Decisions > Federal Court Decisions > Yu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Help

Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20050907

Docket: IMM-3433-04

Citation: 2005 FC 1213

BETWEEN:

MO YU

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

SIMPSON J.

[1]                This application is for judicial review of an Exclusion Order issued by an Immigration Officer on April 1, 2004.

[2]                The Applicant was in Canada on a study permit which expired on October 30, 2003 (the "Expiry"). It is admitted that he did not apply for a renewal before the Expiry. This meant that he lost his status as a temporary resident under section 47 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 ("IRPA") and did not benefit from the implied status granted by subsection 183(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the "Regulations"). This status is afforded to those who apply for renewals before their permits expire. The Applicant applied for his renewal (the "Renewal Application") on October 31, 2003, one day after the Expiry.

[3]                As noted above, the Exclusion Order was issued on April 1, 2004 before the Renewal Application was considered. As a result, on May 11, 2004, the renewal was denied because of the Exclusion Order.

DISCUSSION

[4]                Section 182 of the Regulations provides that applicants may apply to restore permits which have expired and that, unless conditions or requirements have been breached, the Officer "shall" restore an applicant's status. There is no evidence of a breach in this case.

[5]                The question is whether it was fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the meaning of section 182 of the Regulations to issue the Exclusion Order based on a loss of status without deciding the application to restore the permit.

[6]                The Exclusion Order was justified with reference to paragraphs 20(1)(a) and 41(1)(a) of the IRPA. They read:

20. (1) Every foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in section 19, who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish,

(a) to become a permanent resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and have come to Canada in order to establish permanent residence;

20. (1) L'étranger non visé à l'article 19 qui cherche à entrer au Canada ou à y séjourner est tenu de prouver :

a) pour devenir un résident permanent, qu'il détient les visa ou autres documents réglementaires et vient s'y établir en permanence;

41. A person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act

(a) in the case of a foreign national, through an act or omission which contravenes, directly or indirectly, a provision of this Act;

41. S'agissant de l'étranger, emportent interdiction de territoire pour manquement à la présente loi tout fait - acte ou omission - commis directement ou indirectement en contravention avec la présente loi;

[7]                However, in my view, these sections have no application in this case. It cannot be said that a temporary resident who has applied for restoration of his permit in a timely manner, as he is entitled to do so under the Regulations, has failed to comply with or breached the IRPA. As well, paragraph 20(1)(a) deals with an application for permanent residence which was not at issue in this case.

CONCLUSION

[8]                The Exclusion Order will be set aside and the Respondent will be directed to decide the Renewal Application.

"Sandra J. Simpson"

JUDGE

Ottawa, Ontario

September 7, 2005


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                          IMM-3433-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MO YU

                                                                                                                                              Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                      WEDNESDAY JUNE 15, 2005            

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                            SIMPSON, J.

DATED:                                             SEPTEMBER 7, 2005

APPEARANCES BY:                      

Mr. M. Max Chaudhary

For the Applicant

Ms. Margherita Braccio

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:         

Mr. M. Max Chaudhary

Barrister & Solicitor

North York, Ontario

For the Applicant

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.

Footer

Date Modified: 2014-07-31