facilitate the applicant’s immigration to Canada.  
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 16 
[43]   I also note that of these pictures, of which there are 84 pages, the applicant  is wearing the 
same dress in 28 of these photos covering 14 pages of the exhibit,55 so it appears these photos 
were taken on the same day.  Another 10 pages of photos document the applicant wearing a T -
shirt with XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX face on it, which appear t o have been  taken on the same day,56 and 
another 13 pages of photographs show the applicant wearing the same dress and a head covering, 
again showing that the photos appear to be all taken on the same day.57  There are also some 
pictures after the adoption,  some pictures of the applicant at her school with the appellant and her 
husband, and some further pictures of the applicant with the appellant’s husband alone.  While 
there are photos before me, these photos merely document that the appellant and her husb and and 
the applicant were present at the same place and time on numerous occasions.  These photos do 
not establish that the applicant and the appellant and her husband are in a genuine parent -child 
relationship together, and they are insufficient to overc ome my concerns with the evidence to 
establish that this adoption as noted above was not entered into primarily for immigration 
purposes.  
[44 ] There is also some evidence documenting the purchase of two Apple devices by the 
appellant,58 but this is the tota l evidence provided to show the provision of gifts between the 
appellant and the applicant, and I find it to not be persuasive evidence of a genuine parent -child 
relationship, given my concerns above.  There are also a few cards in the evidence written by the 
applicant, which are undated.59 I do not find this to be persuasive evidence of a genuine parent -
child relationship, particularly given the concerns noted above, and the lack of evidence 
establishing the development of the parent -child relationship sinc e the appellant and her husband 
decided to adopt the applicant in 2010/2011.   
 Plan for the future  
[45 ] Furthermore, the evidence of the appellant, her husband, and the applicant was divergent 
regarding what the plan was if the appeal was not allowed.  I would expect that if this was a 
genuine parent -child relationship, a plan would have been conceived to en sure the family could 
be together irrespective of the outcome of this appeal.  The appellant initially testified that if the 
appeal was dismissed, she would try to get a visa for the applicant to go to the US or come to 
Canada, and if this did not work, sh e would have to go to India to be with the applicant.  
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 17 
Furthermore, the appellant testified that she would go back to India and live in her mother -in-
law’s house, and she also stated that she had had this conversation with her husband and he was 
on board w ith this plan.  The appellant also testified that when the applicant comes to Canada, 
she will apply for parental leave and will take the full amount of time to which she is entitled.  
The applicant is currently 19 years of age, and the appellant still bel ieves that she will be able to 
take an extensive leave to spend time with the applicant when she arrives in Canada.  This plan 
does not appear to be based in reality.  
[46 ] The appellant’s husband had a different plan if the appeal was dismissed, and he sai d he 
would try to get a student visa for the applicant to come to Canada.  He made no mention of 
moving back to India to live in his mother’s house with his wife and the applicant.  I find this to 
be a significant omission, particularly as the appellant sa id she had discussed it with him and he 
was on board with the plan.   
[47 ] Finally, the applicant herself was asked what would happen if the appeal was dismissed.  
She said she had not thought about it at all, but that she would have to stay in India and f ind a 
college there and get her parents to come to that country.  When she was told that the appellant’s 
husband had testified that he had planned to get her a student visa, she said she had never had a 
discussion about this with him.  These three individu als, who claim to be a family unit, have 
inconsistent understandings about what they would do in the event that the appeal is not allowed.  
I find this to support a finding that this is not a genuine parent -child relationship.  
 Documents   
[48 ] There are s ome documents before me which demonstrate that the appellant and her 
husband are the applicant’s parents.  These documents include a birth certificate, where their 
names are registered as the father and mother for the applicant,60 a new passport for the 
app licant, which indicates that the appellant and her husband are her parents,61 a bank statement 
indicating that the appellant’s husband is the applicant’s father62 and a government of India 
identity card, stating that the applicant is the daughter of the appe llant’s husband.63 There is also 
a school document, issued on June 3, 2017, after the adoption, which has the appellant’s birth 
parents’ names listed as her mother and father.64 These documents establish that the applicant 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 18 
has been able to obtain documentati on establishing that the appellant and her husband are her 
parents.  These documents are insufficient to overcome the concerns I have noted above 
regarding the non -genuineness of the parent child relationship of this adoption and that the 
primary purpose o f the adoption was for immigration.  
CONCLUSION  
[49 ] The  evidence  establishing that this is a genuine, long -standing and enduring parent -child 
relationship is spare and time -limited.  There is limited evidence to establish any parent -child 
bond prior to the  adoption despite the couple’s assertions that they had decided years earlier that 
they would be adopting the applicant, and there is limited evidence to demonstrate that the 
appellant and her husband are actively engaged with the applicant in the manner I  would expect 
to see in a genuine parent -child relationship which is being fostered over thousands of miles and 
via email.  The appellant has not met her evidentiary onus in putting forward credible and 
reliable evidence of the bona fides  of her relationsh ip with the applicant.  I find that the adoption 
has not created a genuine parent -child relationship, and that the adoption is rather one that has 
been entered into primarily to facilitate the immigration to Canada by the applicant.  
[50 ] The appeal is dis missed.   
 
NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
The appeal is dismissed.  
 
 
   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    
   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 
 
   July 12, 2019    
   Date  
 
 
 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 19 
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 Exhibit #R -1 at pp. 5 -9. 
2 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,  S.C. 2001, c. 27 . 
3 Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2010 –208,  s. 1 . 
4 XXXXXXXXX v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),  2007 FC 1108 (CanLII), at para 4.  
5 F.H. v. McDougall , [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, 2008 SCC 53, paragraph 46.  
6 XXXXXXX, Leonor G v MCI  (IAD W95 -00062) Ariemma, Bartley, Wiebe, August 16, 1995.  
7 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 179.  
8 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 178.  
9 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 85.  
10 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 11.  
11 Exhibit #R -1 at pp. 154 -156.  
12 Exhibit #R -1 at pp. 5 -9. 
13 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 123.  
14 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 29.  
15 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 34.  
16 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 37.  
17 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 123.  
18 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 133.  
19 Exhibit #R -1 at pp. 120 -137.  
20 Ibid at p. 120.  
21 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 123.  
22 Exhibit #A -3 at p. 1.  
23 Exhibit #R -1 at pp. 157 -158.  
24 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 157.  
25 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 29.  
26 Exhibit #R -1 at pp. 42 -43.  
27 Exhibit #A -4 at pp. 3 -4. 
28 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 155.  
29 Exhibit #A -3 at p. 2.  
30 Ibid.  
31 Exhibit  #R-1 at pp. 91 -96.  
32 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 108.  
33 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 226.  
34 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 156 -173.  
35 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 185.  
36 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 113.  
37 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 101.  
38 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 117.  
39 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 148.  
40 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 18 2, duplicated at p. 183.  
41 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 88 -155.  
42 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 133.  
43 Exhibit #R -1 at pp. 163 -165.  
44 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 101, 113, 117 -120, 132 -137, 139 -142, 146 -147, 149 and 152 -153.  
45 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 108, 110, 121 (* duplicated at p. 124, 126, 138 and R1 p. 163), 134 (duplicated at p. 135 -136), 
143.  
46 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 143.  
47 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 145.  
48 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 146 -153.  
49 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 108 and 110.  
50 Ibid at p. 108 . 
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No de dossier  de la SAI:  TB8 -19014  
Client ID No. / No ID client:   4030 -8256  
 
 
 20 
                                                                                                                                                             
51 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 33.  
52 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 210 -219, 221 -222 and 224.  
53 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 221.  
54 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 128.  
55 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 54 -68.  
56 Ibid at pp. 29 -39.  
57 Ibid at pp. 40 -53.  
58 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 174 -176.  
59 Exhibit #A -1 at pp. 228 - 235.  
60 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 236.  
61 Exhibit #A -1 at p. 238.  
62 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 106.  
63 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 104.  
64 Exhibit #R -1 at p. 107.  
2019 CanLII 109026 (CA IRB)

