Background
Ololade Boluwatife Adeleke, a Nigerian citizen, sought permanent residence through family class sponsorship by her father, Olaolu Israel Adeleke, who became a Canadian citizen in November 2022. The applicant applied for PR in July 2023 at age 19. Her father had not declared her as a non-accompanying dependent in his own permanent residence application in 2018 because he had doubts regarding his paternity at that time.
To support the sponsorship application, Mr. Adeleke provided a DNA paternity test confirming biological relationship, bank records showing financial support, a sworn affidavit of relationship, and photographs. An immigration officer refused the application under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, finding the applicant excluded as a member of the family class because she had not been declared as a non-accompanying dependent and was not examined at Mr. Adeleke’s original PR processing.
The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissed Mr. Adeleke’s appeal, accepting his explanation for non-disclosure but finding he was nonetheless obligated to declare all dependents. The IAD concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds once it found the applicant was not a family class member.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Gleeson dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR is a “strict provision” with no exceptions. The Court confirmed that non-disclosed, non-accompanying family members cannot be admitted as family class members, regardless of circumstances such as paternity doubts or lack of fraudulent intent. The statutory requirement to declare all dependent family members at the time of the initial PR application is mandatory and absolute.
The Court further held that the IAD correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction to assess humanitarian and compassionate considerations, including best interests of the child, in the context of a sponsorship appeal where the applicant failed to qualify as a family class member. The Court noted that section 65 of the IRPA expressly precludes such consideration by the IAD in these circumstances. The applicant’s alternative argument regarding a temporary public policy exemption also failed because the exemption did not apply—the father had become a permanent resident under the PV2 economic class, not as a refugee claimant or sponsored applicant.
Key Takeaways
- Paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR is strictly enforced: all non-accompanying dependent family members must be declared in the PR application or the applicant is permanently excluded from family class sponsorship.
- Legitimate reasons for non-disclosure—such as paternity uncertainty—do not excuse compliance with the mandatory declaration requirement.
- The Immigration Appeal Division lacks jurisdiction to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds in sponsorship appeals when an applicant is not a family class member.
- Section 25 of the IRPA (humanitarian and compassionate grounds application) remains an alternative pathway for those excluded from family class sponsorship.
- A temporary public policy exemption exists for certain categories (resettled refugees, those granted protection in Canada, or sponsored family members) but does not extend to applicants who became permanent residents through economic class programs.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Canadian family class sponsorship law prioritizes early disclosure and complete transparency, even when applicants face legitimate obstacles to knowing about dependent family members at the time of their initial PR application. While the outcome appears harsh—the father did not fraudulently conceal his daughter but genuinely lacked knowledge of her at the time—the Court’s strict interpretation underscores that the regulatory framework contains no discretionary exceptions for sympathetic circumstances.
For Canadian citizens and permanent residents seeking to sponsor previously unknown or undeclared family members, this decision makes clear that the sponsorship pathway is closed once a PR application has been processed without declaring those dependents. However, those in such circumstances retain recourse through section 25 of the IRPA, which permits humanitarian and compassionate applications for permanent residence outside the normal class categories—though this requires a separate application and is not automatic. The decision also clarifies that the IAD’s authority is limited by statute and cannot override the strict requirements of the regulations even in cases involving the best interests of the child.