Docket: IMM-11036-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2059
Ottawa, Ontario, December 18, 2024
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
BETWEEN: |
ROHIT CHOPRA |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Rohit Chopra, is challenging the decision of an officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”
) to refuse his application to extend his Temporary Resident Permit (“TRP”
). Mr. Chopra makes two arguments. First, the decision was procedurally unfair because the Officer made a veiled credibility finding. Second, he argues that the Officer failed to consider the totality of the evidence in refusing his application. I do not agree. There is no credibility finding in the Officer’s decision and Mr. Chopra has not explained which part of the evidence the Officer failed to consider.
[2] Mr. Chopra came to Canada in 2018 as a student. After completing one year of studies, he applied for a post-graduate work permit, which was valid until the end of August 2020. Mr. Chopra remained in Canada after his permit expired and became inadmissible for non-compliance as a result (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], section 41(a)).
[3] Mr. Chopra applied for a TRP. The application was initially refused but it was agreed on consent that the matter be sent back to be redetermined. On redetermination, Mr. Chopra’s TRP was approved with a validity until January 15, 2023.
[4] In July 2022, during the period where Mr. Chopra had the valid TRP, he applied for a work permit with the support of a Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”
). It is my understanding that the work permit application was not processed at that time because of Mr. Chopra’s inadmissibility. In January 2023, Mr. Chopra applied to renew his TRP and included the July 2022 work permit in that application. Mr. Chopra’s representative provided a short letter in support of the TRP renewal, explaining that Mr. Chopra had secured employment in Canada and received a positive LMIA.
[5] Section 24 of IRPA provides that a TRP can be issued to a foreign national who is inadmissible if “the officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances”
. TRPs are issued for a fixed amount of time and “may be cancelled at any time”
(Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], section 63; IRPA, section 24(1)).
[6] Mr. Chopra argues that the Officer did not consider the totality of the circumstances or explain why a TRP was not justified in his case. I do not agree. The Officer’s reasons, as set out in their notes in the Global Case Management System (“GCMS”
), explain that besides stating that there was a secured job in Canada, Mr. Chopra had not set out the difficulties that would arise if he had to apply from abroad.
[7] In the written submissions to this Court, Mr. Chopra’s counsel references the difficulties that he would face in having to apply from abroad, including the “risk of losing job opportunity”
and that the “application process in India is anticipated to be prolonged, as the country has only five offices handling such applications.”
These concerns were not raised in the material before the Officer and consequently I cannot consider them in evaluating the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at para 20).
[8] Mr. Chopra argues in his written materials that the Officer failed to consider his affidavit. However, there was no affidavit before the Officer. The material was limited to the TRP form, the work permit form and evidence related to the work permit application, and a short letter from his consultant pointing out that employment had been secured.
[9] The procedural fairness argument also has no merit. Mr. Chopra points to the following statement in the Officer’s reasons: “It is the client’s responsibility of satisfying an officer. I have considered the application for a temporary resident permit, and all submissions in their entirety, and I am not satisfied that a TRP is justified in the circumstances.”
There is no negative inference toward Mr. Chopra’s credibility in this statement. The Officer has only pointed out that it is Mr. Chopra’s onus to satisfy the Officer that a TRP is justified in the circumstances.
[10] Mr. Chopra additionally argues that he has fulfilled the requirements of the application and therefore it is unreasonable that the application was refused. There is no legislative authority for the proposition that if one complies with the requirements for the filing of a TRP application, it must be granted. As is clear in the language of section 24 of IRPA, the granting of a TRP is a discretionary decision.
[11] Overall, Mr. Chopra has not satisfied me that the procedure followed was unfair or that the Officer’s decision suffers from any sufficiently serious shortcoming that requires it to be redetermined. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT in IMM-11036-23
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
The application for judicial review is dismissed; and
No serious question of general importance is certified.
"Lobat Sadrehashemi"
Email this Content