Last Updated on August 20, 2016
Requests for Reconsideration or Reactivation
Officers could come across situations where the applicant fails to comply with the request for additional documentation. In this scenario, the decision maker could consider declaring the application as abandoned in accordance with the guidelines specified in section 13.2 of theCitizenship Act. Alternatively, the decision maker could consider refusing the application for non compliance, in accordance with the provisions specified in section 10 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).
It is worth highlighting that the onus remains on the applicant for satisfying the decision maker that the authorities need to reconsider their application. The authorities have permitted applicants or their representatives to request the officers to reconsider their immigration applications. In some situations, the applicant or the representative might mention that they did not receive any e-mail that instructed them to provide additional information. In this scenario, the decision maker would need to consider all the relevant factors and circumstances of the case. This would enable them to determine whether the situation warrants the exercise of their discretion for reconsidering the application.
In some cases, the decision maker might find that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) made an error. As such, they might find that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) did not send the e-mail requesting additional information to the applicant or representative. In this scenario, the office responsible for processing the application would need to re-open the application. In addition, it would need to provide the applicant with the opportunity for submitting the documentation required.
The authorities permit officers to reactivate abandoned citizenship applications in specific cases only. It is worth highlighting that the authorities would only consider reactivating abandoned applications if they come across administrative errors made by citizenship officials. A typical instance of this would be a situation where the applicant notifies the citizenship office of a new e-mail address. However, the office sends the notice for taking the Oath of Citizenship to the applicant’s former address.
Any decision that the officers make on whether to exercise discretion to reconsider remains subject to judicial review before the Federal Court. Therefore, the officers would need to document all decisions in detail in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) file. In addition, they would need to document the relevant rationale and supporting documentation as well. This would enable them to demonstrate that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) received, assessed and rendered a decision on the request for reconsideration.
Officers might feel the need to examine additional information on reconsideration. For this, they would need to review the following documents:
- Humanitarian and compassionate assessment: Reconsideration of a negative H&C decision
- Section 17.4 of chapter IP 8
- Response to enquiries after refusal and,
- Instructions on reactivating abandoned applications
Evidence of Sent E-mails for Litigation Cases
In some situations, litigation might take place with allegations of non-receipt of an e-mail. In this scenario, the decision makers would need to provide copies of the sent e-mail. For this, they would need to print a copy of the eDoc found under the outgoing correspondence record. Or, they could print a copy of the note placed in the client’s Global Case Management System (GCMS) file containing:
- The date
- The time
- The content of the e-mail sent and,
- The recipient’s e-mail address
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)