Overcoming Immigration Refusals & Appeals

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

This case is an example of how reconsideration was the only viable option after an unjust refusal. Due to policy changes after the initial application, reapplying was not possible, making a reconsideration request critical.

(S) Situation:

The applicant submitted a Spousal Open Work Permit application in early 2024 while their spouse was enrolled in a diploma program in Ontario. Due to processing delays, they couldn’t submit the official marriage certificate at the time of application, so they provided a Record of Solemnization and supporting relationship evidence.

IRCC refused the application, stating insufficient proof of marriage. A reconsideration request was filed with the marriage certificate, but IRCC wrongfully refused again, claiming non-receipt of the documents – even though IRCC had already acknowledged receipt.

(T) Task:

• SAAB Immigration’s objective was to overturn the refusal by demonstrating that:
  The correct marriage certificate was submitted before the officer’s decision.
• IRCC had already acknowledged receipt of the missing documents.
  The applicant met all eligibility requirements before the policy change, which otherwise would have disqualified them from reapplying.
• Given the policy shift on January 22, 2024, reapplication was not an option—this made reconsideration the only viable strategy.

(A) Action:

• Reconsideration Request:
  • Filed a formal reconsideration request, attaching proof of IRCC’s acknowledgment email confirming that the marriage certificate was received before refusal.
• Clarification on Marriage Certificate:
  • Explained that the long-form Marriage License serves as an official marriage certificate under Ontario law, despite its title.
• Submission Evidence to Prove Compliance:
  • Since the representative portal did not allow uploads, provided:
    • Screenshot of failed upload attempt.
    • Confirmation email from IRCC showing the documents were attached to the file.
• Backup Visitor Record Application:
  • Since the applicant’s visitor status was expiring, filed a Visitor Record application as a contingency to maintain legal status in Canada while reconsideration was in process.

(R) Result:

• IRCC reversed the refusal and approved the SOWP application after multiple reconsideration requests.
• The applicant was granted a work permit, allowing them to stay and work in Canada with their spouse.
• This case highlights the importance of persistence, strong documentation, and proper legal representation in handling administrative errors and wrongful refusals.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

• The applicant submitted a spousal sponsorship application, which was refused because IRCC did not recognize their common-law relationship due to a lack of financial interdependence before a specific date.
• The couple had lived together for several years but had not merged their finances until later in their relationship.
• IRCC misinterpreted their cohabitation as common-law from an earlier date, leading to a refusal on the grounds of misrepresentation.

(T) Task:

• The goal was to challenge IRCC’s refusal by proving:
  • The couple’s relationship evolved over time, and their common-law status was valid only from a later date.
  • Financial interdependence is a key criterion for common-law partnerships under Canadian immigration law.
  • The M. v. H. (1999 SCC) case precedent supports defining common-law relationships based on economic interdependence.
• Instead of appealing, we opted for a fresh, stronger reapplication, addressing all previous concerns.

(A) Action:

• Gathered extensive documentation, including:
  • Detailed relationship timeline, lease agreements, and proof of joint financial accounts.
  • Supporting affidavits from family, employers, and mutual friends confirming their commitment.
• Cited M. v. H. (1999 SCC) to establish that:
  • Financial interdependence is critical in defining common-law status.
  • The couple’s prior living arrangement did not qualify as common-law until they merged finances.
• Submitted a new sponsorship application, ensuring clarity in presenting the legal definitions and rectifying prior misunderstandings.

(R) Result:

• The new application was approved, with IRCC acknowledging the correct timeline and financial interdependence.
• The applicant successfully obtained permanent residence, allowing them to remain in Canada with their spouse.
• The case highlights the importance of proper legal representation, as the previous agent’s errors resulted in unnecessary refusal and distress.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

• The sponsor married the applicant before receiving their Confirmation of Permanent Residence (COPR) but failed to declare their marriage to IRCC, assuming they could sponsor their spouse later.
• After moving to Canada, they had a child together, but when the spousal sponsorship was submitted in 2014, IRCC refused it, citing that the marriage was not declared during the PR process, making the applicant ineligible for sponsorship under IRCC’s excluded family member rule.
• The family remained separated for 10 years, unsure of how to overcome the refusal, losing precious years together.

(T) Task:

• The goal was to reunite the family in Canada after a decade by reapplying correctly and addressing the inadmissibility due to non-disclosure.
• We needed to:
  • Prove that the failure to declare the marriage was due to a misunderstanding, not misrepresentation.
  • Address the earlier refusal by building a strong legal argument and providing compelling evidence.
  • Demonstrate the humanitarian and compassionate impact of the prolonged family separation.

(A) Action:

• The couple previously sought assistance from a ghost consultant, who misrepresented their case, provided fraudulent documents, and never gave them access to their own file.
• When they retained SAAB Immigration Services Inc. in 2024, we:
  • Obtained the GCMS notes from the original refusal to understand IRCC’s reasoning in detail.
  • Correctly prepared a new sponsorship application, explicitly addressing the previous inadmissibility.
  • Provided a detailed legal submission, citing relevant case law and IRCC’s policy guidelines, demonstrating that the applicant should not be penalized indefinitely for the earlier mistake.
  • Highlighted the significant emotional and financial hardship caused by 10 years of separation.

(R) Result:

• After years of being unable to find a solution, our team successfully overturned the refusal, and the applicant was granted permanent residence.
• The family was finally reunited in Canada after a decade, proving that even complex refusals can be overcome with the right legal approach and expertise.
• This case highlights the dangers of ghost consultants and why choosing a licensed immigration professional is crucial in handling complex sponsorship cases.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

A client applied for a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) after completing their Computer Systems Technician – Software Engineering program at Sheridan College, Brampton. However, IRCC refused the application, citing that the applicant did not maintain full-time student status during their studies.

Due to academic struggles and backlog courses, the student had multiple part-time semesters, making them technically ineligible for a PGWP. This refusal left them without work authorization, jeopardizing their future in Canada and their path to permanent residence.

(T) Task:

• The challenge was to convince IRCC to reconsider the PGWP application by proving that the applicant was a genuine student who faced unavoidable academic setbacks but remained committed to completing their program.
• Since reapplying was not an option, we had to request reconsideration and present a compelling argument demonstrating exceptional circumstances.

(A) Action:

• Chronological Breakdown of Academic History: We provided a semester-by-semester explanation outlining the reasons for part-time enrollment, including delayed grading, unavailable courses, and prerequisite restrictions imposed by the college.
• Supporting Documentation: Submitted emails from Sheridan College administrators confirming that course unavailability led to part-time status and was beyond the student’s control.
• Humanitarian Considerations: Highlighted that denying PGWP would cause undue hardship, preventing the applicant from gaining Canadian work experience, which was vital for PR.
• Compliance with Immigration Rules: Demonstrated that the applicant never violated study permit conditions, consistently extended their permit on time, and remained academically engaged despite setbacks.
• Request for Officer’s Discretion: Explained that IRCC officers have discretionary power, and given the genuine nature of the situation, approving the PGWP would be a fair and reasonable decision.

(R) Result:

• The reconsideration request was approved, and the applicant was granted a PGWP.
• With a valid work permit, the applicant gained Canadian work experience, later qualifying for PR.
• This case reinforced the importance of officer discretion and showed that even technically ineligible applicants can secure approvals with the right approach and supporting evidence.

(S) Situation:

An applicant’s Express Entry Permanent Residence application was refused by IRCC because their employer’s reference letter lacked detailed job duties. The refusal resulted in IRCC disregarding the applicant’s work experience, reducing their Comprehensive Ranking System score, and making them ineligible for PR.

The applicant had no option to appeal and was advised that a judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada might be the only recourse.

(T) Task:

• The goal was to challenge IRCC’s refusal on the grounds that procedural fairness was not upheld.
• IRCC never requested additional clarification or documents from the applicant before refusing the application.
• The argument needed to prove that the refusal was unfair and unreasonable based on existing case law.

(A) Action:

• A lawyer filed a Judicial Review application at the Federal Court of Canada, arguing that the applicant was not given an opportunity to clarify their job duties before refusal.
• A procedural fairness argument was presented, demonstrating that IRCC should have requested additional details before making a final decision.
• Past case precedents were cited, reinforcing that refusals in similar situations had been overturned due to lack of procedural fairness.
• The lawyer worked on securing leave for judicial review, allowing the case to be reconsidered.

(R) Result:

• The Federal Court ruled in favor of the applicant, determining that IRCC had acted unfairly by refusing the PR application without requesting additional details.
• IRCC was ordered to reassess the application, and the applicant’s work experience was reconsidered, restoring their CRS points.
• The applicant was able to successfully obtain PR, thanks to the judicial review process correcting the unfair refusal.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

The applicant, a nominee under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP), was unable to submit their permanent residence application within the required timeline due to serious personal circumstances. The applicant had initially received a Nomination Certificate in 2023, but the associated Invitation to Apply expired in December 2023 before submission.

Additionally, the applicant was experiencing financial and emotional distress due to personal matters, including a deteriorating relationship and obligations that prevented timely submission. With their Post-Graduation Work Permit nearing expiry, the urgency of securing permanent residence in Canada intensified.

(T) Task:

The primary objectives were:

1. Requesting a transfer of the existing nomination to the applicant’s new Express Entry profile, which was created after the expiration of the previous one.
2. Seeking an extension of the nomination certificate, despite the standard six-month validity rule that typically does not allow extensions.
3. Providing compelling justification for the request, demonstrating the exceptional personal circumstances that prevented compliance with the original timeline.

(A) Action:

• A formal request was submitted to OINP, detailing the extenuating personal circumstances that prevented timely submission.
• Supporting documents were attached, including:
  • A letter explaining the financial and emotional difficulties faced.
  • Proof of cancellation of the old Express Entry profile and the creation of a new profile.
  • A new IELTS TRF to show that the applicant remained eligible.
• Multiple follow-ups were conducted with OINP, reinforcing the applicant’s ongoing commitment to Ontario and the validity of their nomination.
• Strategic engagement with the OINP officers helped clarify that the applicant’s case merited exceptional consideration.

(R) Result:

• OINP approved both the nomination transfer and extension, an outcome that is not commonly granted.
• The nomination was transferred to the new Express Entry profile, and the applicant received 600 additional CRS points.
• The applicant received an ITA within the Express Entry system, allowing them to proceed with their PR application without further delay.