Troubling Trends in Canada’s Immigration System Via the Excluded Family Member Regulation: A Survey of Jurisprudence and Lawyers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a law purports to combat a problem, many of us take for granted that it is effective in doing so, and that it is not harming people. This article looks at one regulation that, while aiming to protect the integrity of the immigration system, in fact erodes the humanitarian and compassionate objective of reunifying families. Regulation 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations imposes a life-time ban on sponsoring a family member if the sponsor, when immigrating to Canada, did not disclose the existence of the family member and therefore have them examined by immigration officials. This article presents four main findings of two surveys: a survey of case law and of lawyers. First, in looking at the reasons for non-disclosure and non-examination, 90% of cases appear to have nothing to do with fraud, but involved tragic and heartbreaking circumstances. Second, in cases where children were involved, the best interests of those children did not lead to greater rates of family reunification. Third, while the courts have pointed to alternative remedies such as humanitarian and compassionate assessments, at best, these only provide relief in half of the cases. Finally, this regulation not only imposes family separation, but it also punishes sponsors who engaged in “misrepresentation” via non-disclosure of a family member, placing a chill on persons seeking alternative remedies to bring their families to Canada. The article concludes that the problem of fraud in family reunification is overblown, and that regulation 117(9)(d) does more harm than good and should be repealed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".