Sahota v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 756 : Citizenship Applications for Adopted Children Refused Because the Adoptions Were Not Proven Valid and Genuine

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of citizenship applications for two adopted children from India.

The citizenship officer was not satisfied that the adoptions complied with Indian law or that genuine parent-child relationships had been created.

The Federal Court upheld the refusals.

Key Principle

For citizenship through adoption, the applicants must show that the adoption:

• created a genuine parent-child relationship; and
• complied with the law of the country where the adoption occurred.

A registered adoption deed does not automatically prove that every legal requirement for a valid foreign adoption has been met.

Background

The Canadian parents said they had informally adopted Gurmeet and Jagmohan when the children were very young.

Formal adoption deeds were later registered in India in 2008.

The officer had concerns about whether the required “giving and taking” ceremony had actually occurred and whether genuine parental relationships had been created.

The children continued to refer to their biological parents as “mom” and “dad,” and school documents continued to list their biological parents. There were also inconsistencies about the adoption ceremonies.

Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the adoption deeds did not automatically establish that the adoptions were valid under Indian law.

The applicants still had the burden of showing that the legal requirements for adoption had been satisfied.

The Court accepted the officer’s finding that a proper giving and taking ceremony was required under Indian law and that the evidence did not establish that such a ceremony had taken place.

For Gurmeet, the Court also upheld the officer’s concerns that she was over 15 years old at the time of the formal adoption and that no evidence had been provided of a recognized custom allowing such an adoption.

For Jagmohan, the Court found that the officer had reasonably concluded that a genuine parent-child relationship had not been established.

Although the officer made an error in interpreting one provision of Indian adoption law, the Court found that the error did not change the result because there were other valid reasons supporting the refusals.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed both applications for judicial review.

The case shows that citizenship applications based on foreign adoptions require more than an adoption deed. Applicants should be prepared to prove both the legal validity of the adoption and the existence of a genuine parent-child relationship.

Case Citation:

Sahota v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 756 CanLII