Madatory to report changes in medical condition??

Can the immigration visa be denied if the spouse has medical condition such as vision problem?

I wouldn't want to go into details as it's very personal, sorry, but my spouse has developed some vision problem. It's not contagious by any means. I contacted CIC in Canada and they said that I must notify the local immigration office in his country, which we will do.

 

Now I am worried: can it risk the process?

 

My next question: is it mandatory to report any change in physical/medical conditions to CIC?

Edited by banderson - 03 Sep 2010 at 2:33pm

I have done research and find the following but I am sure more will follow from others

'OP2 - Processing Members of the Family Class', CIC:
5.19 Medical Requirements
"Members of the family class are medically inadmissible if they or their family members are likely to be a danger to public health or to public safety or if their admission might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on health or social services [A38(1)]. See Exceptions to medical inadmissibility, Section 5.20 below."
5.20
"A38(2)(a) states that spouses, common-law partners and dependent children who are members of the family class are not inadmissible even if they have a medical condition that will result in excessive demand to health or social services

sorry I meant to send you this instead of previous one.. sorry.
sorry its getting technical but i have kept it as simple as I can..

Section 38 (1)(c) of IRPA was challenged in Supreme Court.

There were also community and immigrant serving organizations who have intervened in these types of cases and also in this challenge.

There have been some cases also. For example the Hilewitz v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and de Jong v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This exemption did not help the Hilewitz and de Jong families because they applied as business class applicants.

Ethno-Racial People with Disabilities Coalition (ERDCO) and the Canadian Association for Community Living (CACL) were the interveners in this case and were represented by ARCH.

You can find information on this case here:

http://www.ryerson.ca/erdco/pressrelease_immigration.doc

You can also find more details of the case here:

Hilewitz v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
de Jong v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

http://www.sulemanco.com/blogpost.php?blogID=110

Hilewitz v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and de Jong v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
http://tinyurl.com/gpltc

Hilewitz v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and de Jong v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2005/2005scc57.html

According to CACL and ERDCO, the decision is considered a victory for persons with disabilities and their families, and established that immigrants with disabilities can become valued members of Canadian society.

CACL and ERDCO's purpose in intervening was to draw the Supreme Court's attention to the fact that persons with disabilities are being systematically discriminated against by being denied admission to Canada and that Canada immigration fails to consider other aspects such as the positive contributions that persons with disabilities make to society, and the role their families and communities play in supporting persons with disabilities.

Sami55, Thank you so much for the information. Phew! You have no idea how much weight you lifted off my shoulders! I really appreciate it.

Edited by banderson - 03 Sep 2010 at 2:34pm

You can delete your posts under post options.