Case Study– De-facto dependants

IP 3 6.11 De facto dependants

De facto dependants (who may or may not be blood relatives) do not meet the definition of family members. The officer must be satisfied that these persons are dependent on the family unit in which membership is claimed and cannot apply as a family member. The dependency may be emotional or economic and will often be a combination of these factors. Such persons would normally, but not exclusively, reside with the principal applicant (PA) as members of the same household. They must be the dependants of a PA who has been determined to be a member of one of the three refugee classes. The de facto dependant must also meet the definition of refugee in his own right even when a dependency relationship is established. Persons who form part of the family unit should be examined sympathetically. This is consistent with efforts to keep family units together if at all possible. If the de facto relationship cannot be established, then the refugee must be assessed in their own right as a refugee and, failing that, could be considered under H&C grounds

.

Mohammed is a principal applicant from Liberia. He came to Canada as a GAR. During the war he was separated from his spouse and children and 6 orphaned nieces and nephews all under the age of 22 who were under his care. According to tradition the brother who is alive takes charge of the children of his brother or sister after their death. He had included all their names as dependants on his application. There is no legal process for guardianship in such cases in their country.

His spouse and children and other de-facto dependents were still back in Liberia. He was able to bring his immediate family over under the One Year Window but could not bring his de-facto dependents.1. because they were not refugees in their own right, and 2. There was no legal document showing that he was their guardian.

Questions for discussion:

  1. What problems can you identify in this case?
  2. What recommendations can you make?

Case study - Family Re-unification

IRPA 3 (1) OBJECTIVES AND APPLICATIONS
The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are
3 (d) to see that families are re-united in Canada

Khadija is a spouse of a Principal applicant from Somalia, who came to Canada as a GAR. She left behind her mother and minor siblings in the asylum country. When she left, her father who was in his 90s was alive, but since her arrival in Canada her father died and left his family vulnerable. The family is also under UNHCR protection, but have not been referred to the Embassy. Very few cases get referred even if they are deserving cases. Her settlement in Canada is being greatly affected because she would like to be united with her family.

In this case, her family is not considered a part of the application as she is not the principal applicant, nor doesit fall under the de-facto dependents category.

The options in this case are: 1. referral by UNHCR, 2. Private Sponsorship.3. Family Sponsorship

All three options are problematic. UNHCR referrals are difficult. Private sponsorship is not easy, and client is not in a position to sponsor her family.

Questions for discussion:

1. What suggestions can we make to facilitate the process of family re-unification?