CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Immigration Practice
Judicial review of immigration officer’s denial of request to allow applicant to amend application for permanent residence to include new spouse as accompanying family member— Request denied on ground family members must be listed at time application initially made—After granted refugee status, applicant included daughter as “accompanying family member” in application for permanent residence—Submitted application within 180-day time frame—Meeting, marrying failed refugee claimant in Canada 12 months after deadline— Shortly after, tried to amend application to include new spouse as accompanying family member—Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations prescribing contents of application for permanent residence, time limitation to submit—Providing that applicant for permanent residence, all family members must be examined before being granted permanent resident status— Relevant statutory provisions not directly addressing issue of whether application may be amended to include new husband —Legislative provisions to be read in entire context— Framework setting out clear requirement application to be made within 180 days—Since not married until 12 months after deadline, application could not have included husband—Issue of whether family members included in deadline addressed indirectly in Regulations, s. 10(3) which states application considered made for principal applicant, accompanying family members—Family member deemed to be applicant for purposes of permanent residence application by being included on form—Therefore, added person or “applicant” must also meet 180-day time limit—Interpretation fitting with Citizenship and Immigration Canada practice set out in policy manual regarding in-land permanent resident applications made by protected persons—Policy stating that family members may be added if done within time limit— Policy also applying to amendments to application—Policy reason why amendments limited to 180 days relating to operational problems since all family members must be examined before admission—Addition of members after time limit would delay entire application process, including other prospective immigrants due to limited resources—Objective of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to support attainment of immigration goals through consistent standards, prompt processing—Inability to amend application not precluding husband from becoming permanent resident—Alternative routes existing for applicant’s husband, including sponsorship by applicant—Applicable legislative provisions best interpre-ted as having to include all family members in applicant’s application for permanent residence within 180 days of refugee determination—Court certifying question whether protected person’s permanent residence application may be amended to include family members after expiry of 180-day limitation period—Application dismissed—Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27—Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 10(3).
Mazhandu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-3758-04, 2005 FC 663, Snider J., order dated 12/5/05, 9 pp.)