Docket: IMM-11126-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1950
Ottawa, Ontario, December 10, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Régimbald
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Overview
[1] Ms. Chinenyen Oluwasemilore Egwuatu [Applicant] is a citizen of Nigeria. She came to Canada with her parents on a temporary resident visa [TRV] to visit Canada as a tourist on July 14, 2023. Upon her arrival in Canada, the Applicant’s passport was set to expire on January 6, 2024.
[2] In August 2023, during their visit, the Applicant’s father was offered a two-year conditional employment as Pastor of Worship at a church in Alberta. Consequently, her parents each applied for and were granted work permits. Similarly, pursuant to section 181 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], the Applicant’s parents sought to extend her TRV. On January 5, 2024, they requested an extension of the TRV until October 1, 2025. In the decision on this first application (V341581967), an officer of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] rejected the request because the Applicant had not yet received her renewed passport from the Nigerian government. A second application was made on April 5, 2024 (V344741581), requesting the restoration of her status and an extension of her TRV. The second application was rejected on the same basis, the Applicant had still not yet received her renewed passport. A third application (V350023874), made on June 7, 2024, was rejected on the grounds that the application was filed beyond the 90-day restoration period as provided under section 182 of the IRPR.
[3] In this Application for Judicial Review, the Applicant seeks judicial review of all three applications. However, contrary to the Applicant’s claim, her Application for Leave and for Judicial Review only concerned the refusal of the third application (V350023874) [Decision], as the order granting leave and the production order on file pertains solely to that Decision. Moreover, no Application for Leave and for Judicial Review was filed in relation to the two previous decisions, and no extension of time to do so was filed. Under Rule 302 of the Federal Court Rules, SOR/98-106, an Application for Judicial Review is limited to a single order in respect of which relief is sought, unless an order is made by the Court. No such order was sought nor granted in this case.
[4] Thus, the sole issue in this case is whether the Decision to reject the third application is reasonable. The applicable standard of review is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44 [Mason]). To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility (Vavilov at para 99; Mason at para 59). The decision must be read holistically and contextually, in light of the evidence, the submissions and the context in which it was rendered (Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 at para 47 [Pepa]; Vavilov at paras 94, 97). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the legal constraints of the evidence before it (Vavilov at paras 99, 101, 105, 108, 111, 125-128; Mason at para 73). However, the reviewing Court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker”
(Vavilov at para 125). In determining reasonableness, the reviewing Court must not create its “own yardstick”
and use it to measure what the decision maker did (Pepa at para 48; Vavilov at para 83, and Canada Post Corp. v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 at para 40). Reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping”
exercise, it is a robust form of review (Vavilov at para 13; Mason at para 63). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100). Any alleged flaws must be “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable”
or cause the “reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached”
(Vavilov at paras 100, 106; Pepa at para 49).
[5] The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable because IRCC failed to consider her parents’ written explanations informing them of the ongoing delays by the Nigerian Immigration Services in issuing her new passport, despite their attempts to request a new passport since September 16, 2023. She also argues that the IRCC Officer failed to consider her parents’ multiple requests for additional time to submit the Applicant’s new passport upon receipt. The Applicant further claims that the refusal letter dated June 18, 2024, demonstrates that the IRCC Officer failed to consider the impact of her pending passport renewal as well as the principle of the best interest of the child (the Applicant is a minor) since rejecting her application would result in separating her from her parents who are eligible to remain in Canada.
[6] While I recognize the regrettable nature of the situation, this Application for Judicial Review must be dismissed, for the following reasons.
[7] The Decision relates to the Applicant’s request for restoration of her status as a visitor, and extension of her TRV. Restoration requests are governed by subsection 182(1) of the IRPR, which provides:
Restoration
182 (1) On application made by a visitor, worker or student within 90 days after losing temporary resident status as a result of failing to comply with a condition imposed under paragraph 185(a), any of subparagraphs 185(b)(i) to (iii) or paragraph 185(c), an officer shall restore that status if, following an examination, it is established that the visitor, worker or student meets the initial requirements for their stay, has not failed to comply with any other conditions imposed and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Act.
[8] In this case, the Applicant’s TRV was initially valid until January 6, 2024. However, as the Applicant requested an extension of her TRV on January 5, 2024, before its expiry, she was entitled to remain in Canada until a decision was made on that application under section 181 of the IRPR. On February 7, 2024, her request for an extension of her TRV was refused by an IRCC officer because, as required under subsection 181(2), she was not in possession of a valid passport under paragraph 179(c) of the IRPR, since she was still waiting for her passport renewal from the Nigerian government. As a result, under paragraph 47(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27 [IRPA], her status as a temporary resident expired and, under section 182 of the IRPR, she had 90 days from that date, or until May 7, 2024, to restore her status.
[9] On April 5, 2024, the Applicant did request a restoration of her status and an extension of her TRV within the time limitation. However, by the time a decision was made on that application on May 22, 2024 (V344741581), the Applicant had still not submitted her renewed passport to IRCC; thus her application was dismissed under section 52 of the IRPR.
[10] The Applicant asserts that, on April 24, 2024, her parents sent a request to IRCC to add her new passport as part of her second application (V344741581). However, the evidence indicates that she received an email from IRCC, on May 1, 2024, informing her that despite receiving the enquiry, IRCC did not receive a copy of her renewed passport as it was not attached to the Applicant’s submission (Application Record at p 71). The Applicant failed to respond to IRCC’s email. Consequently, her second application was dismissed on May 22, 2024 (with the result that the Applicant was now out of time to restore her status).
[11] The Applicant also argues that the officer, in the context of her restoration application in her second request (V344741581), failed to consider her submissions and request for an extension of time, asking IRCC to postpone its decision until she receives and provides her new passport. Depending on the information that was before the decision maker, such argument may have been sustained on judicial review; however, the Applicant failed to bring an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review of that decision.
[12] Instead, the Applicant filed a third application on June 7, 2024 (a second request for a restoration), that is, a month after the regulatory restoration 90-day period ended on May 7, 2024.
[13] Considering that the Applicant did not meet the legislative requirement since the third application for restoration was submitted on June 7, 2024, after the 90-day deadline, and that IRCC officers do not have discretion to waive such requirement, I conclude that the Decision to reject the third application on that basis is reasonable (Avi Adroh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 393 at para 3-9; Lawrence v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 607 at para 32, 35; Saggu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 31 at para 11).
[14] However, the Applicant is not left without recourse. Under section 24 of the IRPA, a foreign national can attempt to acquire a temporary resident permit (TRP). This Court has recognized that in the context of an application under section 24, humanitarian and compassionate grounds as well as the best interest of the child must be considered by the officer as part of the circumstances relevant to a TRP application (Shabdeen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 492 at paras 15-16; Mousa v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2016 FC 1358 at paras 14-17; César Nguesso v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 880 at para 105; Ali v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 784 at paras 12-13; Munzhurov v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 657 at paras 17-18, 21).
Conclusion
[15] The Application for Judicial Review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification.
Email this Content