By Sukhram Ramkissoon
In a latest Federal Courtroom determination, it was dominated {that a} Affirmation of Everlasting Residence can’t be amended until there’s a clerical error by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
Allow us to study this case. The applicant sought reduction with respect to a refusal by IRCC which denied a request to alter her surname, her given title, and her date of delivery.
The applicant is a Canadian citizen and have become a everlasting resident in 2001. In 2019, 13 (13) years after acquiring citizenship and eighteen (18) years after acquiring everlasting residence, she filed a Request to Amend the Document of Touchdown (RARL) to alter her full title and her date of delivery from Victoria born 1987 to Gloria born 1988. In an affidavit submitted with IRCC, Victoria defined that she traveled to Canada and obtained citizenship beneath an assumed id and submitted her true delivery certificates which she contends to be her actual title and date of delivery.
Her aunt was sponsored by her husband a while earlier than 2001 and the appliance included Victoria as an adoptive little one of the aunt and due to this fact her aunt’s accompanying dependent. Her aunt later determined she wouldn’t take Victoria together with her to Canada. After the journey paperwork had been issued, she organized to take her niece Gloria, in Victoria’s place.
Gloria, who was then 13 years previous, entered Canada utilizing Victoria’s passport and has been residing beneath her id ever since. She submitted the appliance in an try and set the report straight and proper the private data in her Document of Touchdown. Her utility was refused, and the letter defined that IRCC’s coverage was that the Document of Touchdown is a historic doc. As such, solely these errors made by departmental officers on the time of the applicant’s arrival in Canada may end in an modification to the doc. Particularly, the Officer famous that as a historic doc, it doesn’t change to mirror life occasions akin to marriage, the delivery of youngsters, title adjustments, loss of life, or different happenings that happen after an individual turns into a everlasting resident of Canada.
The Officer discovered no modification was warranted primarily based on IRCC’s coverage as the data recorded within the Applicant’s Document of Touchdown precisely captured the private data within the passport introduced for the Applicant on the time of her touchdown and refused the request.
After submitting her Federal Courtroom matter, the discovered decide acknowledged that whereas the notes are temporary, they determine the request to alter the Applicant’s given title from Victoria to Gloria. The Officer discovered that the Applicant supplied inadequate proof to assist her utility and acknowledged that the Applicant ought to present a “Courtroom Judgment doc.”
It was acknowledged by the Applicant that the Amending Information supplies for a course of and doesn’t enable for adjustments to her date of delivery, solely a change of title. The discovered decide additional acknowledged that the Information requires that people present not less than two id and civil standing paperwork issued previous to the date on which they entered Canada. As well as, the IRCC coverage doc “Naming Procedures: Managing Current Data – Change of Title Request” units out particular procedures for change of title requests. This doc signifies that when an individual submits an RARL utility, and it’s decided that IRCC made a clerical or administrative error on the time of touchdown, a correction will probably be made within the report and in IRCC’s system of report.
It additionally particularly states that historic paperwork akin to an immigration report of touchdown or Affirmation of Everlasting Residence won’t be amended until a clerical or administrative error was made by IRCC.
Requests for a reputation change for causes aside from a clerical or administrative error require a “authorized or administrative determination as proof.” The Applicant introduced solely her personal affidavit and delivery registration doc, which was issued over 17 years after her arrival in Canada.
The applicant observes that if the Minister had been to pursue revocation of her citizenship for misrepresentation beneath part 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, the Applicant would have the chance to make submissions referring to her private circumstances that warrant particular reduction and she or he may retain her citizenship.
The decide acknowledged that the jurisprudence is evident that misrepresentations made by a mother or father implicate a minor little one for the aim of a substantive revocation and cessation utility and dismissed the appliance for judicial overview by the applicant.
This text is written for data functions and shouldn’t be taken as authorized recommendation. In case you are in such a scenario, hunt down authorized illustration from an professional.
SUKHRAM RAMKISSOON is a member of CICC and specialises in Immigration Issues at No. 3089 Bathurst Avenue, Suite 219A, Toronto, Ontario, Telephone 416 789 5756.
