There are four grounds on which an applicant may become inadmissible for Canada immigration visa: Health, Security, Financial inability and Misrepresentation. The final process in a Canada PR application is health and security checks. Any applicant who fails medical or security checks fails to get Canada immigration status and is inadmissible into Canada. This article is aimed at providing reasons and remedies for medical inadmissibility.
What are the reasons for Canada immigration visa refusal on medical grounds?
There are three grounds on which an application for Canadian permanent residence may be denied on health grounds: An applicant’s health condition may be
1) danger to public health due to communicable disease.
2) danger to public safety due to mental disorder and
3) may impose excessive burden on Canadian healthcare and social services.
- Danger to public health
- Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis (TB) and untreated Syphilis are considered a danger to public health unless they are treated according to Canadian standards; HIV positive is not considered danger to health.
- In cases of inactive Pulmonary Tuberculosis (TB) and/or adequately treated syphilis, the officer may grant visa and put conditions on the applicant for medical surveillance or medication in Canada.
- Danger to public safety
Serious uncontrolled and/or uncontrollable mental health problems such as:
- certain impulsive sociopathic behaviour disorders;
- some aberrant sexual disorders such as pedophilia;
- certain paranoid states or some organic brain syndromes associated with violence or risk of harm to others;
- applicants with substance abuse leading to antisocial behaviours such as violence, and impaired driving; and
- other types of hostile, disruptive behaviour.
- 3. Excessive demand on Canadian health care or social services
This provision is not applicable on a convention refugee or a spouse and a child of a sponsor. The spouse or a child of an inadmissible person is also exempt from this provision.
If an applicant is likely to impose a burden on Canadian health care or social services, he or she may be inadmissible. Excessive health care demand means expenditure more than the average health care costs of Canadians. For year 2013, the per capita health and social services cost for Canadians is $6285 per year. This amount is multiplied by the number of years required in the medical assessment for health care and social services,which is usually 5 years but not more than 10 years. Thus an applicant who is likely to spend more than $31,425 in 5 years on health care and social services will be inadmissible.
The ability and intent to defray the costs of health and social services by opting out of public services and availability of private insurance in some provinces is a positive factor to be considered by the officer. This factor is only relevant in out-patient health care and it is not relevant in publically funded in-patient health care since there is no cost recovery mechanism.(Deol v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2002 FCA 271 (ability to defray health care costs in in-patient cases irrelevant factor since most health care services are government funded, without cost recovery provisions), Companioni v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2009 FC 1315 (ability to defray health care and social services costs relevant factor in out-patient cases, if the applicant has ability to opt out of publically funded health care medication system by private insurance or otherwise), Hilewitz v. Canada (M.C.I.); De Jong v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2005 SCC 57, Colaco v. Canada (M.C.I.) 2007 FCA 282) (ability to defray social services costs is relevant factor).
Is a principal applicant inadmissible due to inadmissibility of his spouse or child on health grounds?
Yes, an inadmissible spouse or child of a principal applicant renders him or her inadmissible as well.
What is the procedure for medical refusals?
In every medical refusal, the officer gives 60 day notice to the applicant to comment on medical refusal before making a final decision. The applicant can request extension of time to collect necessary information and the officer may or may not grant extension. The officer must consider an applicant’s comments as per the provisions of Immigration to Canada and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations (IRPA).
What are the powers of or guidelines for an immigration officer?
The IRPA regulations 31 mandate that, an officer who is assessing the foreign national’s health condition shall consider
(a) Any report made by a health practitioner or medical laboratory with respect to the foreign national;
(b) The communicability of any disease that the foreign national is affected by or carries; and
(c) The impact that the disease could have on other persons living in Canada.
The IRPA regulation 32 mandates that an officer may impose, vary or cancel the following conditions in respect of any foreign national who is required to submit to a medical examination:
(a) to report at the specified times and places for medical examination, surveillance or treatment; and
(b) to provide proof, at the specified times and places, of compliance with the conditions imposed.
If a condition requires more than $31425 on health care and social services, it is likely to result in Canada visa refusal on medical grounds. The convention refugees or spouses and children of a sponsor are exempted from this provision. For out-patient applicants, the cost mitigating capacity of an applicant can be considered. For in-patient applicants, the cost mitigating factor is irrelevant since there is no mechanism for cost recovery for government funded public health care system in Canada.
Danger to Public health
If an applicant has inactive TB or adequately treated Syphilis, the officer may grant Canada Immigration visa on conditions of medical surveillance in Canada. HIV is also not considered danger to public health, if spouses of HIV positive applicants are informed of this condition.
If an applicant has active TB or untreated Syphilis, the Canada immigration visa may be refused unless an applicant can be treated according to Canadian standards.
Canada immigration requires Authority to Return to Canada (ARC) for those who have been deported from Canada. Here follows a sample of our ARC submissions to Canada Immigration that led to re-unification of a couple who was separated for 8 years.
FACTS – The relevant facts of this case are as follows:
- On June 25, 2002 Mr Sandhu entered Canada without a valid visa and made a refugee claim. He entered Canada after residing in USA for 6 years without status.
- On July 22, 2002, Mr Sandhu married to Parkash Kaur, a permanent resident of Canada.
- On June 18, 2003, the RPD found that Mr Sandhu had abandoned his refugee case. As a result he was issued a removal order.
- The removal order became deportation order after 30 days because the client did not possess a travel documents to leave Canada.
- In February 2004, about 6-7 months after the removal order, MrSandhu was deported from Canada after receiving the travel documents.
- On February 17, 2005, the client was interviewed by the Visa officer in New Delhi and his application for Permanent residence was rejected because the Visa officer found that the marriage of the client with Parkash Kaur was not genuine.
- The client’s wife appealed the refusal to IAD, and on February 11, 2008, the IAD allowed the appeal, set aside the refusal of Visa office and ordered the Visa office to continue the processing of his application.
- At page 5, para 1 of the CAIPS notes, the New Delhi Visa Officehas notified that MrSandhu has met the test and therefore his marriage with ParkashKaur was genuine in law.
- As part of the client’s processing, the Visa officer requested the client to obtain Authorization to Return to Canada (ARC).
- At Page 7 of the CAIPS notes, Fanny Ho, the Regional Program Manager, Inland Enforcement, Edmonton, CBSA, remarks that they have no objection to the issuance of ARC to the client because he was cooperative in applying for Travel document, waived PRRA and purchased his own ticket. On the same page of the CAIPS, it is indicated that the subject does not appear on CPIC and JOIN and therefore there were no security issues in his case.
- At Page 8 of the CAIPS, the CIChas also recommended that the subject should be granted ARC because he was not a risk to the society and that he was cooperative with the CIC and the CBSA.
- However, on June 4, 2009, the Canada Immigration Program Manager (IPM) at New Delhi Visa office denied ARC to the subject.The Canada Immigration Program Manager (IPM) denied ARC based on the fact that the subject entered Canada illegally, and remained in USA for 6 years without status.The IPM also noted that though there was no evidence of other criminal acts, the subject’s substantial history of violating law didnot convince him that he will present no risk to Canada.He also noted that he did not believe that the client will successfully establish himself economically in Canada should he return to Canada.
- There is no security or health concern in this case as no such issue has been raised by the visa office, nor is there any adverse criminal or health record against the client anywhere to date.
- Despite the subject’s genuine marriage with Canadian permanent resident wife, the IPM decided that there exists no compelling reasons to allow the subject to enter Canada.
- Eventually, the subject filed an appeal with the Federal Court of Canada through Pace Law Firm against the refusal of ARC.
- In error of law, the lawyers from Pace Law Firm, filed an appeal against the ARC refusal in the Federal Court, instead of the IRB. The Federal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as MrSandhu was a member of the family class. The proper avenue of appeal was IRB and not the Federal Court.
- As a result, in Dec 2009, the leave for Judicial Review of the refusal of ARC was not granted by the Federal Court.
- Consequently, the client changed his representatives and the case was transferred to our office.
- The client was advised by our office to reapply for the spousal visa and, at present,the visa office has requested the client to obtain the ARC.
- However,no updated concerns on the issue of ARC have been provided by the Canada Immigration visa office. Therefore, the client relies on CAIPS notes dated till Aug 20, 2009 with respect to addressing the ARC related concerns.
THE LAW : Relevant Act
The authority granted to the IPM is contained in subsection 52(1) of IRPA (the Act), which states:
If a removal order has been enforced, the foreign national shall not return to Canada, unless authorized by an officer or in other prescribed circumstances.
Failed refugee claimants such as the applicants are subject to removal from Canada once their claim has been finally determined. Section 223 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 (the Regulations) outlines three types of removal orders, namely, departure orders, exclusion orders and deportation orders.
Under subsection 224(2) of the Regulations, a foreign national who is issued a departure order must leave Canada within 30 days of the order becoming enforceable. Failure to do so results in the departure order becoming a deportation order.
SUBMISSION : The client requests grant of ARC because-
1. The 6-7 months delay in his departure from Canada (that transformed his removal order into deportation order) was not caused by him.
2. He was deported because he abandoned his refugee claim and waived his PRRA.
3. He was not a security or health risk to Canada
4. He has a compelling reason to return to Canada, that is, to resume his family life, which has been disrupted for 7.5 years.
5. A period of 7 years has passed between the infraction of the Immigration regulations and the present ARC submission. The infraction itself was a “not at fault” infraction that led to the transformation of removal order into a deportation order.
ILLEGAL ENTRY, REASONS FOR DELAY IN DEPARTURE AND ECONOMIC CONCERNS
The client respectfully submits that the IPM considered irrelevant factors in reaching his decision on ARC. The IPM considered subject’s illegal entry into Canada and lack of economic benefits to Canada from the subject,as reasons for denying ARC. However, the IPM ignored the relevant factor, that is, why the client did not depart from Canada within 30 days after the removal order?
The jurisprudence of our country makes it abundantly clear that the relevant issue in failed refugee cases seeking ARC is ‘what caused the delay in removal, that transformed the removal order into the deportation order, and certainly not the illegal entry of the applicant into Canada’. (Khakh v. Canada, 2008; Sahakyan v. Canada, 2004; Umlaniv. Canada, 2008).
As per the relevant legislation above, it is respectfully submitted that the client would not have been required to apply for ARC, had he departed Canada within the 30 days of the removal order. In other words, the IPM could not have raised the issues of client’s illegal entries into Canada and the US, had the client departed Canada within the time. The issue of client’s economic viability would have not been raised by the IPM, had the client departed Canada within 30 days of the removal order because an ARC is only required if the removal order becomes a deportation order after 30 days.
In Khakh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 710 (CanLII), the Federal court allowed the ARC refusal appeal in similar circumstances despite the subjects’ illegal entry into Canada. The couple in Khakh applied to immigrate to Canada under Provincial Nominee Program after being deported. Initially, they entered Canada illegally after 3 failed attempts to get a Canadian visa in India. Upon landing they applied for refugee status in Canada. When their refugee case was rejected, they left Canada after recourse to courts, which caused delay in their removal.
The differences between the instant case and Khakh are also significant. The Khakhs were not members of the family class whereas in the instant case the subject is a member of the family class. In Khakh, both the Visa office and the IPM consented against the ARC, whereas in the instant case the CBSA and CIC recommended in favour of ARC whilethe IPM decided against ARC. As such, the case at bar is a much stronger case in favour of the ARC.
The court in Khakh found at para 34 that Khakhs’ illegal entry into Canada should not have been prejudicial to a grant of ARC because their illegal entry into Canada was done for the purpose of applying for a valid yet unsuccessful refugee claim,
…the IPM’s reliance on the applicants’ illegal entry into Canada in 2003, which along with their late departure in March 2006 combined to form the “multiple violations” referred to in the decision, was unreasonable in that no consideration was given to the applicants’ purpose for illegally entering Canada in 2003; namely file a claim for refugee protection, which, as stated in Sahakyan, above, they were entitled to do under the law. While respecting immigration laws is a legitimate policy consideration in the IPM’s exercise of discretion, the evidence before this Court establishes that the applicants’ only true violation was their failure to leave Canada within the time frame mandated.
Hence the truly relevant issue in the instant case is ‘what caused the infraction and not the illegal entry of the subject into Canada’. If the subject caused the infraction, the subject is liable. But on the facts of this case, the subject is not liable for the infraction. Therefore, an ARC request ought to be granted in his respectful submission.
With respect to the issue of illegal entry into Canada, the Khakh v. Canada is supported by Sahakyan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),2004 FC 1542 (CanLII), 2004 FC 1542, 267 F.T.R. 126, at para 22, where Mr. Justice Harrington eloquently writes,
… No matter how [the applicant] got here, no matter how he may have pitched his chance of success, no matter that he wanted to join his brother, no matter his economic motives, he had the right under Part 2 of the Act to seek refugee protection in Canada. As the Regulations make clear, the fact that his application was not successful has no bearing on his right to seek permanent residence as an immigrant. All he did was run afoul of the timing requirements governing his departure from Canada, and yet he was not asked the reasons for that delay.
Thus the Canadian jurisprudence makes it quite clear that the relevant issue in failed refugee cases seeking ARC is not the illegal entry of the applicant into Canada, but it is ‘whether the applicant has any role in delaying or evading the removal order that transformed it into the deportation order.
REASONS FOR DELAY IN DEPARTURE
It is clear from the CAIPS notes that the client was cooperative and waived his PRRA rights in order to depart from Canada. His only fault was an administrative delay in getting his travel documents. This is clearly a “not at fault” infraction on part of the subject. He did not cause a delay in his departure and as such he submits that he should not be penalized for the delay.
The client is a bonffide spousal family class member, therefore, the economic viability of his immigration to Canada ought not to be an issue, for if that would have been an issue, he would not have been granted a bonafide family class member status.
Even if this is a concern, the client respectfully submits that he was new to Canada in 2002-03 and his jobless status at that time was not different from many other new comers who require time to assimilate into the job market.
Moreover,the client submits that his spouse was employed at that time, and he was not on social assistance at anytime. They jointly took care of all legal expenses for their immigration cases from their own savings and did not receive any legal aid.
The client submits that his case has compelling reasons in favor of ARC because of his marriage to a Canadian permanent resident who had miscarriage in July 2007 in client’s absence. The client and his wife have remained in two different countries for over 7 years despite being a bonafide married couple.The Operational Manual OP1, s. 6.2 directs the officers that,
“bonafide marriages” are examples of factors that would normally constitute a compelling reason for returning to Canada. However, no one factor alone should automatically serve to override concerns related to the safety of Canadians and security of Canadian society”.
In the instant case, there are compelling reasons for MrSandhu’s return to Canada to resume his family life. He is not merely seeking return to Canada to attend a family function or for a casual visit. Rather he is seeking return to Canada to fulfil his legitimate commitments to his bona fide wife. There are no overriding safety and security concerns in the case at bar as the client does not have a criminal record. As such an ARC ought to be granted.
PASSAGE OF TIME
The Operational Manual OP1 at s. 6.2 also directs officers to consider “how much time have passed since infractions that led to the removal order”. The client submits that the client was removed in Feb. 2004, about 7 months after the issuance of removal order in June 2003. However this delay was caused due to administrative delay in getting his travel documents from the Indian High Commission. The infraction therefore occurred without client’s fault about 7 years ago. The client submits that the 7 years time between the removal order and the present ARC application ought to be regarded as a sufficient time to warrant ARC.
In Umlani v. Canada, 2008, the court, while allowing Ulmani’s appeal, regarded 6 years gap between the removal order and the ARC decision as significant, stating at para 63 of the decision that “the removal order against the Applicant took effect approximately 6 years before the Decision. There is no explanation as to why the Officer regards a 6-year gap as being of any significance or relevance on the facts of this case”.
The client has acknowledged that his behaviour was unlawful and unacceptable with respect to his illegal entry into Canada and the US, however, since March 2002, the client has not violated any term, condition or law. He has not attempted to enter any country illegally in the intervening period of last 9 years.
In conclusion, as in Khakh,at para 36,so in MrSandhu’s case it can be stated that,
…at no time in the IPM’s decision or the VO’s recommendation is any consideration given to the fact that deportation orders are often applied to those individuals who have been found inadmissible to Canada on various grounds including serious criminality, national security, or violations of human and international rights. Unlike in those situations, the applicants in the case at bar are not security risks, nor do they possess criminal records. While they entered Canada illegally, they made a valid, albeit unsuccessful claim for refugee protection. They now seek to return to Canada as immigrants, having already been found eligible as provincial nominees. Accordingly, in the words of Mr. Justice Harrington in Sahakyan, above, their only violation was to “run afoul of the timing requirements” governing their departure from Canada. It strikes the Court as unreasonable that the applicants would be denied authorization to return under such circumstances, especially considering that no consideration was given to their reasons for not departing Canada before March 2006.
Accordingly, in basing his rejection on factors not relevant to their delayed departure, and then not further considering the applicants’ reasons for such tardiness, the IPM erred in his decision. On this basis, the applicants’ application for judicial review in docket IMM-2342-07 must be allowed.
Summing up, it is similarly submitted in Mr Sandhu’s case that, at no time in the IPM’s decision is any consideration given to the fact that deportation orders are often applied to those individuals who have been found inadmissible to Canada on various grounds including serious criminality, national security, or violations of human and international rights. Unlike in those situations, the client in the case at bar is not a security risk, nor does he possess criminal records. While he entered Canada illegally, he made a valid, albeit unsuccessful claim for refugee protection. He now seeks to return to Canada as an immigrant, having already been found eligible as a bonafide spousal family class member. For all these reasons, Mr Sandhu seeks the minister’s authority to Return to Canada.
Canada has gradually transformed itself to be one of the most appropriate locations across the globe to be suitable for settling down. There have been various affirmative factors which have backed up this trend and transformation of the country. Innumerable people have been a part of this immigration to Canada, so that they can become a permanent resident of the country. This Canada immigration has significantly resulted in the sudden boom in the population count of the location. It is a true fact that when the population reaches an excessive level in any country, it becomes very hard to manage the same sense of discipline and growth which the country previously had. Keeping these things in mind, the Canadian government has introduced various new laws and restrictions related to immigration to Canada. People have chosen Canada as a great place to emigrate to and this is due to the reason that Canada immigration is relatively easier than most of the other countries, which are known for the vast employment opportunities. In addition to this, the environment of the country is extremely pleasing, which encourages people from any nationality to get adjusted easily.
Positives of Canada: There are certain points which support Canada to be a great place to live in. These points are as follows:
Canada Immigration Alternatives/Modes: There are different modes through which you can come to Canada. These modes/options are as follows:
Living in Canada is a good experience as there is a proper arrangement for each and everything over there. Although the climate over there is of extreme nature, but the patterns of houses, buildings, etc. are all well prepared for this fact. Therefore, it is a good option to consider immigration to Canada.
The second largest country of the world namely “CANADA” welcomes with open arms, to anybody who wishes to grab opportunity of life. This very beautiful North American country provides you with everything in field of studies, business, career growth etc. Many people from different countries are applying for immigration to Canada.
The reasons are many:
Canada is one of the few countries which religiously diversify, and one can find people from different religion living together with no conflicts. The country covers extensive range of beliefs, values and customs. It has identified religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, Baptist, Anglicans, catholic and many more. Canada is a very gracious country.
The country has literacy rate of 99 percent. The Government of the country is very much responsible for the education to be compulsorily provided to age group from 5 to 18. In most of the cases Government bears the education expense of a child to make him independent and responsible. This makes Canada the educated country of the globe.
The GDP of Canada is US$1.82 trillion which makes it eleventh largest economy in the world. There are vast business opportunities for an individual as it is one of the largest trading countries, with exceedingly globalized economy. There is full support from government for an immigrant to settle down in the country.
There is a sense of security, safety and growth in Canada which is why it attracts the maximum immigrants from all over the world becoming No. 1 country. There are many social bodies set up by immigrants themselves to help new immigrants that have come to Canada to find jobs, home and other essentials to settle down in the country.
People in Canada though are from different religion and culture yet they are much more amiable than people in any country. There is no sense of loneliness or aloofness for a person new to this country.
Person who is jobless in Canada need not worry, as discussed; Government is very supportive and run many programs which provide contractual jobs to people.
The environment is clean and peaceful. The country is very particular about the cleanliness of the environment and thus takes strict actions against anyone who dares to spoil the ecology of the country.
Excellent health care system and updated technology with hospitals well equipped with medical systems and machinery.
Harmless neighborhoods, peaceful acceptance of all cultures and religions, Canada is a member of NAFTA(North American Free Trade Agreement) and G8, Strict crime control, less racism are some more reasons as to why migrate to CANADA.
Canada is known to be the country with highest number of immigrants. It is a right country for those who seek positivity and opportunities to grow. With increasing number of people planning for immigration to Canada, has let to immigration process very easy and fast as compared to other countries. Canada immigration lawyer help you settle down soon and also assist you in trouble free visa processing like Canada visa rejection or refusal. So, all those who are planning to migrate from their country must think about settling down in CANADA.
Almost all international students, who genuinely study abroad for the prestige and value of Canadian education, have their eyes set on obtaining Canada PR status eventually. The cost of this project in fee alone is intolerably 2.5 times higher than the domestic student in Canada.
This article is aimed at providing guidance to students with respect to reducing the cost of Canada immigration as a student. When students decide about studying abroad, they consider various factors, such as the cost of foreign education, the duration of education and availability of student work permits. However, in a fit of excitement of fleeing to an enchanted foreign land, they often ignore various cheaper options available to them in their home countries to achieve Canada PR status after studies.
The cost factor
The cost of education in Canada for International students is 2.5 times more than the domestic students.
In a typical college, the domestic fee is $5000 per year and the international fee is around $13,000. Add to it $10,000, the cost of living, and you will reap a bill to the tune of $23,000 per year, just for college studies.
The typical university fee for domestic students for an undergraduate degree is $6500 per year and the international fee is $17,000. Add to it $10,000, the cost of living, and you will get a bill to the tune of $27,000 for university studies.
Depending upon the degree program, the typical fee for a master’s degree program for domestic students is $4000 to $30,000 and for international students, the fee is $8000 to $35,000. Add to it the cost of living, a student will typically get a bill of $18,000 to $45,000 per year.
The time factor
A typical college diploma is of 1, 2 or 3 year duration.
A typical university undergraduate degree is 3 to 4 years in length and a typical master’s degree program is 1 or 2 years long. A post graduate diploma, which is earned after undergraduate studies, is typically 1 year long.
Total cost of foreign education
This means that a college student will spend $23,000 to $69,000 for their studies; an undergraduate student will spend $27,000 to $108,000; and a master’s degree holder will spend $36,000 to $90,000.
Work permit factor
It is true that international students are allowed to work a certain number of hours in a week. The international students think that the financial burden of their studies can be offset by working in Canada. But the problem is that the work will affect their academic grades, which will in turn affect their chances of securing permanent job offer after completion of their studies. Without a job offer, most students, except Master’s and PH.D students, will be ineligible to apply for Canadian permanent residence.
As long as, students are working part time or during summer holidays, there may not be any problem with the academic grades. The students should also keep in mind that it will not always be possible to secure a part time job. They should also keep in mind that the part time job will have a negligible effect on reducing the cost of their studies. At most, they may reduce the expense by $4000 in a year, provided they work full time for 4 months during summer holidays on a salary of $1500 per month.
Students are so excited to study abroad that they often misguide their parents about their potential to work and study at the same time without affecting their academic grades. They just want to escape the brutality of the system in their home countries. They want an immediate exit and they are unwilling to save their parents money by choosing other options available to them for acquiring Canada PR status at a much lower cost.
The cheaper domestic option
There are some universities and colleges in India who offer diplomas and degrees that are eligible for immigration to Canada. The cost of studies is $3000 to $12,000 compared to $23,000 to $108,000 expense on foreign education. Students can choose any diploma or degree which is eligible for Canada PR processing. Currently, many diplomas are eligible. The list of diplomas may change over time, therefore, it is advisable to choose shorter diplomas, requiring 1 or 2 years of studies. Even if the demand list changes, there is no loss to a student since the students received the diploma for which they paid fees. This loss is mush lesser than the loss a student incurs as an international student. I have seen many students returning home without obtaining Canada PR status after spending $50,000 to $70, 000 of their parents’ hard earned money on foreign education.
The end product of this discussion is that there is a sense in obtaining Canada PR status in $5000rather than in $50,000. Remember, students can always upgrade their studies after becoming Canadian Permanent Resident on domestic fee structure rather than sky rocketing international fee structure.
With changing time people are getting more and more fascinated towards western countries. The craze of settling abroad is largely seen in Indians. Many Indians have or desire to have permanent resident status of developed countries like UK PR , USA PR, Canada PR etc. Lifestyle of these countries attract the residents here and most of them somehow shift for study, work etc and end up settling there and never returning back to their roots. The major consequence that our country is facing because of this phenomenon is brain drain. The intelligent and bright brains of India are playing instrumental role in these developed countries.
Immigration to Canada is term which requires understanding. When someone moves and settles in a country like Canada other then his native country is an immigrant. The reason responsible for the same may be a voluntary desire to settle abroad, the infrastructure, the economy, the developed political state of the country.
Western countries have made a major impact on our life’s be it our eating habits, clothes, home décor or the other essentials of basic lifestyle. Also the craze of settling abroad is largely seen in Indians. Immigration abroad has become a large scale phenomenon in India especially in Punjab. People here are easily attracted to the life abroad.NRI marriages too are in full boom. It is largely undertaken with a hope of better life in an unseen world. Also marring their daughter abroad is considered as an opportunity by girl’s side to settle abroad.
India is topping the list in Canada immigration. We must understand that the young generation which on large scale is moving abroad should be given better opportunities within the country itself. But unfortunately it is seen that if someone has stayed abroad he faces difficulty in adjusting in his original environment. Canada is the only country which tops in welcoming the largest number of immigrants from all over the world.
There are many factors which leads a person to think to migrate to this North American country. Opportunity in this country knocks everyone’s door and keeping on knocking it until the person grabs it. The major factor which attracts every one here is that this country is a mixture of people coming from all religions, cultures, have different beliefs and values but still manage to stay together without any criticism or fights. People are more than affable and helpful. Government has set up many small bodies to help immigrants settle here. There is a hassle free visa processing system.
With all other factors Canada has become one of the best education systems in the world. Government fully supports the education system and aid the students for free education up to certain age to make them independent and educated. Canada has world’s highest literacy rate. People also find unlimited job opportunities there.
So we can conclude by saying that if a person is getting so many advantages in other country which his home country is not providing him then probably no one would be stupid enough to lose the chance. But Canada Visa refusal or rejection may cause problem to who want to immigration to Canada.