Visa officers have the discretion to extend the time limits on visa that have been issued.
The 2018 decision in Austin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) illustrates this point. There, a person was issued a permanent resident visa that expired 35 days after it was issued. The person booked an airline ticket, however, she was unable to depart as scheduled because her car broke down. She booked a new ticket but was not allowed to board a plane to Canada because her visa had expired. She then wrote to Canadian immigration officials asking that they extend the validity period of her visa.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada refused, writing that:
An immigrant visa was issued to you with an expiry date of October 25, 2017. The onus was on you to travel prior to the expiry date of your visa or to notify this office if you were unable to travel prior to the date of expiry.
Your medicals have now expired and we are unable to re-open your file.
We regret to advise that your file is now closed and no further processing can be carried out.
The internal Global Case Management System notes further stated that:
FILE REVIEWED Rec’d the following email from applicant. PA was issued COPR valid to 25Oct2017. Satisfied PA rec’d landing docs in time for travel as she indicated she was booked to travel 19Oct2017 but did not travel. No reasonable explanation has been submitted as to why PA did not travel on 19Oct2017. In addition PA did not notify our office until today, two days after the expiry of her COPR that she was unable to travel. PA is not a landed immigrant to date and now 23yrs old so not eligible to be spr’d in the future.Read more ›
A permanent resident can lose their permanent resident status and be banned from Canada if they commit misrepresentation. However, they have a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (the “IAD“). At the IAD, the permanent resident can argue that the determination that they committed misrepresentation was based on a factual error or mistake in law. They can also argue that there are sufficient humanitarian & compassionate (“H&C“) to warrant relief.
In Wang v. Canada, the Federal Court of Canada set out the following factors (generally known as the “Wang” or the “modified Chieu” factors) to be the appropriate considerations in determining whether there are sufficient H&C considerations to justify not cancelling someone’s permanent resident status and banning them from Canada for five years:
- the seriousness of the misrepresentation leading to the removal order and the circumstances surrounding it;
- the remorsefulness of the permanent residence;
- the length of time spent in Canada and the degree to which the permanent resident is established in Canada;
- the permanent resident’s family in Canada and the impact on the family that removal would cause;
- the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision;
- the support available to the permanent resident in the family and the community; and
- the degree of hardship that would be caused by the permanent resident by removal from Canada, including the conditions in the likely country of removal.
As the IAD noted in Lin v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 26505 (CA IRB):
Remorse is defined as deep regret or guilt for a wrong committed,Read more ›
As of December 14, 2018 the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) has implemented a document checklist for work permit applications in the Pacific Highway District. It applies to Douglas, Pacific Highway, Boundary Bay, Aldergrove and Abbotsford-Huntingdon.
The checklists, which do not yet appear on the CBSA website, are below.Read more ›
I was recently provided with Access to Information Act results that an immigration consultant obtained which lists for 2016, 2017 and Jan – Aug 2018 the number of applications finalized, the approval rate, and the processing time, for the following applications from every IRCC office:
- Temporary Resident Visa
- Study Permit
- Work Permit
- Electronic Travel Authorisation
The results can be found in the embedded PDF below.Read more ›
In a previous Perspectives article I criticized the Liberal Government of Canada’s decision to establish a rigid intake procedure that returned applications in Canada’s family reunification programs for incompleteness. While doing so enabled the government to boast about overall processing times that were technically reduced, for many the consequences were actually lengthier separations and loss of status in Canada.
At the same time, I recognized that it was understandable that the Liberals adopted this strict intake system. I wrote:
Given that processing times are easily measured, it is understandable that the government wants to reduce them. Indeed, it is hard to go a few days without reading a media story about a family upset with how long their immigration application is taking. Perhaps in exchange for immigration stakeholders not complaining to the media every time processing times increase, Canada’s immigration department could stop applying such a strict approach to accepting an application into processing.
It is of course understandable that applicants and their family members who are directly impacted by Canada’s immigration system would emotionally express frustration. It can also be a useful strategy to obtain results, as media pressure can sometimes persuade Canadian immigration officials to take certain actions.
However, the level of condensation often hurled at individual officers, and Canada’s immigration bureaucracy as a whole, is extremely counter productive. It also does not reflect well on those partaking in the condescension. Indeed, one sometimes gets the impression that immigration representatives (as just one example) who typically manage offices of less than ten people think that they could do a better job of managing Canada’s immigration programs than career civil servants.
The Sheer Scale of Canadian Immigration
Let’s start with what should be obvious.Read more ›