Introduction

This paper presents a highlight and rationale for the effect of Jessica’s situation on the admissibility of Albert into Canada on Express Entry. In so doing, it utilizes the comprehensive ranking system developed by the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada. Based on the ranking results, the research suggests some practical ways to minimize instances of inadmissibility for Albert.

Effect of Jessica’s Situation on Albert’s Admissibility

Jessica’s daughter is suffering from Downs Syndrome but is otherwise healthy, at least form the comments of the father. Her records from school show that the syndrome might have caused her to start her schooling late. Under the legal framework for immigration in Canada, Albert is under an obligation to disclose this fact. Once this information is dutifully disclosed, it shall be incumbent upon the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) may send a Procedural Fairness Letter requiring the strong factual arguments in support of the application for permanent residence.

In consideration of a detailed response to such a contemplated request, Albert should note that the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) shall, in considering the response, be guided by section 32(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This section contemplates the development of Regulations that other than explain the terms used in the Act, also provides for the evaluation of the criteria for the applicants for permanent residency including for the members of their families. Particularly, section 32(d) of IRPA contemplates that the Regulation provides the conditions upon which the applications may be granted either in respect of studies or work. Others are regulations regarding the condition to be imposed on the employers. It is imperative to note at this stage that the scope of restrictions goes beyond the considerations of the individual applicants and covers others including the family members, and others. That is to say, in consideration of Albert’s application, the condition of Jessica is well contemplated within the scope.

Notably, there have been developed the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations under the provision of section 32 of the IPRA. Particularly, Division 4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations addresses inadmissibility arising from facts whether an omission or based on a reasonable belief for grounds of health, among others. Particularly, section 38(1) of the Regulations provides that a foreign national would not be admitted ion this ground if their health condition is a danger to the public, public safety or can cause excessive demand to the Canadian health system. Regarding the last parameter, the IRCC has set the basis of the excess of health care or social service costs to be $20,517 per year as under the Canadian Temporary Public Policy Regarding Excessive Demand on Health and Social Services. 

Instructively, regarding the application of the above laws, the De Jong Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) has stated that the immigration official smuts evaluate the personal circumstances of each applicant. In this regard, the provision set out above has twofold ramifications for Alberta’s situation. First and considering this provision, it is no doubt that Albert is not a national of Canada and is thus a foreign national contemplated under this section. Secondly, it may be recalled that it was found that the medical condition of Jessica in integral to this assessment of Albert’s application of permanent residency by section 32(b) and 32(d) of IRPA. Under the Canadian legal framework, it will not matter whether the child will be accompanying Albert or not (Lu & Ng, 2019, p. 8). This is so since ether is contemplated a possibility of family reunification. For Jessica’s condition to be the basis of inadmissibility, however, it must meet any of the three criteria set out under section 38(1) of the Regulations.

The Down Syndrome suffered by Jessica is not communicable. Further, it is not inherited. As such, there can be no evidence that Albert has the disease. As such, there are no chances that Jessica’s condition may compromise the State security of Canada.

Suggestions for Maximization of Chances

Given the provision of section 38(1) of the Regulations, Albert can prove that there is a proper medical plan taken in respect of the Downs Syndrome and its consequential effects on Jessica. This will assure the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada that the possible health coverage costs will not surpass the set minimum. Secondly, as Albert’ story paints a picture of a disease condition that is not too severe, it shall be necessary to accompany its Procedural Fairness Letter with the proper diagnosis report of Jessica’s condition. Additionally, Albert should provide his diagnosis report regarding the Downs Syndrome just to clear the air that this was not one of the rare cases in which the disease was inherited. In dos doing this, it may get help from experts. Thirdly, Albert should endeavor to ensure that Jessica does not accompany him to Canada to reduce changes of scrutiny on the effect on national security and safety. Further, since Albert has had no issues supporting her child, evidence of his net worth will also be important. Lastly, Albert can exploit the existence of any extended family in Canada that may complete the efforts to assist with taking care of Jessica.

Conclusion

Whether Jessica accompanies Albert to Canada or not, her medical condition is bound to prima facie impact the application for Express Entry by Albert. It will be thus incumbent on Albert to disclose that the condition does not pose any threats toa Canadian security, safety, or the social protection systems. The research has revealed inadmissibility on health grounds will certainly arise. Accordingly, it recommends that Albert can exploit options on diagnoses, proof of financial status, leaving Jessica in China, and leveraging on an extended family to reduce instances of inadmissibility on health grounds.

Works Cited

Books

Lu, Chaohui, and Edward Ng. “Healthy immigrant effect by immigrant category in

Canada.” Health reports 30.4 (2019): 3-11.

Legislations

Canadian Temporary Public Policy Regarding Excessive Demand on Health and Social Services. 

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27)

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (SOR/2002-227)

Case law

De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 57

Heiman v. Parrish, 262 Kan.926 (1997)