2010 FC 298
March 16, 2010
Principle Established: Citizenship misrepresentation does render applicant inadmissible
The applicant was a permanent resident of Canada who applied for citizenship. In her application she indicated she was absent for only 311 days during the four year period. She was asked to provide proof of residence in Canada and subsequently indicated being absent for 359 days. The applicant was called for a hearing and she was given citizenship despite contradicting information in her application.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration appealed this decision and questioned the standard of review of the Citizenship Judge.
The court point out that the Citizenship Judge’s decision in granting citizenship was deficient. The fact that the applicant submitted conflicting information in her residency questionnaires was prima facie evidence of misrepresentation.
However, citizenship misrepresentation does not render a PR inadmissible or subject to removal proceedings. The applicant can still reapply for citizenship.
The application for judicial review was allowed and the decision of the Citizenship Judge quashed.
2010 FC 115
February 4, 2010
Principle Established: Visa Office has the right to revoke a PR visa that has already been issued.
The Applicant applied for Permanent Residence (PR) under the Skilled Worker Category after receiving a positive Arranged Employment Offer (AEO) from Service Canada. Her application was approved and she was already in possession of her PR visa.
Shortly afterwards, the Visa Officer who issued the PR Visa learnt that the Applicant’s employer was being investigated for fraudulent Employment Offers.
The Visa Officer immediately called the applicant for an interview at the High Commission to “discuss problems with her visa”. The applicant decided to leave for Canada before the interview. When she landed in Canada, she was told that her visa has been cancelled by the Singapore Visa Office. She was granted entry for further examination.
The main issue in this case was whether the Visa Officer was right to revoke her PR visa that was already issued?
The Court opined that the Visa Officer had the right to request the applicant to re-attend an interview even though PR visas were already issued. The Visa Officer gave the applicant the opportunity to discuss the alleged problem with her visa. However, the applicant decided not to attend the interview. Once visas are issued they remain valid until expiry, unless they are revoked.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
2010 FC 40
January 14, 2010
Principle Established: Excessive demand on healthcare cannot be countered by offering to pay.
The Applicant was selected by Quebec as an investor, but was found to be inadmissible because her daughter, who suffered from multiple sclerosis, would cause an excessive demand on Canadian health care.
Although the disease is degenerative, it has been controlled by a drug that would cost $15,000 yearly. An excessive demand was considered one that exceeds the average annual Canadian per capita cost of $5000.
The Visa Office determined that in Canada, the drug would be normally covered by the health care system, causing an excessive demand.
The main issue raised in this case was whether the applicant could offer to pay for these medical expenses considered excessive?
The court found that if the drug would not be covered by Quebec healthcare system, and if the applicant’s daughter would be eligible to take private insurance, then there would be no excessive demand. However, if the drug is funded by Quebec Government, the applicant is inadmissible and cannot offer to pay for these expenses.
The application for judicial review was allowed because the immigration officer did not verity with the Government of Quebec.
2010 FC 54
January 20, 2010
Principle Established: A foreign worker should not be refused a WP based on his future intent of becoming a PR.
The Applicant was a working as a cook in Sri Lanka. He made two applications for WP following LMO approvals, but was refused. He initially applied as a cook, but the visa officer found that he was not qualified enough to work as a cook. He subsequently secured a job as kitchen helper with another employer, but this time his WP he was refused because the visa officer could not understand why the applicant would accept a job as a helper while he was a cook. The visa officer also determined that the applicant was not a genuine foreign worker based on his future intent of becoming a PR.
The issue is whether the second visa officer erred in his decision about granting the WP.
The court found out that the visa officer failed to consider the applicant’s intention of gaining Canadian experience while working as a helper and aspire to become a cook.
The court also decided that the applicant should not be refused a WP based on his future intent to become a PR as long as the visa officer is satisfied that the applicant will leave at the end of his permit and not remain in Canada illegally.
The application for judicial review was allowed.
WP: Work Permit
PR: Permanent Resident