Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

[2022] 1 F.C.R. D-11

Citizenship and Immigration

Status in Canada

Permanent Residents

Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada class — Judicial review of decision by immigration officer refusing applicant’s application for permanent residence as member of Spouse or Common-Law Partner in Canada (SCLPC) class — Applicant, citizen of Vietnam, entered Canada as student at University of Manitoba, where he met his wife — Applicant’s wife permanent resident since 2017 — Application to sponsor the applicant refused pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (IRPR), s. 125(1)(d) on grounds that applicant’s wife failed to declare applicant as her common-law partner in her prior permanent residence application — Officer observing, inter alia, common-law partner defined as individual who is cohabiting with person in conjugal relationship having so cohabited for a year; individual excluded from SCLPC class under s. 125(1)(d) if their sponsor previously made permanent residence application and, at the time of that application, foreign national was non-accompanying family member of sponsor, was not examined — Respondent arguing that phrase “at the time of that application” referring to life of application — Applicant arguing phrase referring just to moment application submitted — Main issue whether Officer erred in his interpretation of phrase “at the time of that application” in s. 125(1)(d) — Officer reasonably interpreted s. 125(1)(d), applied it to facts in this case — Respondent relying on dela Fuente v. Canada, 2006 FCA 186, [2007] 1 F.C.R. 387 as authority wherein Federal Court of Appeal interpreted IRPR, s. 117(9)(d), provision similar to s. 125(1)(d) — Federal Court of Appeal found phrase “at the time of that application” to mean life of application — Federal Court of Appeal’s holding in dela Fuente binding, relevant time for s. 125(1)(d) is continuum, over life of application — Both ss. 117(9)(d), 125(1)(d) similar in structure, purpose, share nearly identical language — Both relate to excluding applicant from inclusion in particular class of permanent residency — Dynamic nature of common-law partnerships not requiring distinct interpretation of s. 125(1)(d) — Officer not breaching procedural fairness — Application dismissed.

Do v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-5823-21, 2022 FC 1529, Manson J., reasons for judgment dated November 10, 2022, 11 pp.)

 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.