[2016] 3 F.C.R. D-3
Citizenship and Immigration
Status in Canada
Permanent Residents
Judicial review of decision by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) immigration officer refusing applicant’s application for permanent resident visa as member of federal skilled worker (FSW) class, finding that applicant lacking intention to reside outside of Quebec contrary to Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 75(1) — Applicant entering Canada on study permit, living in Montréal, in second year of PhD at McGill University — Later submitting application for permanent resident visa, noting intent to live in Brampton, Ontario — CIC concerned applicant not intending to reside in province other than Quebec, because PhD taking 4-5 years to complete, applicant would thus have to reside in Quebec were a visa to be issued in next few months — Officer in refusal letter not satisfied that applicant taking necessary steps to reside in province other than Quebec — Noting Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 11(1), Regulations, s. 75(3) requiring foreign national to satisfy legislative requirements in order to obtain permanent resident visa as skilled worker — Applicant arguing officer erred in interpreting Regulations, unreasonably assessed evidence related to her intentions on residence — Main issue whether officer correctly interpreting Regulations s. 75(1) — Geographic requirement in s. 75(1) contemplating where foreign national intends to reside, not where residing presently — While current residence may serve as evidence of foreign national’s intentions, cannot be viewed as determinative — Act, Regulations, policy manuals, bulletins not defining words “intend to reside” or setting out what evidence applicants are expected to provide to prove intention — Officer erring in refusal letter — Finding that applicant not taking “necessary steps” to reside in province other than Quebec — However, no requirement for any necessary steps to be taken to prove intention — Such a requirement needing to be explicit in order to provide notice to applicant — Here, officer erring in imposing such requirement — Officer also erring in assessing evidence — Application allowed.
Dhaliwal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-2193-15, 2016 FC 131, Diner J., judgment dated February 4, 2016, 13 pp.)