Sponsorship through the Canada Family Visa for immigration to Canada is a common approach for conjugal partners. Conjugal partners make use of the family class program to settle down together. However, immigration law is continuously developing as the world moves forward. It is essential to know that no specific features can be permanent.
The juridical system of Canada offers authority to people to challenge the laws that they find unfair. However, this act can be interpreted in several ways, and people are gradually starting to claim what is rightfully theirs.
Courts are liable to decide when a particular immigration decision is illogical, and they change it accordingly.
Canada is slowly emerging to be very accepting of all sexual orientations. However, the laws prohibit any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Moreover, the definition of family has experienced development in the past few years in Canada.
Canada has changed its laws to accept same-sex and unmarried conjugal couples and normative heterosexual married couples.
Immigration law shapes and reflects the society that makes it. A recent case that has indeed verified Canada’s boundaries to stand on the family was the A.P. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 906 (CanLII) actually reflected how revelatory specific law could be.
This case was about A.P., a gay man, and A.M. a straight woman. The authorities canceled the conjugal sponsoring despite them having the kid. However, A.P. decided to challenge the decision and appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division, but all in vain.
According to IAD, a straight woman and homosexual man can’t justify the sexual component of the conjugal partnership. A.P. appealed further to the Federal Court of Canada, and he was lucky as Judge Fuhrer took his side. The judge stated that there was no reason why they can’t make a conjugal unit because they can experience sexual intimacy with external aids.
Judge Fuhrer made it clear in his decision that mixed-orientation couples can also have conjugal unions. However, he announced them eligible for the sponsorship.
Background of Couple
A.P. came to Canada a few years ago. However, he claimed that he was a victim of oppression in his unnamed country of origin because of being gay. His claim was successful, and he received the protected person status and permanent residency in Canada.
After some time, he met a heterosexual girl named A.M. However, the girl was from a third country, and they both met in university. They both became good friends and started spending time together. However, after that, they both had intercourse, what describes as a “night on the town” by the court. This encounter resulted in the birth of a child.
The couple then decided to parent the child together; however, A.P. continued to identify as gay, but not bisexual. A.P. was unable to return to his home country. However, efforts of A.M. and A.P. to relocate or marry in a third country failed.
Therefore, A.P. thought to sponsor their child and A.M. as her conjugal partner. He tried to support them for the Canada Family Visa.
Appeal to IAD
A Canadian immigration officer denied A.P’s application, and then he decided to appeal to the IAD and IRB Canada. It is a specialized Canadian administrative tribunal to handle any such matters.
A.P. then challenged the ruling of IAD to the Federal Court of Canada. However, the court determined that decision of office was not reasonable. The decision was sent back to another office for redetermination.
Thus, Justice Fuhrer concluded that it was entirely possible that a “mixed-orientation” couple can form a conjugal union. However, they can form a conjugal couple, even one that did not have any sexual intimacy. Hence, the Federal Court sent back A.P.’s sponsorship to another office for reconsideration.
The above series of events demonstrates different sides of Canada and its judicial system. The government offers the ability to challenge a decision that a person considers unfair. It shows the extensive and developing interpretation of Canadian law.
However, the gradual but clear development in Canadian law shows that sexual orientation is an intolerable ground of discrimination. The growth of the Canadian understanding for the family from the traditional heterosexual married couples to comprise same-sex couples and those which are not previously married – like A.P. and A.M. Moreover, we can confidently say that the Federal government’s decision regarding A.P. and A.M. is both bold and grounds in the Canadian judicial system. This case is a shaper of new Canadian law. However, it also raises several questions as it answers.