Mai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 439 : Refusal Upheld Where Adoption Legally Severed Relationship With Biological Parents and Sister

The Federal Court reviewed an Immigration Appeal Division decision dismissing Phan Son Tung Mai’s appeal from the refusal of his application to sponsor his biological parents and sister. Mr. Mai argued that his childhood adoption in Vietnam had not been legally valid and therefore had not severed his relationship with his biological family. He also argued that the IAD acted unfairly by deciding the appeal without an oral hearing. The Court dismissed judicial review, finding that the written process was fair and that the IAD reasonably concluded the evidence did not establish that the adoption was invalid.

Key Principle

The Federal Court confirmed that the IAD may decide a sponsorship appeal in writing where an oral hearing is unnecessary and the process remains fair. A request for an oral hearing does not itself create a right or legitimate expectation that one will be held. The Court also reaffirmed that the IAD may assess the documentary record as a whole when determining whether a legal adoption severed the family relationship for immigration purposes.

Background

Mr. Mai was born in Vietnam and adopted by his aunt in 1996. He entered Canada with his adoptive mother in 1999 and later became a Canadian citizen.

During processing of his original immigration application, Canadian officials questioned whether the adoption was an adoption of convenience and whether the adoption certificate was legal. After interviewing Mr. Mai, his adoptive mother, and his biological mother, immigration officials proceeded with his application.

In 2014, Mr. Mai applied to sponsor his biological parents and sister for permanent residence. The application was refused because his adoption had legally severed the parent-child relationship with his biological parents under subsection 3(2) of the IRPR.

Mr. Mai appealed, arguing that the earlier immigration records showed the adoption was invalid and that he had been accepted into Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds instead.

Court Findings

• No Oral Hearing Was Required

The Court found that the IAD had clearly advised Mr. Mai that his appeal could be decided based on the written record. Although he requested a hearing, he did not identify witnesses, additional evidence, or any specific issue requiring oral testimony. His request alone did not create a legitimate expectation of a hearing. The written process was therefore fair.

• Earlier Immigration Notes Did Not Prove the Adoption Was Invalid

The IAD acknowledged that the CAIPS notes initially raised concerns about the legality of the adoption. However, those concerns appeared to have been resolved after interviews and further processing. The Court found it reasonable for the IAD to read the notes as a whole rather than relying only on the earlier expressions of concern.

• Other Documents Did Not Establish an Unlawful Adoption

Mr. Mai relied on a letter from Alberta Family and Social Services and a Vietnamese Household Record Book. The Court agreed with the IAD that neither document established that the adoption was illegal. The Alberta letter expressed no conclusion about validity, while the household record merely showed that Mr. Mai had left his biological parents’ home. It did not explain why or establish that no lawful adoption occurred.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review. The IAD reasonably concluded that Mr. Mai had not established that his adoption was legally invalid, and it committed no procedural unfairness by deciding the appeal without an oral hearing. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Mai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 439 (CanLII)