父母团聚移民要求申请人，在申请前连续三年收入达到LICO的1.3倍，还要求在团聚移民的审理期间持续达到要求。
对父母收入要求的法律原文是移民规程IRPR 133(1)(j)(i)(B)条，
(B) has a total income that is at least equal to the minimum necessary income, plus 30%, for each of the three consecutive taxation years immediately preceding the date of filing of the sponsorship application…
父母团聚移民只要不是因为虚假陈述或者严重犯罪被拒签，担保人有权上诉到移民上诉委员会IAD，如果移民局不和解（和解的过程叫做ADR），可以开庭辩论并获得详细的判决。因为上诉机制的存在，只要收入不是差的太离谱，并且在上诉的时候收入满足了要求，团聚移民大概率可以获得通过。
上诉委员会对团聚移民上诉的原则主要参考Chirwa标准和Jugpall标准。
第一：团聚移民拒签，可以用“人道主义和同情”为由上诉的，“人道主义和同情”的标准在1970年Chirwa一案中设立：
those facts, established by the evidence, which would excite in a reasonable man in a civilized community a desire to relieve the misfortunes of another – so long as those misfortunes warrant the granting of special relief from the provisions of the Immigration Act.
那些由证据确定的事实，将使文明社会中一个理性的人渴望减轻另一个人的不幸 – 而这些不幸需要移民法给予救济。
这个标准其实非常高，仅仅是父母不能办理移民，通常并不能“让一个理性的人渴望减轻他的不幸”，当然上诉还能以“未成年的最佳利益”为由，但父母团聚移民，一般和未成年的最佳利益没什么关系。所以在父母团聚移民的案件中，用Chirwa标准批准的上诉非常少。
第二：1999年，Jugpall案降低了Chirwa案中设立的标准。它的精髓是，只要在上诉的时候，担保人已经满足了收入要求，那么即使申请的时候收入要求没有达到，也可以批准上诉。
36. In the context of cases where Parliament’s concerns with admissibility have been met, it may not be necessary to look for overwhelming circumstances in order to grant special relief. The values of quick and fair adjudication would not be served by forcing the appellant to start the sponsorship process all over again if the evidence clearly demonstrates that the appellant is presently capable of meeting the standard for sponsorship which Parliament has set in the amendments to the Regulations.
36. 在这些案件中，只要上诉人满足了之前没有满足的法律标准，不需要强大的理由也可以给予特殊考虑。如果证据清楚地表明上诉人目前能够达到议会制订的修正后的收入标准，还要让上诉人重新递交担保申请，将无法实现快速和公正的司法价值。
37. Having said that, this panel is of the view that there must be positive factors present over and above the ability of the appellant to now surmount the obstacle to admissibility in order for the Appeal Division to grant special relief. There must be positive factors independent of financial circumstances which move the decision-maker to conclude that it would be unfair to require the appellant to start the whole sponsorship process all over again. …
37. 尽管如此，本委员会认为，除了上诉人满足了之前没有满足的法律标准，还需要有更多的积极的因素，上诉委员会才应该给予特别救济。必须存在独立于财务状况之外的积极因素让决策者得出结论，认为要求上诉人重新递交担保申请是不公平的。
38. As well, there should be no negative factors which would then undermine any justification for granting special relief. For example, the appellant who initially failed to meet the Low Income Cut-Off and who now has exceeded it for the past 12 months, but who, for example, nonetheless regularly defaults on support payments under provincial family law hardly ranks as deserving enough to warrant special relief on compassionate or humanitarian grounds. In a case where the appellant’s changed financial circumstances bring him above the Low Income Cut-Off over the 12 months preceding the date of hearing, but the appellant is otherwise unsympathetic, the appropriate response of the Appeal Division might well be to dismiss the appeal, leaving a new sponsorship as the only option for the appellant.
38. 同样，不应有任何消极因素破坏给予特别救济的理由。例如，最初未能达到收入要求的上诉人在过去12个月已经达到，但是，例如，根据省里制定的家庭法，他们经常拖欠抚养费，这就不值得在出于同情或人道主义理由的情况下特别考量。如果上诉人的财务状况发生变化，使他在听证日期之前的12个月内超过最低收入要求，但上诉人却缺乏同情心，上诉庭的适当判决应当是驳回上诉，让上诉人重新递交担保申请成为唯一选择。
在实际应用中，有很多情形都可以成为“积极因素”，比如母亲很孤单，上诉人经常做志愿活动等。就用Jugpall本案来说，上诉人Jugpall, Sukhjeewan Singh仅仅是富有孝心、努力工作，上诉庭就以家庭团聚为由批准了上诉。
第三：Jugpall标准的司法复核。2001年，移民局因不满Jugpall标准，就上诉委员会对核心使用了Jugpall标准的Dang案到联邦法院申请司法复核。这一案件中，移民局认为Jugpall标准释法过于宽泛，大幅降低Chirwa案中设立的标准，应当予以撤销。但最终联邦法院判移民局败诉。
[68] While I agree with the submission of counsel for the Minister that this is a significant lowering of the threshold, after careful reflection I am unable to accept the submission that in so doing the Appeal Division lowered the threshold to such an extent as to abandon the statutory requirement for the existence of compassionate or humanitarian considerations that warrant the granting of special relief. [68] 我同意移民局律师提出的，这大幅降低了团聚移民的标准。但在仔细考量之后，我不认同移民局律师辩称的，上诉委员会将门槛降到了如此之低，低到无视了同情或人道主义考量的法定要求。 [69] While the threshold applied by the Appeal Division may have been extremely low, there remains a threshold other than the simple subsequent meeting of the LICO requirement. It is for the Appeal Division, and not for this Court, to set this threshold. [69] 虽然上诉庭适用的门槛可能非常低，但除了满足最低收入的要求之外，仍然有一个门槛。设立这个门槛的机构，应当是上诉委员会，而不是本法院。
虽然联邦法院给Dang案留了个口子让移民局继续上诉到更高级的法院成为可能，但移民局后来没有上诉。Jugpall标准就这样在上诉委员会确立了下来。
所以在目前，“只要上诉的时候收入满足了要求，之前的收入要求可以放宽”已经是担保父母祖父母的团聚移民的黄金标准，Jugpall案和Dang案也被无数案例上诉案例引用。
这里，金博士要提醒大家，切勿为了满足收入条件虚报收入，这将会导致担保人自己的移民身份被取消!请参考我们之前的文章：担保父母时收入造假导致担保人永久居民身份被取消。
