2010 FC 352

IMM-1525-09

March 31, 2010

Principle Established: It’s the reception date that counts.

The applicant mailed her PR application on February 25, 2008 and it was received by the visa office responsible for processing on March 3, 2008. On February 27, 2008, Immigration Canada changed its regulations. Under the previous regulations, the applicant would have been eligible for processing and under the new regulations, she was no longer eligible. She was determined ineligible under the new regulations.

The issue was to determine whether the visa office should have considered the date the application was made, rather than the date it was received.

The court decided that it was the reception date that counts rather than the date the application was mailed by the applicant.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

2010 FC 442

IMM-3475-09

April 23, 2010

Principle Established: Onus on applicant to submit proper reference letters.

The applicant applied for PR under the Skilled Worker Class as a cook. Her application was refused because the Visa Officer determined that her proof of work experience was insufficient.

The Visa Officer did not advise the applicant that the documents were insufficient before refusing the application.

The issue was to determine whether the Visa Officer had a duty to request additional information regarding her work experience before issuing a rejection?

According to the court, there is no general obligation for the Visa Officer to request additional information regarding proof of employment. The onus is on the applicant to provide enough supporting documentation at firsthand. Moreover, applicants are required to follow a checklist to make sure reference letters contain the minimal required information.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

2010 FC 466

IMM-3551-09

April 28, 2010

Principle Established: Visa Officer should have requested more information.

The applicant applied for PR under skilled worker class in 2005 through New Delhi Visa Office and his application was rejected in 2009. He needed 67 points, but he was awarded only 65. Though his spouse had a brother living in Canada, he was not awarded any points for this relationship.

He initially submitted a copy of the relative’s PR card and by the time the application was assessed, the validity on the card was expired.

The issue was to determine whether the Visa Officer should have requested additional information regarding the current status of the relative before refusing the application?

The court found that it was procedurally unfair for the Visa Officer to render a decision based on the expiry date of the PR card, without requesting up-to-date information on the status of the relative. If the Visa Officer wanted more information, she should have asked for it.

The application for judicial review was granted.

T-1140-09

2010 FC 449

April 26, 2010

Principle Established: Substantial connection needed for citizenship

The applicant came to Canada in 2000 on a student visa. She obtained PR status in 2005 and left Canada for post-doctoral studies at Harvard University in US. In 2008 she was granted citizenship, though she has been physically present in Canada for only 346 days.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration appealed this decision, submitting that the Citizenship Judge erred by considering irrelevant factors that granted citizenship.

The court explained that the test for citizenship was whether Canada was the country in which the applicant had centralized her mode of existence. In this case, the answer was negative.

The second question to be asked was whether her connection with Canada was more substantial than with any other country? The court found that though she could prove her strong preference for Canadian culture, it was not enough to show a more substantial connection than the US.

The decision of the Citizenship Judge granting citizenship was set aside.