financial evaluation

[profiler]

Hi

Just want to know if my son is included on the count if I submit my mom sponsorship this January 2017? because my wife gave birth recently this October 2016 and the coverage on the financial evaluation is 2013, 2014, and 2015. Thanks

To further what canuck_in_uk and jeffporfirio just said, here is the actual "interpretation" from IRPA (See: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/page-1.html?txthl=cut-offs+income+low#s-2 ):
"
minimum necessary income means the amount identified, in the most recent edition of the publication concerning low income cut-offs that is published annually by Statistics Canada under the Statistics Act, for urban areas of residence of 500,000 persons or more as the minimum amount of before-tax annual income necessary to support a group of persons equal in number to the total number of the following persons:

(a) a sponsor and their family members,

(b) the sponsored foreign national, and their family members, whether they are accompanying the foreign national or not, and

(c) every other person, and their family members,

(i) in respect of whom the sponsor has given or co-signed an undertaking that is still in effect, and

(ii) in respect of whom the sponsor’s spouse or common-law partner has given or co-signed an undertaking that is still in effect, if the sponsor’s spouse or common-law partner has co-signed with the sponsor the undertaking in respect of the foreign national referred to in paragraph (b). (revenu vital minimum)
"

This is the directive how to interpret this. Therefore, it doesn't say anything about adjusting based on family composition changes. Therefore, the sponsor will be assessed based on the total number of persons at the time of application in their family.

 

[jeffporfirio]

Rayearth..Thank You!

 

[IvoryX]

Famy composition does count when assessing if the sponsor meets financial requirements for each of the three years proceeding the filing of the application! It has to be the assessment on the REAL picture! I have found a case law to support my Interpretation of the law.
In that case, immigration appeal division counted the size family unit this way:
In 2012 it was a family of 9-- the sponsor, sponsor's husband, sponsors 2 children, sponsor's mom, sponsor's qualifying brother, sponsors in-laws and in-law's dependent child
In 2013, it was 7 people--- the sponsor, the husband, 2 children, sponsor's mom, sponsor's qualifying brother, in-laws dependent child, ADDED sponsor's third new born, REMOVED in-laws as the undertaking was fulfilled.
....
Reference para 16 of Sean v. Canada 2016 Canlii 80502 CA IRB

So, when calculating the total number of people in the application, you go with who was there for the year, NOT the total number at the time of filing. Which makes sense!
Ivory

 

[IvoryX]

Famy composition does count when assessing if the sponsor meets financial requirements for each of the three years proceeding the filing of the application! It has to be the assessment on the REAL picture! I have found a case law to support my Interpretation of the law.
In that case, immigration appeal division counted the size family unit this way:
In 2012 it was a family of 9-- the sponsor, sponsor's husband, sponsors 2 children, sponsor's mom, sponsor's qualifying brother, sponsors in-laws and in-law's dependent child
In 2013, it was 7 people--- the sponsor, the husband, 2 children, sponsor's mom, sponsor's qualifying brother, in-laws dependent child, ADDED sponsor's third new born, REMOVED in-laws as the undertaking was fulfilled.
....
Reference para 16 of Sean v. Canada 2016 Canlii 80502 CA IRB

So, when calculating the total number of people in the application, you go with who was there for the year, NOT the total number at the time of filing. Which makes sense!
Ivory

Sorry, had a typo about the case law.
It is Reference para 16 of Sran v. Canada 2016 Canlii 80502 CA IRB

 

[canuck_in_uk]

Famy composition does count when assessing if the sponsor meets financial requirements for each of the three years proceeding the filing of the application! It has to be the assessment on the REAL picture! I have found a case law to support my Interpretation of the law.
In that case, immigration appeal division counted the size family unit this way:
In 2012 it was a family of 9-- the sponsor, sponsor's husband, sponsors 2 children, sponsor's mom, sponsor's qualifying brother, sponsors in-laws and in-law's dependent child
In 2013, it was 7 people--- the sponsor, the husband, 2 children, sponsor's mom, sponsor's qualifying brother, in-laws dependent child, ADDED sponsor's third new born, REMOVED in-laws as the undertaking was fulfilled.
....
Reference para 16 of Sean v. Canada 2016 Canlii 80502 CA IRB

So, when calculating the total number of people in the application, you go with who was there for the year, NOT the total number at the time of filing. Which makes sense!
Ivory

Sigh. You most certainly have not found a case that supports your interpretation.

That entire situation refers to changes to the family composition AFTER THE APP WAS SUBMITTED, which is completely different from the topic at hand. IRCC always accounts for changes after submission, such as when a parent dies mid-process, the sponsor divorces, a child dies etc.

 

[IvoryX]

Sign... Canuck_in_uk, you are right that this case law is not an good example. I initially thought because it is de novo hearing...
I don't think I can find a case at this point as this provision was introduced in 2014. Given the long processing time, any argumentative cases on the subject may not have made it to the appeals. I have to wait..

But again, I believe the assessment on the consecutive 3-yr financial requirements prior the filing has to be on the real family composition each year for reasons I put in my previous posts.

Let's agree to disagree.
Ivory

 

[IvoryX]

Canadian immigration law has its foundation in the common law system which means the imm law is ever evolving due the unavoidable vagueness of some provisions and different interpretations incurred. ("Common law is law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals, stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future cases.") It is part of the immigration law system we need to incorporate into our daily interpretation and application of the Act and Regs. It is very unfortunate to hear it would be associated with "last-ditch gamble".

Visa officers, IAD and even judges make errors when interpreting laws because we are all humans and we have different perspectives. Then mistakes have opportunities to be corrected at a high level of tribunal/courts. Look at how many cases have gone all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada! It is for this fighting spirit and existence of this process, should error occurs, justice is best served not to the individual seeking it, but to the public.

With all due respect to all who have the knowledge and expertise in the field on this forum, I am voicing a different interpretation of the provision. It is really up to the individual who is seeking answers to his question to further consult and decide the best avenue to pursue his case.

I have said all I want/have to say on this topic and am bowing out this thread.

Enjoyed the discussion.

Ivory

 

[profiler]

Canadian immigration law has its foundation in the common law system which means the imm law is ever evolving due the unavoidable vagueness of some provisions and different interpretations incurred. ("Common law is law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals, stated in decisions that nominally decide individual cases but that in addition have precedential effect on future cases.") It is part of the immigration law system we need to incorporate into our daily interpretation and application of the Act and Regs. It is very unfortunate to hear it would be associated with "last-ditch gamble".

Thanks for the history lesson. I did learn this in grade school in Ontario. I guess Canadian schools aren't terrible .

In fact, if you are asking a judge/justice who is presiding over any type of case, Immigration or Small Claims, you are asking them to provide an interpretation of the potential acts that your 'case' may lay across. Their decision is final, unless you can find some procedural failure to raise with the Supreme Court. Therefore, you are relying solely on being an adversary to CIC, in a courtroom, to over-turn and resume processing of your application. You'd have already spent a small fortune to get there, and there is only a small chance that the judge would agree with you, that the interpretation (as pasted) + the guides are wrong.

Sounds like the definition of last-ditch to me...