CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Status in Canada
Permanent Residents
Judicial review of Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision dismissing appeal from visa officer’s decision denying applicant’s wife’s application for permanent residence —Application allowed—Applicant, citizen of Pakistan, now permanent resident of Canada, not married when filed application for permanent residence in Islamabad—Married while application being processed, before coming to Canada— At port of entry in 2002, when asked if had any non-accompanying dependants, answered in negative—After landing in Canada, applicant sponsored wife’s application for permanent residence based on family membership—Wife’s application refused by visa officer—IAD dismissed appeal on basis application for permanent residence ongoing process, applicant should have immediately informed visa officer of change of circumstance; applicant should have immediately informed visa officer of marriage at port of entry, upon landing—IAD concluded, based on Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRP Regulations), s. 117(9)(d), applicant’s actions prohibited him from sponsoring wife in future—Issue proper meaning of “at the time of that application” in IRP Regulations, s. 117(9)(d)—Whether referring to time application submitted (as in dela Fuente v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 992) or whether encompassing time from filing of application, throughout processing, until landing complete (as in Dave v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 510; Benjelloun c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration), 2005 FC 844; Tallon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1039)—Federal Court case law divided on issue—dela Fuente interpretation preferred—“At the time of that application” referring to preceding phrase “the sponsor. . . made an application for permanent residence”—“Made an application” directed at action of sponsor in submitting application, not at actions of government officials processing it—Difference between “application”, “processing of the application” confirmed by IRP Regulations, s. 117(8)—IRP Regulations, s. 117(9)(d) not intended to address concern sponsors would make misrepresentations at time of landing; power to discipline for misrepresentations contained elsewhere in statute (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 40)—As to IAD’s conclusion applicant failed to meet obligation to disclose marriage at port of entry (when asked if had any “non-accompanying dependants”), important to note no definition of “dependants” in Act or Regulations—To ask question while assuming spouse dependant inconsistent with modern terminology, inviting confusion, may officially induce error in any response—Plain grammatical sense of “at the time of that application” meaning time at which application filed by applicant—Interpretation according with purposes of legislation, in keeping with context in which provision, words appear—Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002‑227, s. 117(8), (9)(d) (as am. by SOR/2004-167, s. 41)—Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 40.
Tauseef v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-3635-04, 2005 FC 1209, Phelan J., order dated 14/9/05, 9 pp.)