By Sukhram Ramkissoon
Jane (not her actual identify) is a divorcee who got here to Canada in November 2009, underneath the Stay-In Caregiver Program [LCP] as a short lived overseas employee, and obtained a second work allow. She has three kids and two grandchildren.
She submitted her everlasting resident (PR) and work allow functions by way of a course of that grew to become fairly sophisticated; each functions had been refused, and she or he was instructed to depart Canada. With the help of an immigration guide, she submitted a reconsideration request for her PR software. and the identical was refused in January 2016.
In July 2017, with the help of a lawyer, she submitted a second PR and work allow software underneath the LCP; once more she refused in August 2019. A report was written in opposition to Jane as a result of she remained past her keep in Canada and was once more instructed to depart Canada.
In December 2019, with the help of a brand new lawyer, Jane submitted a 3rd PR software and after she was interviewed, her software was denied. The officer stated that he was not glad that the humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) elements offered had been enough to approve her PR software.
The officer then issued an Exclusion Order in opposition to her in December 2022.
Jane sought judicial overview on the Federal Court docket and the choice was quashed and despatched again to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) for redetermination by a brand new officer. Jane supplied extra paperwork in response to the officer’s request, which was refused in September 2023.
Jane once more sought judicial overview on the Federal Court docket, which lately got here up for a listening to in Toronto. She raised a number of points together with that it was not in the perfect curiosity of the kids, and that she would endure hardship if she needed to go away and apply from outdoors of Canada.
The decide discovered that the officers erred of their evaluation of Jane’s institution, and there was no want to deal with the remaining points.
Jane argued that the officer erred in refusing to assign constructive weight to any of her elements of firm, solely focussing on her lack of immigration standing. Particularly, the officer failed to think about the next constructive elements of firm acknowledged within the Tips on Humanitarian and Compassionate Evaluation: Institution in Canada (3 Feb 2017), which is revealed on the Authorities of Canada web site. She cited in her software for PR that: she has lived in Canada for over 14 years; has filed many functions to the immigration authorities to regularize her standing; labored to help herself for her whole residence in Canada; is deeply built-in in her neighborhood in Canada; and has no prison file.
Jane argued that as an alternative of assigning constructive weight to any of those issue, the officer discovered these institution elements had been “an expectation” or “commonplace.” Since institution accrued throughout a interval of noncompliance.
Jane additionally argued that these elements are meritorious causes to forgive noncompliance. Nonetheless, the officer acted as if noncompliance erased their advantage. Jurisprudence explicitly cautions officers in opposition to focussing on the defect from which H&C reduction is requested. Turning constructive institution elements on their head and utilizing them in opposition to an applicant as a sword fairly than a protect, has been held as unreasonable by the court docket.
The decide agreed with Jane’s argument and dominated that the officer turned a constructive issue that ought to have weighed in favour of granting an exemption to Jane right into a justification for denying it. The officer acknowledged Jane’s robust ties to her Canadian neighborhood, and held it was affordable to deduce she has a robust neighborhood of family and friends to return to within the Philippines. The officer used this constructive issue as a sword fairly than a protect.
The Federal Court docket dominated that the appliance for judicial overview is allowed and the matter was remitted to a distinct officer for redetermination.
Good luck Jane and hope the officer will get it proper this time.
SUKHRAM RAMKISSOON is a member of CICC and specialises in Immigration Issues at No. 3089 Bathurst Road, Suite 219A, Toronto, Ontario. Telephone 416 789 5756.
#LiveInCaregiver #ImmigrationCanada #JusticeForImmigrants #HumanitarianCase #CanadaPR #FederalCourt #ImmigrationJustice #CaregiversRights
