Sponsorship Appeals

Sponsorship Appeals 1 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

Chapter Four

Adoptions

A child who has been adopted by a permanent resident or a Canadian citizen may qualify

as a member of the family class pursuant to paragraph 117(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee

Protection Regulations (“IRP Regulations”) as a dependent child of the sponsor. The

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) also allows for adoptions of persons 18 years of

age or older

in prescribed circumstances. As well, a child whom the sponsor intends to adopt

may also quality as a member of the family class.

Section 4 of the IRP Regulations, the “bad faith” provision, applies to applicant spouses,

common-law partners, conjugal partners and adopted children. With respect to an adopted child,

the IRP Regulation states that a foreign national shall not be considered an adopted child if the

adoption is “not genuine or was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or

privilege under the Act.” Under the former Regulations pursuant to the Immigration Act, in order

to meet the definition of “adopted”, a person had to show that the adoption creates a “genuine

parent-child relationship” and the adoption was not for an “immigration purpose”.

Adoption of minors

IRP Regulations

3(2) For the purposes of these Regulations, “adoption”, for greater

certainty, means an adoption that creates a legal parent-child relationship

and severs the pre-existing legal parent-child relationship.

117(2) A foreign national who is the adopted child of a sponsor and

whose adoption took place when the child was under the age of 18 shall

not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of that adoption

unless it was in the best interests of the child within the meaning of the

Hague Convention on Adoption.

117(3) The adoption referred to in subsection (2) is considered to be in

the best interests of a child if it took place under the following

circumstances:

(a) a competent authority has conducted or approved a home study of the

adoptive parents;

IRP Regulation 117(4). It should be noted that the adult adoptee must still meet the definition of “dependent

child” at IRP Regulation 2, and IRP Regulation 117(1)(b).

IRP Regulation 117(1)(g).

Sponsorship Appeals 2 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

(b) before the adoption, the child's parents gave their free and informed

consent to the child's adoption;

(d) the adoption was in accordance with the laws of the place where the

adoption took place;

(e) the adoption was in accordance with the laws of the sponsor's place of

residence and, if the sponsor resided in Canada at the time the adoption

took place, the competent authority of the child's province of intended

destination has stated in writing that it does not object to the adoption;

(f) if the adoption is an international adoption and the country in which

the adoption took place and the child's province of intended destination

are parties to the Hague Convention on Adoption, the competent

authority of the country and of the province have stated in writing that

they approve the adoption as conforming to that Convention; and

(g) if the adoption is an international adoption and either the country in

which the adoption took place or the child's province of intended

destination is not a party to the Hague Convention on Adoption, there is

no evidence that the adoption is for the purpose of child trafficking or

undue gain within the meaning of that Convention.

In Sertovic,

the issue to be decided was whether the adoption had created a legal parent-

child relationship and severed the pre-existing legal parent-child relationship, as required by

section 3(2) of the IRP Regulations. According to the adoption laws of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the

adoption of the applicant was considered to be an “incomplete adoption” because the child was

over the age of five at the time of the adoption. The effect of the law in that country is that the

adoptive parents gain the full rights of parents but the natural parents’ rights are not affected.

The legal relationship between the applicant child and her mother, the only surviving parent, had

not been severed. Although the panel found that the appellant and her spouse had been actively

involved in parenting the applicant, the appeal was dismissed because there was no severance of

the legal parent-child relationship between the child and her natural parent.

Regulation 117(3) sets out the criteria that must be met in order to demonstrate that an

adoption of a child under 18 was in the best interests of the child in accordance with s. 117(2).

The criteria are: a competent authority has conducted or approved a home study of the adoptive

parents; the child’s parents must have given their free and informed consent to the child’s

adoption; the adoption created a genuine parent-child relationship; the adoption was in

accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place; the adoption was in

accordance with the laws of the sponsor’s place of residence and, if the sponsor resided in

Canada at the time of adoption, the competent authority of the child’s province of intended

destination has issued a no-objection certificate; if the adoption is an international one and the

Sertovic, Safeta S. v. M.C.I. (IAD TA2-16898), Collins, September 10, 2003.

Sponsorship Appeals 3 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

country in which the adoption takes place and the child’s province of intended destination are

parties to the Hague Convention on Adoption, the competent authorities of each give written

approval of the adoption as conforming to the Convention; and if the adoption is an international

adoption and either the country in which the adoption took place or the child’s province of

intended destination is not a party to the Hague Convention, there must be no evidence that the

adoption is for the purpose of child trafficking or undue gain within the meaning of that

Convention.

Refusals under the IRPA are most often based on s. 117(2) and 117(3)(c) and 117(3)(d) of

the IRP Regulations. The key issue in these appeals is whether the adoption created a genuine

parent-child relationship. Whether the adoption was in accordance with the laws of the place

where the adoption took place remains an important issue. The case law which developed under

the old Immigration Act concerning genuine parent-child relationships continues to be relevant

under the IRPA. Under the IRPA, even if the Immigration Appeal Division finds that there is a

genuine parent-child relationship and the adoption was in accordance with the laws of the place

where the adoption occurred, the panel will have to be satisfied that all of the other requirements

in Regulation 117(3) have been met. If all of the requirements are not met, the child cannot be

considered a member of the family class.

Genuine Parent-Child Relationship

The determination of whether or not a particular adoption creates a genuine parent-child

relationship is a question of appreciation of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the

adoption.

The Immigration Appeal Division, in De Guzman,

examined the issue of “genuine

relationship of parent and child” as follows:

The question then is, what constitutes a genuine relationship of parent and

child? Or more appropriately, what are the factors that could be considered

in assessing the genuineness of a parent-child relationship in respect of an

adoption within the meaning of the Immigration Regulations, 1978?

The answer to such a question may appear to be intuitive, however, upon

reflection, like all considerations involving human conditions, the answer is

inherently complex. Nonetheless, guidance may be found in the commonly

accepted premise that generally parents act in the best interest of their

children.

De Guzman identified some of the factors used in assessing the genuineness of a

relationship of parent and child as follows:

De Guzman, Leonor G. v. M.C.I. (IAD W95-00062), Ariemma, Bartley, Wiebe, August 16, 1995.

Ibid., at 5.

Ibid., at 6.

Sponsorship Appeals 4 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

 motivation of the adopting parent(s);

 to a lesser extent, the motivation and conditions of the natural parent(s);

 authority and suasion of the adopting parent(s) over the adopted child;

 supplanting of the authority of the natural parent(s) by that of the adoptive parent(s);

 relationship of the adopted child with the natural parent(s) after adoption;

 treatment of the adopted child versus natural children by the adopting parent(s);

 relationship between the adopted child and the adopting parent(s) before the adoption;

 changes flowing from the new status of the adopted child such as records, entitlements,

etc., and including documentary acknowledgment that the child is the son or daughter of

the adoptive parent(s); and

 arrangements and actions taken by the adoptive parent(s) as they relate to caring, providing

and planning for the adopted child.

In other IAD decisions, the following additional factors have also been examined:

• the nature and frequency of continued contact, if any, between

the child and the natural parents;

• the viability, stability and composition of the adoptive family;

• the timing of the sponsorship of the adopted child’s application

in the context of the particular facts;

• the composition of the adopted child’s biological family,

including the cultural context of the family (for example,

In Dizon, Julieta Lacson v. M.C.I. (IAD V98-02115), Carver, September 1, 1999, the panel was of the view that

in a case involving the unusual circumstance of grandparents adopting children from living and caring

biological parents, it is extremely important that a credible motivation for the adoption be provided. See too

Kwan, Man Tin v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5527-00), Muldoon, August 30, 2001. The fact that the adoptive

mother wanted a child in her home concerns her motivation to enter into an adoption, but does not establish that

a genuine relationship existed.

Visa officers sometimes express concern when the applicant continues to reside with the natural parents after

the adoption. For a discussion of this issue, see Toor, Gurdarshan Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V95-00959), McIsaac,

February 4, 1997; Gill, Gurmandeep Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD W95-00111), Wiebe, October 17, 1996, where the

applicant had continued contact with his biological parents, although he did not reside with them; Molina, Rufo

v. M.C.I. (IAD T98-04608), Kelley, November 8, 1999; Rajam, Daniel v. M.C.I. (IAD V98-02983), Carver,

November 5, 1999; and Minhas, Surinder Pal Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD M98-10540), Colavecchio, December 15,

1999. The relationship between the natural parents and the child after adoption is often relevant, although it is

not determinative, Kwan, supra, footnote 7. See also Ly, Ngoc Lan v. M.C.I. (IAD T99-04453), Kelley, June

22, 2000 which, in part, discusses the issue from the child’s perspective. In Sai, Jiqiu (Jacqueline) v. M.C.I.

(IAD TA0-11403), Michnick, August 22, 2001, the panel found that evidence from the child’s perspective must

be evaluated in light of the particular circumstances of the individual adoption.

With regard to the timing of the sponsorship, while delay in sponsorship sometimes attracts a negative

inference, there may be valid reasons for the delay: Sohal, Talwinder Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V95-00396), Clark,

May 23, 1996. In addition, a prospective filial relationship is not sufficient; there must be evidence of a

genuine parent and child relationship at the time of the hearing: Capiendo, Rosita v. M.C.I. (IAD W95-00108),

Wiebe, August 18, 1997.

Sponsorship Appeals 5 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

whether or not the child is an only child or has siblings of the

same sex);

• the viability and stability of the biological family;

• the age of the child at the time of the adoption;

• depending on the age of the child, the extent of the child’s

knowledge of the adoptive family;

• the age difference between the child and the adoptive parents;

• previous attempts by the biological family to immigrate to

Canada;

• that the child’s name had not been changed;

• that the adoption was not generally known outside the child’s

natural family;

• the sending of money and gifts by the adoptive parent(s);

• plans and arrangements for the child’s future.

The Immigration Appeal Division must consider all the evidence in context. Where the

Immigration Appeal Division failed to consider facts that were not contradicted and showed that

a genuine parent-child relationship existed, the Court held that the Immigration Appeal Division

ignored the evidence. “…[t]he Board in failing to consider the context, the distance and the

separation, and particularly the way the applicant made efforts to create and sustain the parent-

child relationship, made a reviewable error.”

The Court found the visa officer’s conclusion that there was no genuine parent-child

relationship unreasonable where it was not supported by the preponderance of the evidence and

was based solely upon an inference which was equally consistent with another conclusion

In assessing the genuineness of the relationship created by the adoption, no guidance is

provided in the definition of “adopted” as to whose intentions should be looked at (those of the

adoptive parents, the natural parents or the child. The Immigration Appeal Division generally

considers all of the circumstances of the case, including the demonstrated intentions and

declarations of the both natural and adoptive parents where available. In the case of young

children, the Federal Court has found their intentions may not be a proper consideration.

Testimony of other witnesses, both ordinary and expert may assist the Immigration Appeal

Division in its assessment.

Pabla, Dial v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1210-00), Blais, December 12, 2000.

Sinniah, Sinnathamby v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5954-00), Dawson, July 25, 2002; 2002 FCT 822.

See, by analogy, Bal, Sukhjinder Singh v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1212-93), McKeown, October 19, 1993.

In Dooprajh, Anthony v. M.C.I. (IAD M94-07504), Durand, November 27, 1995, the Appeal Division was

favourably impressed by the testimony and the Adoption Home Study Report of a social worker for Quebec’s

Secrétariat à l’adoption internationale.

Sponsorship Appeals 6 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

The Immigration Appeal Division has made findings in many cases that the sponsor and

the applicant have a genuine relationship but that the relationship in not one of parent and child.

Determining the Legal Validity of the Adoption

Most adoption cases that come before the Immigration Appeal Division involve foreign

adoptions. Where the refusal is based on the legal validity of the adoption, the sponsor must

establish that the adoption is valid under the laws (sometimes under the customs) of the

jurisdiction where the adoption took place. This involves presenting evidence of the content and

effect of the foreign law or custom.

For example, in the case of Indian adoptions, that evidence

is usually the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).

In addition to the actual foreign law, sponsors may also submit other forms of evidence

such as expert evidence, doctrine, foreign case-law, declaratory judgments, decrees and deeds.

In determining whether an adoption is legally valid as required by IRP Regulation

117(3)(d), it is important to understand how foreign law is proved and it is necessary to identify

and understand the principles of conflicts of laws which touch upon the effect of foreign laws and

judgments on Canadian courts and tribunals.

Foreign Law

Glossary of terms

The following terms are used in reference to foreign law:

In Reid, Eric v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1357-99), Reed, November 25, 1999, the Court noted that it is not

unusual to see an older sibling provide support, love and care of a younger sibling but that this does not convert

the relationship into one of parent and child. Another example is Brown, Josiah Lanville v. M.C.I. (IAD T89-

02499), Buchanan, June 23, 1999, where the member concluded that the sponsors, the uncle and aunt of the

applicant, had a well meaning intention to extend their financial support to their niece by sponsoring her to

Canada but that the relationship between them was not that of parents and child.

For an example of cases where the adoption in question was proven by custom, see Bilimoriya, Parviz v. M.C.I.

(IAD T93-04633), Muzzi, September 18, 1996; and Vuong, Khan Duc v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3139-97),

Dubé, July 21, 1998. However, in Seth, Kewal Krishan v. M.C.I. (IAD M94-05081), Angé, March 27, 1996,

the sponsor failed to establish that there existed a custom in the Sikh community permitting simultaneous

adoptions; and in Kalida, Malika v. M.C.I. (IAD M96-08010), Champoux, July 3, 1997, the sponsor failed to

show that Moroccan law allowed adoption.

In this regard, see Castel, J.-G., Introduction to Conflict of Laws (Toronto: Butterworths, 1986, at 6, where it is

stated that “when the problem involves the recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment, the court must

determine whether that judgment was properly rendered abroad.”

Sponsorship Appeals 7 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

* “declaratory judgment”: a judgment declaring the parties’ rights or expressing

the court’s opinion on a question of law, without ordering that anything be

done;

* “in personam”: where the purpose of the action is only to affect the rights of the

parties to the action inter se [between them];

* “in rem”: where the purpose of the action is to determine the interests or the

rights of all persons with respect to a particular res [thing];

* “deed of adoption”: registered document purporting to establish the fact that an

adoption has taken place.

Proof of foreign law

The usual rule in Canada is that foreign law is a fact which must be pleaded and proved.

The Immigration Appeal Division cannot take judicial notice of it. In cases before the

Immigration Appeal Division, the burden of proving the foreign law or custom lies on the party

relying on it, in most cases, the sponsor.

There are several ways in which foreign law can be proved, including statute, expert

evidence, and agreement of the parties (consent). The foreign law ought to be proved in each

case. The Immigration Appeal Division is not entitled to take judicial notice of the proof

presented in other cases,

although it can adopt or follow the reasoning of other panels regarding

their interpretation of the foreign law. The Immigration Appeal Division has also examined the

text of the law itself and given it a reasonable interpretation where expert evidence respecting its

meaning was lacking.

The Immigration Appeal Division has rejected arguments that it is not

competent to interpret foreign law.

Section 23 of the Canada Evidence Act

provides that evidence of judicial proceedings or

records of any court of record of any foreign country may be given by a certified copy thereof,

Dukelow, D.A., and Nuse, B., The Dictionary of Canadian Law (Scarborough: Carswell, 1991), at 259.

McLeod, J.G., The Conflict of Laws (Calgary: Carswell, 1983), at 60.

Ibid.

Castel, supra, footnote 16, at 44. For a case where the Appeal Division ruled that foreign law must be strictly

proved, see Wang, Yan-Qiao v. M.C.I. (IAD T96-04690), Muzzi, October 6, 1997. Also, in Okafor-

Ogbujiagba, Anthony Nwafor v. M.C.I. (IAD T94-05539), Aterman, April 14, 1997, the panel held that the

evidence failed to establish that the adoption in question had been carried out in accordance with Nigerian law.

Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Taggar, [1989] 3 F.C. 576; 8 Imm. L.R. (2d) 175 (C.A.).

Kalair, Sohan Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-919-83), Stone, Heald, Urie, November 29, 1984.

Gossal, Rajinder Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-9401), Sherman, Chu, Benedetti, February 15, 1988. Reported:

Gossal v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 5 Imm. L.R. (2d) 185 (I.A.B.).

Gill, Ranjit Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V96-00797), Clark, April 7, 1999.

R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5.

Sponsorship Appeals 8 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

purported to be under the seal of the court, without further proof. However, the Immigration

Appeal Division does not normally require strict proof in this manner although the failure to

comply with section 23 has been relied on in weighing the evidence produced.

The jurisdiction of the Immigration Appeal Division in an adoption case is to determine

whether or not the adoption in question falls within the IRP Regulations, i.e. (i) it has been

proven under the relevant law, (ii) is genuine and (iii) has not been entered into primarily for the

purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act. It is not to adjudicate the status of

adoption generally.

The IRP Regulations require that the adoption be in accordance with the

laws of the jurisdiction where the adoption took place.

For example, in Siddiq,

the issue was whether the adoption in question was valid under

the laws of Pakistan. The expert evidence submitted by the Minister was to the effect that in

Pakistan, legal adoptions were not recognized and could not be enforced. The sponsor was

unable to obtain evidence to the contrary and therefore, failed to establish that the adoption was

valid. The absence of an adoption law in the foreign jurisdiction could not have the effect of

allowing the Immigration Appeal Division to adjudicate the adoption under Canadian law.

Another example is Alkana,

where the alleged adoption was challenged on the basis that

there was no provision for Christian adoptions under Pakistani laws. The sponsor attempted to

prove the adoption by means of a “Declaration of Adoption”, which was essentially an affidavit

made by the natural parents giving their approval or consent to the adoption. In the absence of

proof of a law in Pakistan allowing for adoption, the appeal was dismissed. The panel recognized

the hardship created by the ruling and recommended that the Minister facilitate the admission of

Brar, Kanwar Singh v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00084), Goodspeed, Arpin, Vidal (concurring in part), December 29,

1989.

In Singh, Babu v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-210-85), Urie, Mahoney, Marceau, January 15, 1986, at 1, the Court

indicated that the Immigration Appeal Board was entitled to conclude that the adoption in question had not

been proven, but that it was not authorized to make a declaration that the adoption was “void as far as meeting

the requirements of the Immigration Act, 1976”. In Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v.

Sidhu, [1993] 2 F.C. 483 (C.A.), at 490, the Court noted that “[the Appeal Division’s] jurisdiction is limited by

the Act which, in turn, is subject to the Constitution Act, 1867. Parliament has not purported to legislate

independently on the subject matter of adoption for immigration purposes. On the contrary, on that very point,

it defers or it adopts by reference the foreign legislation.” The Court added in a footnote that “[t]he provision

generally reflects the characterization made by English Canadian common law courts, i.e., that adoption relates

to the recognition of the existence of a status and is governed by the lex domicilii [the law where a person is

domiciled].”

Siddiq, Mohammad v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 79-9088), Weselak, Davey, Teitelbaum, June 10, 1980. See also Addow,

Ali Hussein v. M.C.I. (IAD T96-01171), D’Ignazio, October 15, 1997, for a case involving a purported

Somalian adoption; and Zenati, Entissar v. M.C.I. (IAD M98-09459), Bourbonnais, September 17, 1999, for a

case involving a purported Moroccan adoption. For a decision involving a case of guardianship in Morocco,

see Demnati, Ahmed v. M.C.I. (M99-10260), di Pietro, April 3, 2001.

Alkana, Robin John v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00261), Goodspeed, Arpin, Rayburn, November 16, 1989.

Sponsorship Appeals 9 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

the child into Canada so that he could be adopted here “[...] to alleviate the hardship created by

the statutory lacuna in Pakistan regarding Christian adoptions.”

In a much earlier case, Lam,

the Immigration Appeal Board put it thus:

No proof was adduced that the law of China prevailing in that part of

Mainland China where the appellant and his alleged adopted mother resided

at the time of the alleged adoption – the province of Kwangtung – recognized

the status of adoption, or that if it did, how this status was established. This

is not a situation where the lex fori

may be applied in the absence of proof of

foreign law.

Declaratory judgments and deeds

Sponsors before the Immigration Appeal Division often seek to establish the status of

applicants for permanent residence through the production of foreign judgments declaring the

applicants’ status in the foreign jurisdiction.

The issue has been expressed as one of determining whether the Immigration Appeal

Division ought to look behind the judgment to determine either its validity or its effect on the

issues before the Immigration Appeal Division.

As stated by Wlodyka, A. in Guide to Adoptions under the Hindu Adoptions and

Maintenance Act, 1956:

The starting point in any discussion of the legal effect of a declaratory

judgment [...] is the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Taggar

This case stands for the proposition that a declaratory judgment is a judgment

“in personam” and not “in rem”. Therefore, it is binding only on the parties

to the action. Nevertheless, the declaratory judgment is evidence and the

weight to be accorded to the declaratory judgment depends on the particular

circumstances of the case.

Ibid., at 7. However, in Jalal, Younas v. M.C.I. (IAD M93-06071), Blumer, August 16, 1995, reported: Jalal v.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 39 Imm. L.R. (2d) 146 (I.A.D.), the Immigration

Appeal Division held that in the absence of legislation in Pakistan, the Shariat applies in personal and family

law, and the prohibition against adoption does not apply to non-Muslims. The Immigration Appeal Division

accepted the expert evidence that Christians in Pakistan may adopt.

Lam, Wong Do v. M.M.I. (I.A.B.), October 2, 1972, referred to in Lit, Jaswant Singh v. M.M.I. (I.A.B. 76-

6003), Scott, Benedetti, Legaré, August 13, 1976.

Lit, ibid., at 4.

25 Imm L.R. (2d) 8.

Taggar, supra, footnote 21.

Sponsorship Appeals 10 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

In Sandhu,

a pre-Taggar decision, the Immigration Appeal Board was of the opinion

that a foreign judgment, “even one in personam is final and conclusive on the merits [...] and can

not be impeached for any error either of fact or of law.”

The declaratory judgment in question

was issued in an action for a permanent injunction restraining interference with lawful custody of

the applicant. The panel was of the view that the judgment would have to have been premised on

a decision about the adoptive status of the applicant. The panel treated the judgment of the

foreign court as a declaration as to status, conclusive and binding on the whole world (including

Canadian authorities), and thus found the adoption was valid under Indian law. The panel did not

feel required itself to examine whether the adoption was in accordance with Indian law.

Sandhu was distinguished in Brar

as follows:

[...] the decision in Sandhu was not intended to have universal application in

cases where foreign judgments are presented as proof of the validity of

adoptions and can be distinguished in this case.

In Sandhu the judgment was accepted as part of the record and at no time

was the authenticity of the document challenged by the respondent. The

authenticity of the judgment referred to in Sandhu

was not an issue.

However, in the present case the Board has been presented with a document

which contains discrepancies, has not been presented in accordance with

section 23 of the Canada Evidence Act

and purports to validate an adoption

which clearly does not comply with the requirements of the foreign statute.

The majority of the panel determined that the declaratory judgment had no weight.

The

member who concurred in part was of the view that the reasoning in Sandhu applied and that the

declaratory judgment was a declaration as to status and was binding on the Immigration Appeal

Division.

In Atwal,

the majority accepted the declaratory judgment but noted that

Sandhu, Bachhitar Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-10112), Eglington, Goodspeed, Chu, February 4, 1988.

Ibid., at 14.

Sandhu, Bachhitar Singh, supra, footnote 35 was followed in Patel, Ramesh Chandra v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 85-

9738), Jew, Arkin, Tisshaw, April 15, 1988.

Brar, supra, footnote 26.

Ibid., at 10.

For other cases in which it has been held that declaratory judgments are not determinative, see Singh, Ajaib v.

M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-4063), Mawani, Wright, Petryshyn, April 26, 1988 (declaratory judgment disregarded where

internally inconsistent, collusive, and did not result from fully argued case); Burmi, Joginder Singh v. M.E.I.

(I.A.B. 88-35651), Sherman, Arkin, Weisdorf, February 14, 1989 (regarding a marriage); Badwal, Jasbir Singh

v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-10977), Sherman, Bell, Ahara, May 29, 1989; and Atwal, Manjit Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-

4205), Petryshyn, Wright, Arpin (concurring), May 8, 1989, where the concurring member gave no weight to

the declaratory judgment. In Pawar, Onkar Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD T98-04518), D’Ignazio, October 1, 1999, the

panel held that notwithstanding the existence of a declaratory judgment, the evidence established that there was

no mutual intention of either the birth parents or the adoptive parents to transfer the child and therefore, the

adoption did not meet the requirements in HAMA.

Atwal, ibid.

Sponsorship Appeals 11 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

[i]t is the opinion of the Board that a foreign judgment is not to be disturbed

unless there is proof of collusion, fraud, lack of jurisdiction of the court and

the like. No such evidence was presented to the Board.

In Sran,

the Immigration Appeal Division expressed it thus:

[...] a declaratory judgment [...] is merely evidence which must be considered

along with other evidence in determining the validity of the adoption. By

itself, it does not dispose of the issue.

This decision appears to reflect the current decision making of the Immigration Appeal

Division in light of Taggar.

An adoption deed may be presented as proof of the validity of an adoption. In Aujla,

the

panel ruled that:

The Board accepts the Adoption Deed as prima facie evidence of an adoption

having taken place. However, as to whether the adoption was in compliance

with the requirements of the [Indian] Adoptions Act is a question of fact to

be determined by the evidence in each case. In this connection, the Board

also drew counsel’s attention to a recent Federal Court of Appeal

decision

where the Court expressed the view that it was proper for the Board to

determine whether the adoption had been made in accordance with the laws

of India, and that the registered Deed of Adoption was not conclusive of a

valid adoption.

Presumption of Validity under Foreign Law

The Immigration Appeal Division has dealt with the issue of adoption deeds in the context

of section 16 of HAMA, which creates a presumption of validity.

In Dhillon,

the sponsor

Ibid., at 4.

Sran, Pritam Kaur v. M.C.I. (IAD T93-10409), Townshend, May 10, 1995, at 6.

Taggar, supra, footnote 21.

Aujla, Surjit Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-6021), Mawani, November 10, 1987.

Dhillon, Harnam Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-387-85), Pratte, Marceau, Lacombe, May 27, 1987.

Aujla, supra, footnote 45, at 5. See also Chiu, Jacintha Chen v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-6123), Mawani, Gillanders,

Singh, July 13, 1987; and Jaswal, Kaushaliya Devi v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00087), Goodspeed, Wlodyka,

Rayburn, September 27, 1990.

Section 16 of HAMA provides that:

16. Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced

before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and

the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made

in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.

Dhillon, Harnam Singh, supra, footnote 46. The facts of the case are set out in Dhillon, Harnam Singh v.

M.E.I. (I.A.B. 83-6551), Petryshyn, Glogowski, Voorhees, January 3, 1985.

Sponsorship Appeals 12 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

presented as evidence a registered deed of adoption and argued that section 16 of HAMA was

substantive, and therefore the adoption in question had to be considered valid unless disproved by

an Indian court. The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the argument:

There is, in our view, no merit in that submission. Under subsection 2(1) of

the Immigration Regulations, the Board had to determine whether the

adoption had been made in accordance with the laws of India. If, as

contended, the Board was required to apply section 16 of the Hindu

Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 in making that determination, it was

bound to apply it as it read, namely, as creating merely a rebuttable

presumption regarding the validity of registered adoptions. As there was no

doubt that the adoption here in question had not been made in accordance

with Indian laws, it necessarily followed that the presumption was rebutted.

In Singh,

the Federal Court of Appeal went further when it stated:

Presumptions imposed by Indian law on Indian courts, which might be

relevant if the issue were simply to know, in private international law terms,

the status of the sponsorees in India, are of no assistance in determining

whether either of them qualifies as an “adopted son” for the very special

purposes of the Immigration Act [...] the presumption in section 16 is directed

specifically to “the court”, it is difficult, in any event, to conceive of it as

being other than procedural since it is unlikely to have been the intention of

the Indian Parliament to bind a court over which it had no authority or

jurisdiction.

In Seth,

the Immigration Appeal Division followed Singh and added that it is not up to

the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi to seek standing before an Indian court to have the

adoption declared invalid. Instead, the visa officer is entitled to conclude that an alleged adoption

has not been proven for immigration purposes.

The Immigration Appeal Division has applied the reasoning of the Federal Court of

Appeal in Singh to cases of adoptions in countries other than India. For example, in Persaud,

the Immigration Appeal Division considered a final order of the Supreme Court of Guyana and

held that the order is one piece of evidence but is not determinative of whether the adoption is in

compliance with the Immigration Act. In Sinniah

, the Court held that it was patently

unreasonable for the visa officer to ignore the effect at law of a final Court order and to decide, in

Dhillon, Harnam Singh, supra, footnote 46, at 2.

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 37; 11 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.);

leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (Doc. 22136, Sopinka, McLachlin, Iacobucci) refused on

February 28, 1991, Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 13 Imm. L.R. (2d) 46

[Appeal Note].

Ibid., at 44.

Seth, supra, footnote 15.

Persaud, Kowsilia v. M.C.I. (IAD T96-00912), Kalvin, July 13, 1998.

Sinniah, supra, footnote 11.

Sponsorship Appeals 13 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

the absence of cogent evidence, that an order pronounced by a court in Sri Lanka was insufficient

to establish that an adoption was made in accordance with the laws of Sri Lanka.

Parent and child relationship created by operation of law

This issue has arisen in the context of section 12 of HAMA,

which many Immigration

Appeal Board decisions interpreted as having the effect of creating a parent and child relationship

by operation of law.

In Sharma,

the Federal Court – Trial Division indicated that

[a] parent and child relationship is not automatically established once the

requirements of a foreign adoption have been demonstrated. In other words,

even if the adoption was within the provisions of HAMA, whether the

adoption created a relationship of parent and child, thereby satisfying the

requirements of the definition of “adoption” contained in subsection 2(1) of

the Immigration Regulations, 1978, must still be examined.

In Rai,

the applicant had been adopted under the Alberta Child Welfare Act. The

Immigration Appeal Division rejected the argument that the granting of an adoption order under

that Act was clear and incontrovertible proof that a genuine parent and child relationship was

created.

Power of attorney

In cases where a sponsor, for one reason or another, does not travel to the country where

the applicant resides in order to complete the adoption, the sponsor may give a power of

attorney

to someone to act in his or her stead. The power of attorney gives the person named in

Section 12 provides, in part, as follows:

12. An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for

all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child

in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by

the adoption in the adoptive family [...]

See, for example, Sandhu, Gurcharan Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-9066), Eglington, Teitelbaum, Sherman,

November 13, 1987; and Shergill, Kundan Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-6108), Mawani, Gillanders, Singh,

April 8, 1987. Reported: Shergill v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987), 3 Imm. L.R.

(2d) 126 (I.A.B.).

M.C.I. v. Sharma, Chaman Jit (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-453-95), Wetson, August 28, 1995.

Ibid., at 4. This two-stage process was followed in M.C.I. v. Edrada, Leonardo Lagmacy (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-

5199-94), MacKay, February 29, 1996 and Gill, Banta Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-760-96), Gibson,

October 22, 1996 (upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in Gill, Banta Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-859-96),

Marceau, Linden, Robertson, July 14, 1998. These cases indicate that the issue had already been determined by

the Federal Court in Singh, supra, footnote 51.

Rai, Suritam Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V95-02710), Major, Wiebe, Dossa, November 30, 1999.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Power of Attorney” as “[...] an instrument authorizing another to act as one’s

agent or attorney. The agent is attorney in fact and his power is revoked on the death of the principal by

Sponsorship Appeals 14 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

it the authority to do whatever is necessary in order to complete the adoption in accordance with

the laws of the jurisdiction where the adoption is to take place.

An issue that has arisen in this area with respect to Indian law is whether HAMA requires

that a power of attorney be in writing and registered for an adoption to be valid. In a number of

decisions, panels have ruled that neither is required.

Another issue is whether a sponsor can give a power of attorney to the biological parent of

the person to be adopted. In Poonia,

in dealing with the requirements of a giving and taking

ceremony under Indian law, and after reviewing a number of Indian authorities, the Immigration

Appeal Division held that the power of attorney must be given to a third party who cannot be the

biological parent as that person is a party to the adoption.

Revocation of adoption

The concept of revocation of adoption is found in IRP Regulation 133(5).

This

provision allows an officer (and the Immigration Appeal Division) to consider whether the

revocation by a foreign authority or by a Canadian court was obtained for the purpose of

sponsoring an application for permanent residence made by a member of the family class (of the

biological family) and if it was, to rule that the intended sponsorship is not permissible.

In the past, visa officers refused to recognize revocations by foreign authorities and in a

number of cases involving the failed sponsorships of biological parents by their former children,

the Immigration Appeal Division (and the Immigration Appeal Board) have had occasion to

consider the matter.

In Sharma,

the Immigration Appeal Division was presented with a declaratory judgment

from an Indian court nullifying the adoption of the sponsor. The judgment was obtained by the

operation of law [...].” The Canadian Law Dictionary gives the following definition: “An instrument in

writing authorizing another to act as one’s agent or attorney. It confers upon the agent the authority to perform

certain specified acts or kinds of acts on behalf of his principal. Its primary purpose is to evidence the authority

of the agent to third parties with whom the agent deals.”

See, for example, Gill, Balwinder Singh v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00433), Goodspeed, Arpin, Rayburn,

September 13, 1990; Paul, Satnam Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-6049), Howard, Anderson (dissenting),

Gillanders, February 13, 1989; and Kler, Sukhdev Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 82-6350), Goodspeed, Vidal, Arpin,

May 25, 1987.

Poonia, Jagraj v. M.E.I. (IAD T91-02478), Arpin, Townshend, Fatsis, October 5, 1993.

S.133(5) of the IRP Regulations reads:

(5) A person who is adopted outside Canada and whose adoption is subsequently

revoked by a foreign authority or by a court in Canada of competent jurisdiction

may sponsor an application for a permanent resident visa that is made by a member

of the family class only if the revocation of the adoption was not obtained for the

purpose of sponsoring that application.

Sharma, Sudhir Kumar v. M.E.I. (IAD V92-01628), Wlodyka, Singh, Verma, August 18, 1993.

Sponsorship Appeals 15 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

sponsor’s biological father in an uncontested proceeding. After considering the expert evidence

presented by the parties, the Immigration Appeal Division concluded that the judgment was in

personam and that the weight to be given to it would depend on the particular circumstances of

the case. The Immigration Appeal Division inferred from the evidence that the Indian court had

not been informed of the immigration purpose for the action and gave the judgment little weight.

It also found that the only possible reason for nullifying an adoption under Indian law,

misrepresentation, was not present in the case.

In Chu,

the panel acknowledged that an adoption can be terminated in China with the

agreement of the parties. However, because neither the sponsor nor her adoptive father had any

real and substantial connection with China at the time the revocation was obtained, the panel

ruled that the applicable law was not Chinese law but British Columbian law. Under this law,

termination of adoption was not possible.

In Purba,

the sponsor had been adopted by her grandparents, but when she was granted

an immigrant visa, it was on the basis that she was their dependent daughter. The fact of the

adoption was not disclosed to the visa officer. A few years later, she attempted to sponsor her

biological mother but that application was refused. The evidence presented at the Immigration

Appeal Division hearing showed that the adoption was void ab initio;

however, the appeal was

dismissed on the basis of estoppel. As the panel put it:

[The sponsor] was granted status in Canada as a landed immigrant

and subsequently as a Canadian citizen based on a misrepresented

status which was acted upon by Canadian immigration officials. In

my view, she is estopped from claiming a change in status to enable

her to sponsor her biological mother [...].

Bad faith relationships

In Sahota,

the application for permanent residence was refused under section 4 of the

IRP Regulations, as well as under subsections 117(2) and 117(3)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the

Regulations. The panel found that in most appeals of adoption refusals where there are a number

of grounds of refusal, a determination should first be made in relation to section 4 of the IRP

Regulations. If there is a determination that the foreign national is an “adopted child” pursuant to

See also Heir, Surjit Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 80-6116), Howard, Campbell, Hlady, January 16, 1981.

Chu, Si Gina v. M.E.I. (IAD V90-00836), Wlodyka, MacLeod, June 28, 1990.

Purba, Surinder Kaur v. M.C.I. (IAD T95-02315), Teitelbaum, September 10, 1996.

The evidence included a judgment of a court in India declaring the adoption null and void. The grandfather

already had three daughters and therefore did not have the legal capacity to adopt another daughter under

HAMA.

Purba, supra, footnote.68, at 8.

Sahota, Gurdev Kaur v. M.C.I. (IAD VA2-03374), Mattu, February 23, 2004.

Sponsorship Appeals 16 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

section 4 of the IRP Regulations, then a determination should be made in relation to all or some

of the provisions of section 117 of the IRP Regulations, as necessary.

Section 4 of the IRP Regulations states, among other things, that for purposes of the

Regulations, no foreign national shall be considered an “adopted child” if the adoption is not

genuine and was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under

the IRPA, whereas, subsection 117(2) of the IRP Regulations states that a foreign national “who

is the adopted child” of a sponsor and whose adoption took place when the child was under the

age of 18 shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of that adoption unless it

was in the best interests of the child within the meaning of the Hague Convention on Adoption

(emphasis added). In the words of the panel,

“When the words of sections 4 and 117(2) of the Regulations are read

in their ordinary and grammatical sense, in a manner to blend harmoniously

with the scheme of the IRPA and its Regulations and the object and intention

of Parliament, I am satisfied that there should be a determination under

section 4 of the Regulations as to whether or not the foreign national is an

“adopted child” before any determination is made under section 117(2) of the

Regulations that the adoption is in the best interests of the child. I come to

this conclusion because section 117(2) of the Regulations appears to only

apply in cases where the foreign national has been determined to be an

adopted child.”

In Sahota, the panel found that a two-fold test must be applied in order to disqualify an

adopted child under section 4 of the IRP Regulations.

The two elements are: that the adoption

is not genuine and that the adoption was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any

status or privilege under the IRPA. The panel also found that in the circumstances of an adoption

the status or privilege that can be acquired under IRPA is that the adopted child is granted

permanent resident status in Canada through membership in the family class when the adopted

child qualifies to be sponsored to Canada.

The panel noted that the term “genuine” has not

been defined in IRPA or the IRP Regulations.

In the panel’s view, the fundamental nature of an

adoption is the relationship between parent and child. Noting that Parliament specifically

included the factor of a genuine parent-child relationship as one element in the determination of

the best interests of the child in the context of section 117(3) of the IRP Regulations, the panel

found the issue of a genuine parent-child relationship to be of primary relevance in the context of

considering the genuineness of an adoption. While conceding that this factor is not the only

factor that could be used to determine whether or not an adoption is “genuine” in the context of

section 4 of the IRP Regulations, the panel found it to be a key factor to consider in the

determination of the genuineness of an adoption.

Ibid., paragraph 14.

Ibid., paragraph 17.

Ibid., paragraph 18.

Ibid., paragraph 19.

Sponsorship Appeals 17 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

In Singh

the Immigration Appeal Division adopted the reasoning in Sahota

and held

that it was appropriate to make a final determination under section 4 of the IRP Regulations with

respect to whether the adoption was in bad faith before undertaking a consideration of whether or

not the adoption was in the best interests of the child under section 117(3) of the IRP

Regulations.

In De Guia,

the panel found that the adoption fell within Regulation 4 of the IRP

Regulations. The adoption took place in 1989 when the applicant was four years old and the

appellant’s application to sponsor the applicant was submitted more than twelve years after the

adoption was finalized. The appellant was unable to explain satisfactorily the delay in sponsoring

the applicant. When the applicant was interviewed, he stated that the appellant adopted him

because his parents were jobless and for his future. The appellant had not visited him since 1988,

and she never provided for his physical and emotional needs on a daily basis. He continued to

live with his biological father after the adoption. While the appellant provided financial support

for the applicant’s education, she did not direct his education and was not advised within a

reasonable timeframe of his decision to quit school. The Immigration Appeal Division found that

a parent-child relationship did not exist between the appellant and the applicant at the time of the

adoption, and that no such relationship had developed over the years. The adoption was not

genuine and was primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the Act.

In Hussein,

the sponsored application for permanent residence of the appellant’s

adopted children (his sister’s children) was refused pursuant to s.4 of the IRP Regulations. There

was evidence at the hearing of the appeal that was not before the visa officer to the effect that the

appellant had been making major decisions for the applicants since their father died, including

decisions that were contrary to their biological mother’s wishes. While the elder applicant had

told the visa officer that she intended to continue to have a normal mother-daughter relationship

with her biological mother after the adoption, it would be a denial of reality to expect teenage

children to forget their biological mother. It was more important that the applicants had accepted

the appellant as their father and regarded his counsel and authority as paramount to that of their

biological mother.

Singh, Jaspal v. M.C.I. (IAD TA2-17789), Hoare, August 6. 2004.

Sahota, supra, footnote 71.

De Guia, Avelina Fernandez Quindipan v. M.C.I. (IAD TA4-11030), Waters, December 14, 2005.

Hussein, Mohammed Yassin v. M.C.I. (IAD WA5-00123), Ostrowski, December 15, 2006.

Sponsorship Appeals 18 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

Adult Adoptions

IRP Regulations

117(4) A foreign national who is the adopted child of a sponsor and

whose adoption took place when the child was 18 years of age or over

shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of that

adoption unless it took place under the following circumstances:

(a) the adoption was in accordance with the laws of the place where the

adoption took place and, if the sponsor resided in Canada at the time

of the adoption, the adoption was in accordance with the laws of the

province where the sponsor then resided;

(b) a genuine parent-child relationship exists at the time of the adoption

and existed before the child reached the age of 18; and

privilege under the Act.

Adult adoptees were not previously sponsorable under Canadian immigration law as

members of the family class; pursuant to the IRP Regulations they may be sponsored provided

they also meet the definition of “dependent child” in the IRP Regulations. The Immigration

Appeal Division has not yet had the occasion to decide an appeal from a refusal of a sponsored

application for permanent residence based on section 117(4) of the IRP Regulations.

Intent to adopt provisions

Statutory Provision

IRP Regulations

117(1) A foreign national is a member of the family class if, with respect

to a sponsor, the foreign national is:

(g) a person under 18 years of age whom the sponsor intends to adopt in

Canada if

(i) the adoption is not primarily for the purpose of acquiring any

privilege or status under the Act,

(ii) where the adoption is an international adoption and the

country in which the person resides and their province of intended

destination are parties to the Hague Convention on Adoption, the

competent authority of the country and of the province have approved

the adoption in writing as conforming to that Convention; and

Sponsorship Appeals 19 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

(iii) where the adoption is an international adoption and either the

country in which the person resides or the person’s province of

intended destination is not a party to the Hague Convention on

Adoption

(A) the person has been placed for adoption in the country in which

they reside or is otherwise legally available in that country for

adoption and there is no evidence that the intended adoption is

for the purpose of child trafficking or undue gain within the

meaning of the Hague Convention on Adoption, and

(B) the competent authority of the person’s province of intended

destination has stated in writing that it does not object to the

adoption;

In Vaganova,

the appellant appealed from the refusal of the sponsored application for

permanent residence of her grandnephew, whom she intended to adopt. The issue was whether

the intended adoption met the requirements of section 117(1)(g)(iii)(A) of the IRP Regulations.

The IRP Regulations require that the applicant be placed for adoption in the country in which he

or she resides or be otherwise legally available for adoption in that country. The panel held that

whether an applicant is “otherwise legally available for adoption” is to be assessed against the

country of the applicant’s residence rather than the province of his destination. The appellant

produced two consents to adoption signed by the applicant’s biological mother, but no expert

evidence was presented as to whether the signing of a consent to adopt by the biological mother

placed the applicant for adoption in Russia or resulted in the applicant being otherwise legally

available for adoption in Russia. The intended adoption did not meet the requirements of section

117(1)(g)(iii)(A) of the IRP Regulations.

It should be noted that in Vaganova, although a “no objection” letter from the province of

intended destination was provided to the panel by the appellant, counsel did not rely on, nor did

the panel turn its mind to, s.117(7)(b) of the IRP Regulations.

In Al-Shikarchy,

another 117(1)(g)(iii) intent to adopt in Canada case, the panel

commented that although neither party referred to s.117(7) of the IRP Regulations, the provision

would appear to be relevant to the applicant’s circumstances. The appeal was decided on other

grounds so the panel did not undertake an analysis of the impact of s.117(7) of the IRP

Vaganova, Ludmila v. M.C.I. (IAD TA4-17969), Waters, May 18, 2006.

This provision reads as follows:

(7) If a statement referred to in clause (1)(g)(iii)(B) or paragraph (3) (c) or (f) has

been provided to an officer by the foreign national’s province of intended

destination, that statement is, except in the case of an adoption where the

adoption is primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under the

Act, conclusive evidence that the foreign national meets the following applicable

requirements:

(b) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (1)(g), the requirements

set out in clause (1)(g)(iii)(A);

Al-Shikarchy, Salam v. M.C.I. (IAD TA5-13169), Band, September 5, 2007.

Sponsorship Appeals 20 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

Regulations. The meaning to be given to the words “has been placed for adoption in the country

in which they reside or is otherwise legally available in that country for adoption” interpreted in

light of 117(7)(b) of the IRP Regulations thus remains an outstanding issue for the Immigration

Appeal Division.

The panel in Al-Shikarchy citing s.121 of the IRP Regulations, found that the applicant

did not qualify as a member of the family class in light of the fact that she was over the age of 18

when the immigration authorities received her application for a permanent resident visa and over

18 years of age when her application for a permanent resident visa was determined.

In Taylor

the question before the panel was at what point in time is an applicant’s age to

be calculated in order to determine whether he or she is over or under 22 years of age and

therefore a dependent child. In contrast to the findings of the panel in Al-Shikarchy, who found

both the date of receipt of the application for permanent residence and the date of the

determination of the application to be relevant, the panel in Taylor concluded that the only

relevant date, when the issue is the applicant’s age, is the date of receipt of the application for

permanent residence.

There appears to be conflicting jurisprudence in the Immigration Appeal

Division as to whether or not there is a “lock-in” date with respect to the applicant’s age in light

of s.121 of the IRP Regulations. Is an applicant a member of the family class as a “child to be

adopted” if the applicant was under 18 years of age at the time his or her application was received

by immigration authorities but over 18 when the application is being determined by a visa

officer?

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Sponsors have also argued that certain provisions in the foreign adoption legislation are

discriminatory and thus contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The

Immigration Appeal Division (and the Immigration Appeal Board) have rejected these

arguments.

In a different context, the Federal Court of Appeal, in Li,

dealt with an argument that an

adjudicator considering the issue of equivalency must have regard to whether the procedures

Ibid, at 21. See also Chandler, Lucy Mary v. M.C.I. (IAD VA4-01200), Boscariol, September 26, 2006.

Taylor, Joan v. M.C.I. (IAD TA4-00871), Whist, May 19, 2004.

In Lidder, the court found that the effective (“lock-in”) date of a sponsored application for permanent residence

is the date of the filing of the application for permanent residence. Canada (Minister of Employment and

Immigration) v. Lidder, [1992] 2 F.C. 621; 16 Imm. L.R. (2d) 241 (C.A.).

See, for example, Dhillon, Gurpal Kaur v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 83-9242), D. Davey, Benedetti, Suppa, July 30, 1985;

Mattam, Mary John v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-10213), Arkin, Fatsis, Ahara, December 10, 1987; Magnet, Marc v.

M.E.I. (IAD W89-00002), Arpin, Goodspeed, Rayburn, April 10, 1990; and Syed, Abul Maali v. M.E.I. (IAD

T89-01164), Tisshaw, Spencer, Townshend, January 7, 1992.

Li, Ronald Fook Shiu v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-329-95), Strayer, Robertson, Chevalier, August 7, 1996.

Reported: Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 1 F.C. 235 (C.A.).

Sponsorship Appeals 21 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

followed in the country of conviction would be acceptable under the Charter. The Court rejected

the argument and noted that

[...] the Supreme Court of Canada has held the Charter to be irrelevant

abroad even where acts by foreign police officers inconsistent with the

Charter have yielded evidence for use in a Canadian court. In Terry v. The

Queen

[... a person] was given the warnings required by U.S. law but was

not advised immediately of a right to counsel as would have been required

by [...] the Charter had he been arrested in Canada. Nevertheless

statements made by him to police [...] were held admissible at a subsequent

trial in Canada. The Court held that the Charter could not govern the

conduct of foreign police acting in their own country. The same must

surely be true of a foreign court trying a person then subject to its

jurisdiction.

The other type of Charter challenge involves an attack on the constitutional validity of

particular provisions of the Immigration Act or Regulations. For example, in Dular,

the

Immigration Appeal Division found that the age 19 limitation in the definition of “son” in the

Regulations was contrary to section 15 of the Charter and not saved by section 1 of the Charter.

However, the Federal Court disagreed with the panel’s section 1 analysis and set aside its

decision.

A different approach was followed in Daley,

where the Immigration Appeal

Division held that if there was discrimination on the basis of age (in this case, the age limitation

was 13), it was the applicant’s rights and not the sponsor’s which were being infringed. As the

applicant was outside Canada, the Charter had no application.

In Rai,

the Immigration Appeal Division held that the requirement that an adoption not

be for immigration purposes does not violate the s.15 Charter rights of adoptive parents.

In Chandler,

the appellant’s challenge to the constitutionality of s.117(1)(g) of IRPA

failed. Counsel argued that limiting the sponsorship of children intended to be adopted in Canada

to the age of under 18 years, when dependent biological or adopted children can be sponsored to

the age of 22, contravened sections 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The distinction between biological and adopted children and children intended to be adopted in

Canada violates section 15 of the Charter but was justified under section 1 of the Charter. The

appellant was not subjected to cruel and unusual treatment contrary to section 12 of the Charter.

R. v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207.

Li, supra, footnote 87, at 257.

Dular, Shiu v. M.C.I. (IAD V93-02409), Ho, Lam, Verma, February 22, 1996. See also Bahadur, Ramdhami v.

M.E.I. (IAD T89-01108), Ariemma, Tisshaw, Bell (dissenting), January 14, 1991 (re the age 13 limitation in the

former Regulations).

M.C.I. v. Dular, Shiu (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-984-96), Wetston, October 21, 1997.

Daley, Joyce v. M.E.I. (IAD T89-01062), Sherman, Bell, Chu, February 3, 1992.

Rai, supra, footnote 60.

Chandler, supra, footnote 83.

Sponsorship Appeals 22 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

Repeat Appeals

In adoption applications, there is no fluidity with respect to the point at which the

determination is made as to whether the applicant is a member of the family class. That point in

time is fixed by the IRPA. Therefore, in repeat appeals from adoption refusals, the evidence must

always relate to the intention at the time the applicant was purported to become a member of the

family class.

Repeat appeals from these refusals require a more restrictive approach. Where an

appellant attempts to relitigate unsuccessful appeals, two doctrines may be applicable: res

judicata and abuse of process

. The Immigration Appeal Division must allow the sponsor to

present the alleged new evidence before finding either an abuse of process or res judicata.

. The

Immigration Appeal Division is under no obligation to grant a full oral hearing; new evidence by

way of affidavit is acceptable.

If the evidence adduced is in fact new evidence, then the Immigration Appeal Division

can decide whether the issues raised are res judicata. Even where all the criteria for the

application of res judicata are met, a repeat appeal will only be res judicata if there exist no

special circumstances that would bring the appeal within the exception of the application of the

doctrine. Such special circumstances would include fraud or other misconduct in the previous

proceedings which would raise natural justice issues, or where there is the discovery of decisive

new evidence that could not have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence in the

first proceeding.

Further, whether or not to apply the doctrine of res judicata in any case is a

matter of discretion.

100

In Bhatti

101

, the Appeal Division dismissed the appeal on the basis of the

doctrine of res judicata in that there was no “decisive new evidence” which could have altered

the result of the first appeal.

If the Immigration Appeal Division decides the evidence adduced does not constitute new

evidence then it is open to it to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is an abuse of process.

102

In some cases, it may be appropriate to consider applying the doctrine of abuse of process instead

of or in addition to res judicata.

103

See Chapter 6, (“Repeat Appeals”) for an in-depth discussion

of these issues.

Singh, Gurmukh v. M.C.I. (IAD T98-08941), Wales, March 15, 2000.

Hira, Chaman Lal v. M.C.I. (IAD V99-01877), Boscariol, Ross, Mattu, July 14, 2000.

Kular, Jasmail v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4990-99), Nadon, August 30, 2000.

Sekhon, Amrik Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1982-01), McKeown, December 10, 2001.

Sangha, Amarjit v. M.C..I. (IAD VA1-04029), Boscariol, February 21, 2002.

100

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., [2001] S.C.R. 460; Raika, Labh Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD VA1-02630),

Boscariol, June 6, 2002.

101

Bhatti, Darshan Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD VA1-03848), Workun, April 19, 2002.

102

Toor, Rajwant Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD VA0-00917), Clark, June 1,2001 (reasons signed June 8, 2001); Kaler,

Gurdip Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V99-04536), Baker, October 10, 2000; Gill, Balvir Singh v. M.C.I. (V99-03132),

Mattu, September 25, 2000; Punni, Pal Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V99-01483), Boscariol, June 30, 2000.

103

Sangha, supra, footnote 99; Bagri, Sharinder Singh v. M.C.I. (VA1-00913), Boscariol, December 10, 2001.

Sponsorship Appeals 23 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

An issue that arose after the IRPA came into effect was whether or not res judicata

continues to apply as a result of the change in wording of the test to be applied in section 4 of the

IRP Regulations, including the change in timing of the assessment of the test. In Vuong

104

the

Immigration Appeal Division panel held that the changes between section 4(3) of the former

Regulations and section 4 of the IRP Regulations are not of sufficient legal significance to create

an exception to res judicata and concluded that res judicata applied.

The Federal Court has ruled

105

that the Vuong approach is correct and that except in unique

or special circumstances that the principle of res judicata applies as it is not in the public interest

to allow the re-litigation of failed marriage appeals unless there are special circumstances.

104

Vuong, Phuoc v. M.C.I. (IAD TA2-16835), Stein, December 22, 2003.

105

Mohammed, Amina v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-1436-05), Shore, October, 27, 2005: 2005 FC 1442.

Sponsorship Appeals 24 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

CASES

Addow, Ali Hussein v. M.C.I. (IAD T96-01171), D’Ignazio, October 15, 1997............................................................8

Alkana, Robin John v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00261), Goodspeed, Arpin, Rayburn, November 16,

1989.......................................................................................................................................................................8, 9

Al-Shikarchy, Salam v. M.C.I. (IAD TA5-13169), Band, September 5, 2007.............................................................19

Atwal, Manjit Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-4205), Petryshyn, Wright, Arpin (concurring), May 8,

1989................................................................................................................................................................... 10, 11

Aujla, Surjit Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-6021), Mawani, November 10, 1987.............................................................11

Badwal, Jasbir Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-10977), Sherman, Bell, Ahara, May 29, 1989. ........................................10

Bagri, Sharinder Singh v. M.C.I. (VA1-00913), Boscariol, December 10, 2001 ........................................................22

Bahadur, Ramdhami v. M.E.I. (IAD T89-01108), Ariemma, Tisshaw, Bell (dissenting),

January 14, 1991. ....................................................................................................................................................21

Bal, Sukhjinder Singh v. S.G.C. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1212-93), McKeown, October 19, 1993 ....................................5

Bhatti, Darshan Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD VA1-03848), Workun, April 19, 2002............................................................22

Bilimoriya, Parviz v. M.C.I. (IAD T93-04633), Muzzi, September 18, 1996................................................................6

Brar, Kanwar Singh v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00084), Goodspeed, Arpin, Vidal (concurring in part),

December 29, 1989. ............................................................................................................................................8, 10

Brown, Josiah Lanville v. M.C.I. (IAD T89-02499), Buchanan, June 23, 1999............................................................6

Burmi, Joginder Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 88-35651), Sherman, Arkin, Weisdorf, February 14, 1989..........................10

Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Lidder, [1992] 2 F.C. 621; 16 Imm. L.R.

(2d) 241 (C.A.)........................................................................................................................................................20

Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Sidhu, [1993] 2 F.C. 483 (C.A.)..............................................8

Capiendo, Rosita v. M.C.I. (IAD W95-00108), Wiebe, August 18, 1997......................................................................4

Chandler, Lucy Mary v. M.C.I. (IAD VA4-01200), Boscariol, September 26, 2006............................................ 20, 21

Chiu, Jacintha Chen v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-6123), Mawani, Gillanders, Singh, July 13, 1987......................................11

Chu, Si Gina v. M.E.I. (IAD V90-00836), Wlodyka, MacLeod, June 28, 1990..........................................................15

Daley, Joyce v. M.E.I. (IAD T89-01062), Sherman, Bell, Chu, February 3, 1992. .....................................................21

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., [2001] S.C.R. 460; Raika, Labh Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD

VA1-02630), Boscariol, June 6, 2002.....................................................................................................................22

De Guia, Avewlina Fernandez Quindipan v. M.C.I. (IAD TA4-11030), Waters, December 14,

2005.........................................................................................................................................................................17

De Guzman, Leonor G. v. M.C.I. (IAD W95-00062), Ariemma, Bartley, Wiebe, August 16, 1995. ............................3

Demnati, Ahmed v. M.C.I. (M99-10260), di Pietro, April 3, 2001.................................................................................8

Dhillon, Gurpal Kaur v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 83-9242), D. Davey, Benedetti, Suppa, July 30, 1985. .................................20

Dhillon, Harnam Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-387-85), Pratte, Marceau, Lacombe, May 27,

1987................................................................................................................................................................... 11, 12

Dhillon, Harnam Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 83-6551), Petryshyn, Glogowski, Voorhees, January 3,

1985.........................................................................................................................................................................11

Dizon, Julieta Lacson v. M.C.I. (IAD V98-02115), Carver, September 1, 1999 ...........................................................4

Sponsorship Appeals 25 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

Dooprajh, Anthony v. M.C.I. (IAD M94-07504), Durand, November 27, 1995............................................................5

Dular, Shiu v. M.C.I. (IAD V93-02409), Ho, Lam, Verma, February 22, 1996..........................................................21

Dular: M.C.I. v. Dular, Shiu (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-984-96), Wetston, October 21, 1997............................................21

Edrada: M.C.I. v. Edrada, Leonardo Lagmacy (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5199-94), MacKay, February

29, 1996...................................................................................................................................................................13

Gill, Balvir Singh v. M.C.I. (V99-03132), Mattu, September 25, 2000.......................................................................22

Gill, Balwinder Singh v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00433), Goodspeed, Arpin, Rayburn, September 13,

1990.........................................................................................................................................................................14

Gill, Banta Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-859-96), Marceau, Linden, Robertson, July 14, 1998..............................13

Gill, Banta Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-760-96), Gibson, October 22, 1996.................................................13

Gill, Gurmandeep Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD W95-00111), Wiebe, October 17, 1996.........................................................4

Gill, Ranjit Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V96-00797), Clark, April 7, 1999.............................................................................7

Gossal, Rajinder Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-9401), Sherman, Chu, Benedetti, February 15, 1988.

Reported: Gossal v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 5 Imm. L.R.

(2d) 185 (I.A.B.)........................................................................................................................................................7

Heir, Surjit Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 80-6116), Howard, Campbell, Hlady, January 16, 1981......................................15

Hira, Chaman Lal v. M.C.I. (IAD V99-01877), Boscariol, Ross, Mattu, July 14, 2000.............................................. 22

Hussein, Mohammed Yassin v. M.C.I. (IAD WA5-00123), Ostrowski, December 15, 2006 ......................................17

Jalal, Younas v. M.C.I. (IAD M93-06071), Blumer, August 16, 1995 reported: Jalal v. Canada

(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 39 Imm. L.R. (2d) 146 (I.A.D.).................................................9

Jaswal, Kaushaliya Devi v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00087), Goodspeed, Wlodyka, Rayburn,

September 27, 1990.................................................................................................................................................11

Kalair, Sohan Singh v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-919-83), Stone, Heald, Urie, November 29, 1984.................................7

Kalida, Malika v. M.C.I. (IAD M96-08010), Champoux, July 3, 1997.........................................................................6

Kler, Sukhdev Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 82-6350), Goodspeed, Vidal, Arpin, May 25, 1987.........................................14

Kular, Jasmail v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-4990-99), Nadon, August 30, 2000 .....................................................22

Kwan, Man Tin v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5527-00), Muldoon, August 30, 2001..................................................4

Lam, Wong Do v. M.M.I. (I.A.B.), October 2, 1972. .....................................................................................................9

Li, Ronald Fook Shiu v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., no. A-329-95), Strayer, Robertson, Chevalier, August 7,

1996. Reported: Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 1 F.C. 235

(C.A.).................................................................................................................................................................20, 21

Lit, Jaswant Singh v. M.M.I. (I.A.B. 76-6003), Scott, Benedetti, Legaré, August 13, 1976..........................................9

Ly, Ngoc Lan v. M.C.I. (IAD T99-04453), Kelley, June 22, 2000.................................................................................4

M.C.I. v. Sharma, Chaman Jit (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-453-95), Wetson, August 28, 1995 ............................................13

Magnet, Marc v. M.E.I. (IAD W89-00002), Arpin, Goodspeed, Rayburn, April 10, 1990. ........................................20

Mattam, Mary John v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-10213), Arkin, Fatsis, Ahara, December 10, 1987......................................20

Minhas, Surinder Pal Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD M98-10540), Colavecchio, December 15, 1999.......................................4

Mohammed, Amina v. M.C.I. (F.C. no. IMM-1436-05), Shore, October, 27, 2005: 2005 FC 1442 ............................23

Molina, Rufo v. M.C.I. (IAD T98-04608), Kelley, November 8, 1999..........................................................................4

Okafor-Ogbujiagba, Anthony Nwafor v. M.C.I. (IAD T94-05539), Aterman, April 14, 1997. .....................................7

Sponsorship Appeals 26 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

Pabla, Dial v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1210-00), Blais, December 12, 2000..........................................................5

Patel, Ramesh Chandra v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 85-9738), Jew, Arkin, Tisshaw, April 15, 1988.........................................10

Paul, Satnam Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-6049), Howard, Anderson (dissenting), Gillanders,

February 13, 1989. ..................................................................................................................................................14

Pawar, Onkar Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD T98-04518), D’Ignazio, October 1, 1999...........................................................10

Persaud, Kowsilia v. M.C.I. (IAD T96-00912), Kalvin, July 13, 1998........................................................................12

Poonia, Jagraj v. M.E.I. (IAD T91-02478), Arpin, Townshend, Fatsis, October 5, 1993...........................................14

Punni, Pal Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V99-01483), Boscariol, June 30, 2000 ....................................................................22

Purba, Surinder Kaur v. M.C.I. (IAD T95-02315), Teitelbaum, September 10, 1996. ...............................................15

Rai, Suritam Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V95-02710), Major, Wiebe, Dossa, November 30, 1999...............................13, 21

Rajam, Daniel v. M.C.I. (IAD V98-02983), Carver, November 5, 1999.......................................................................4

Reid, Eric v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1357-99), Reed, November 25, 1999............................................................6

Sahota, Gurdev Kaur v. M.C.I. (IAD VA2-03374), Mattu, February 23, 2004...........................................................15

Sai, Jiqiu (Jacqueline) v. M.C.I. (IAD TA0-11403), Michnick, August 22, 2001.........................................................4

Sandhu, Bachhitar Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-10112), Eglington, Goodspeed, Chu, February 4,

1988.........................................................................................................................................................................10

Sandhu, Gurcharan Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-9066), Eglington, Teitelbaum, Sherman,

November 13, 1987.................................................................................................................................................13

Sangha, Amarjit v. M.C..I. (IAD VA1-04029), Boscariol, February 21, 2002 ............................................................22

Sekhon, Amrik Singh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-1982-01), McKeown, December 10, 2001.................................22

Sertovic, Safeta S. v. M.C.I. (IAD TA2-16898. Collins, September 10, 2003 ..............................................................2

Seth, Kewal Krishan v. M.C.I. (IAD M94-05081), Angé, March 27, 1996. ............................................................ 6, 12

Sharma, Sudhir Kumar v. M.E.I. (IAD V92-01628), Wlodyka, Singh, Verma, August 18, 1993...............................14

Shergill, Kundan Singh v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 86-6108), Mawani, Gillanders, Singh, April 8, 1987.

Reported: Shergill v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987), 3 Imm. L.R.

(2d) 126 (I.A.B.)......................................................................................................................................................13

Siddiq, Mohammad v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 79-9088), Weselak, Davey, Teitelbaum, June 10, 1980......................................8

Singh (Ajaib): Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 37;

11 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.); leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada (Doc. 22136, Sopinka,

McLachlin, Iacobucci) refused on February 28, 1991, Singh v. Canada (Minister of

Employment and Immigration) (1991), 13 Imm. L.R. (2d) 46 [Appeal Note]. .......................................................12

Singh, Ajaib v. M.E.I. (I.A.B. 87-4063), Mawani, Wright, Petryshyn, April 26, 1988................................................10

Singh, Babu v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-210-85), Urie, Mahoney, Marceau, January 15, 1986. .......................................8

Singh, Gurmukh v. M.C.I. (IAD T98-08941), Wales, March 15, 2000........................................................................22

Singh, Jaspal v. M.C.I. (IAD TA2-17789), Hoare, August 6. 2004.............................................................................17

Sinniah, Sinnathamby v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-5954-00), Dawson, July 25, 2002; 2002 FCT

822.............................................................................................................................................................................5

Sohal, Talwinder Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V95-00396), Clark, May 23, 1996. .................................................................4

Sran, Pritam Kaur v. M.C.I. (IAD T93-10409), Townshend, May 10, 1995...............................................................11

Syed, Abul Maali v. M.E.I. (IAD T89-01164), Tisshaw, Spencer, Townshend, January 7, 1992................................20

Sponsorship Appeals 27 Legal Services

January 1, 2008 Adoptions - Ch. 4

Taggar: Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Taggar, [1989] 3 F.C. 576;

8 Imm. L.R. (2d) 175 (C.A.). .......................................................................................................................... 7, 9, 11

Taylor, Joan v. M.C.I. (IAD TA4-00871), Whist, May 19, 2004................................................................................20

Terry: R. v. Terry, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 207. .....................................................................................................................21

Toor, Gurdarshan Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD V95-00959), McIsaac, February 4, 1997.......................................................4

Toor, Rajwant Singh v. M.C.I. (IAD VA0-00917), Clark, June 1,2001 (reasons signed June 8,

2001) .......................................................................................................................................................................22

Vaganova, Ludmila v. M.C.I. (IAD TA4-17969), Waters, May 18, 2006 ...................................................................19

Vuong, Khan Duc v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-3139-97), Dubé, July 21, 1998.........................................................6

Vuong, Phuoc v. M.C.I. (IAD TA2-16835), Stein, December 22, 2003 ......................................................................23

Wang, Yan-Qiao v. M.C.I. (IAD T96-04690), Muzzi, October 6, 1997.........................................................................7

Zenati, Entissar v. M.C.I. (IAD M98-09459), Bourbonnais, September 17, 1999.........................................................8