Date:
20120614
Docket:
IMM-8131-11
Citation:
2012 FC 735
Ottawa, Ontario,
this 14th day of June 2012
Present: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
BETWEEN:
Mohammad SARFARAZ
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC
SAFETY
AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
On
November 9, 2011, Mohammad Sarfaraz (the “applicant”) filed the present
application for judicial review of the decision of Ivan Lerner, member
of the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the
“IAD”), pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). The IAD refused the
applicant’s appeal of his removal order.
[2]
The
applicant was born in Pakistan, arrived in Canada on December 11, 2000 and was
granted refugee status on May 23, 2001. The applicant was landed on January 17,
2002.
[3]
On
August 6, 2005, the applicant left Canada and returned to Pakistan. He returned to Canada on June 20, 2008. Upon arrival, an immigration officer
allowed him to re-enter the country as a permanent resident. On June 30, 2008,
the applicant filed an application to renew his permanent resident card and as
a result, an examination of the applicant’s compliance with the residency
requirements under section 28 of the Act was undertaken.
[4]
On
May 14, 2009, the applicant was interviewed by an immigration officer who
prepared a report under subsection 44(1) of the Act. The officer concluded in
his report dated June 5, 2009 that the applicant had failed to fulfill his
residency obligations under the Act, not having been sufficiently present in Canada during the last five years.
[5]
It
is accepted that the applicant was physically present in Canada from June 20, 2008 to June 5, 2009. However, prior to June 20, 2008, the
applicant had been in Pakistan since August 6, 2005.
[6]
On
July 9, 2009, a departure order was issued against the applicant pursuant to
subsection 44(2) of the Act due to his failure to comply with his residency
requirements under section 28 of the Act, thereby being declared inadmissible
by virtue of subsection 41(b) of the Act.
[7]
The
applicant appealed this deportation order, requesting a de novo hearing
and claiming that his appeal should have been allowed due to humanitarian and
compassionate grounds, notably, the best interests of his children.
[8]
The
applicant’s claim was heard by the IAD on August 2, 2011. The IAD rendered its
negative decision on October 26, 2011.
[9]
The
relevant legislation is annexed hereto for convenience.
[10]
The only issue
raised by the present application for judicial review is whether the IAD
committed a reviewable error in failing to recognize that the applicant was a
permanent resident as a result of his re-entry on June 20, 2008, specifically:
Did
the IAD err in concluding that there was no res judicata resulting from
the applicant’s re-entry on June 20, 2008 as a permanent resident?
[11]
This
issue requires this Court to determine whether the decision of an immigration
officer to allow a permanent resident to re-enter the country has an effect of res
judicata, barring a subsequent determination by another officer of
the applicant’s compliance with the residency requirements of the Act. This is
essentially a question of law to be reviewed based on a standard of correctness
for the true issue at the heart of this judicial review is the effect of an
immigration officer’s decision to allow a permanent resident to re-enter the
country (see Mendoza v. Minister of Public Security and Emergency
Preparedness, 2007 FC 934, 317 F.T.R. 118 at para 12, for the proposition
that questions of law are to be reviewed based on correctness).
[12]
The
applicant argues that an immigration officer’s decision constitutes a binding
determination of the residency requirements under the Act at that time of
re-entry. Essentially, the applicant is asking this Court to find that once a
person is permitted to re-enter Canada as a permanent resident, this status is
preserved and cannot be re-examined, unless the person leaves Canada, the decision to allow re-entry as a permanent resident having an effect similar to res
judicata, barring consideration of the residency requirements under the
Act. The applicant is wrong.
[13]
Even
if this Court accepted the applicant’s position that a decision by an
immigration officer to allow a person to re-enter Canada constitutes a full
examination of the residency requirements under the Act, nothing in the Act
bars a subsequent examination once another application is submitted.
[14]
As
per the Act, every person seeking to enter Canada must appear for an
examination to determine whether or not he has the right or authorization to
enter the country (subsection 18(1) of the Act). As of right, under subsection
19(2) of the Act, an immigration officer “shall allow a permanent resident to
enter Canada if satisfied following an examination on their entry that they
have that status” (emphasis added). Based on this provision, the applicant
contends that the immigration officer who allowed the applicant to re-enter the
country on June 20, 2008 conducted a full examination of the applicant’s
compliance with the residency requirements, or should have, and that by
allowing the applicant to enter as a returning resident, as stamped “RR” in his
passport, he made a positive determination of the applicant’s compliance with
the residency requirements under the Act. However, nothing in the Act bars a
subsequent determination by an officer when another application is made.
[15]
Subsection
15(1) found in Division 2 of the Act dealing with examinations indicates that
“[a]n officer is authorized to proceed with an examination where a person makes
an application to the officer in accordance with this Act” (emphasis
added). The officer has the obligation to conduct this examination “in
accordance with any instructions that the Minister may give” (subsection 15(4)
of the Act).
[16]
Thus,
the applicant is correct in that by allowing the applicant to re-enter Canada as a permanent resident, the immigration officer must have conducted an examination
(see paragraph 37(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, SOR 2002-227 (the “Regulations”)).
[17]
It
is not clear on what basis the immigration officer allowed the applicant to
return to Canada on June 20, 2008, as no reasons have been provided and the
FOSS notes indicate that the applicant should be more closely examined as to
his residency obligations. However, what is clear is that (1) upon re-entry,
the applicant was not in compliance with the 730-day residency requirement,
this finding by the IAD being undisputed; and (2) the applicant was not allowed
to re-enter the country based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
pursuant to paragraph 28(2)(c) of Act, contrary to the applicant’s
allegations, for the FOSS notes are devoid of any such comments or consideration
of such grounds.
[18]
On
June 30, 2008, the applicant made a new application, not an application to
re-enter Canada, but an application for a permanent resident card (see
subsections 56(2) and 57(1) of the Regulations). Thus, an immigration officer undertook
an analysis of the applicant’s residency requirements. As a result of this
analysis, the immigration officer prepared a report pursuant to subsection
44(1) of the Act, believing the applicant to be inadmissible. Nothing in the
Act or the Regulations required the second immigration officer to blindly issue
a permanent resident card to the applicant on the sole basis that he was
allowed to re-enter the country earlier that same month. While the applicant is
asking this Court to hold that there is some sort of res judicata,
clearly the second immigration officer was not considering the same application
that was determined on June 20, 2008.
[19]
Moreover,
I would like to add that a permanent resident of Canada has the obligation to
comply with the residency requirements set out in section 28 of the Act. This
is an ongoing obligation, being crucial to a person being allowed to preserve
his status in Canada. On June 20, 2008, the applicant was allowed to re-enter Canada as a returning resident. At this time, it is hard to consider the applicant was
truly in compliance with his residency requirements under the Act when the
immigration officer noted that the applicant “should be examined closely for
residency obligations” and a subsequent immigration officer examining a
different application filed ten days later based on the same facts concluded
that the applicant did not comply with his residency requirements, a finding
not challenged by the applicant.
[20]
Turning
to the possible effect of res judicata, the facts of Wan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 74 Imm. L.R. (3d) 142 [Wan],
relied upon both by the IAD and by the applicant, must be set out. In Wan,
the appellant had applied for a travel document and the visa officer had found
that the appellant, while not complying with the physical presence requirement,
had established the existence of humanitarian and compassionate grounds,
exercising his discretion under paragraph 28(2)(c) of the Act, granting
the application for the travel document on December 22, 2005. However,
before the appellant’s permanent resident card was issued, the appellant
traveled to Hong Kong and then made another application from there, requesting
a travel document to allow him to return to Canada. This time, the visa officer
concluded, four months after the first decision, that the appellant had not
complied with the residency requirements and that there were no humanitarian or
compassionate grounds. Thus, the issue was: what was the effect of the first
officer’s conclusion as to the existence of humanitarian and compassionate
grounds. The IAD, at paragraph 23 of its decision, held that a second visa
officer can come to a different conclusion about the breach of residency
obligations or the existence of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The IAD
went on to state at paragraph 24 that “[t]he only way that some resemblance to
“res judicata” applies before a visa officer is if in the likely
circumstance the second determination is made on the same day by another visa
officer” (also cited in the IAD’s decision under review). At paragraph 27 of Wan,
the IAD stated that:
.
. . The possession of an expired or even a valid temporary or permanent
resident card does not allow a permanent resident to travel outside of Canada for whatever period of time he wishes. Every such person must still comply with the
residency obligation, as long as they do not become Canadian citizens.
[21]
Thus,
Wan does not affirm the existence of res judicata between
immigration officers’ determinations. Rather, the IAD found that such an effect
is improbable, only occurring if decisions are rendered on the same day, on the
same matter, by two different officers. Here, we are dealing with two different
applications, made on different days, by different officers.
[22]
On
June 20, 2008, an immigration officer allowed the applicant to re-enter Canada as a permanent resident, as illustrated by his passport stamp. However, this
re-entry did not bar an examination of the applicant’s compliance with the
residency requirements once he applied for a permanent resident card. Rather,
both parties agree that upon application for a permanent resident card, an
immigration officer has to examine whether the applicant complies with the
residency requirements under section 28 of the Act. A decision under subsection
19(2) of the Act to allow a permanent resident to re-enter Canada is not a
decision barring an examination of the residency requirements under the Act
when the applicant is applying for a permanent resident card, even if such an
application is made only ten days after having been readmitted, especially when
the first officer noted that “[c]lient should be examined closely for residency
obligations” (at page 70 of the tribunal’s Record). Thus, we cannot talk of res
judicata.
[23]
Furthermore,
the IAD did not fail to consider the fact that the applicant was allowed to
re-enter Canada on June 20, 2008, this fact being explicitly addressed in its
decision, as were the applicant’s arguments on this issue.
[24]
Therefore,
the IAD did not err in concluding that the applicant’s re-entry in Canada on June 20, 2008 as a permanent resident did not have an effect of res
judicata.
[25]
Consequently,
the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[26]
Counsel
for the parties indicated to the Court that they did not wish to propose any
question for certification. Accordingly, no question is certified.
JUDGMENT
The application for
judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board refusing the applicant’s appeal of his removal
order is dismissed.
“Yvon
Pinard”
ANNEX
The relevant
portions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.
27, are as follow:
|
15. (1) An
officer is authorized to proceed with an examination where a person makes an
application to the officer in accordance with this Act.
(4) The
officer shall conduct the examination in accordance with any instructions
that the Minister may give.
18. (1) Every person seeking to enter
Canada must appear for an examination to determine whether that person has a
right to enter Canada or is or may become authorized to enter and remain in
Canada.
(2) Subsection
(1) also applies to persons who, without leaving Canada, seek to leave an
area at an airport that is reserved for passengers who are in transit or who
are waiting to depart Canada.
19. (1) Every Canadian citizen
within the meaning of the Citizenship Act and every person registered
as an Indian under the Indian Act has the right to enter and remain in
Canada in accordance with this Act, and an officer shall allow the person to
enter Canada if satisfied following an examination on their entry that the
person is a citizen or registered Indian.
(2) An
officer shall allow a permanent resident to enter Canada if satisfied
following an examination on their entry that they have that status.
27. (1) A
permanent resident of Canada has the right to enter and remain in Canada, subject to the provisions of this Act.
(2) A
permanent resident must comply with any conditions imposed under the
regulations.
28. (1) A permanent
resident must comply with a residency obligation with respect to every
five-year period.
(2) The
following provisions govern the residency obligation under subsection (1):
(a) a
permanent resident complies with the residency obligation with respect to a
five-year period if, on each of a total of at least 730 days in that
five-year period, they are
(i) physically
present in Canada,
(ii) outside
Canada accompanying a Canadian citizen who is their spouse or common-law
partner or, in the case of a child, their parent,
(iii) outside
Canada employed on a full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal
public administration or the public service of a province,
(iv) outside
Canada accompanying a permanent resident who is their spouse or common-law
partner or, in the case of a child, their parent and who is employed on a
full-time basis by a Canadian business or in the federal public
administration or the public service of a province, or
(v) referred
to in regulations providing for other means of compliance;
(b) it
is sufficient for a permanent resident to demonstrate at examination
(i) if
they have been a permanent resident for less than five years, that they will
be able to meet the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period
immediately after they became a permanent resident;
(ii) if
they have been a permanent resident for five years or more, that they have
met the residency obligation in respect of the five-year period immediately
before the examination; and
(c) a
determination by an officer that humanitarian and compassionate
considerations relating to a permanent resident, taking into account the best
interests of a child directly affected by the determination, justify the
retention of permanent resident status overcomes any breach of the residency
obligation prior to the determination.
41. A
person is inadmissible for failing to comply with this Act
(b) in
the case of a permanent resident, through failing to comply with subsection
27(2) or section 28.
44. (1) An officer who
is of the opinion that a permanent resident or a foreign national who is in Canada is inadmissible may prepare a report setting out the relevant facts, which report
shall be transmitted to the Minister.
(2) If
the Minister is of the opinion that the report is well-founded, the Minister
may refer the report to the Immigration Division for an admissibility
hearing, except in the case of a permanent resident who is inadmissible solely
on the grounds that they have failed to comply with the residency obligation
under section 28 and except, in the circumstances prescribed by the
regulations, in the case of a foreign national. In those cases, the Minister
may make a removal order.
(3)
An officer or the Immigration Division may impose any conditions, including
the payment of a deposit or the posting of a guarantee for compliance with
the conditions, that the officer or the Division considers necessary on a
permanent resident or a foreign national who is the subject of a report, an
admissibility hearing or, being in Canada, a removal order.
46. (1) A person loses
permanent resident status
(a) when
they become a Canadian citizen;
(b) on
a final determination of a decision made outside of Canada that they have failed to comply with the residency obligation under section 28;
(c) when
a removal order made against them comes into force; or
(d) on
a final determination under section 109 to vacate a decision to allow their
claim for refugee protection or a final determination under subsection 114(3)
to vacate a decision to allow their application for protection.
63. (3) A
permanent resident or a protected person may appeal to the Immigration Appeal
Division against a decision at an examination or admissibility hearing to
make a removal order against them.
|
15. (1) L’agent
peut procéder à un contrôle dans le cadre de toute demande qui lui est faite
au titre de la présente loi.
(4) L’agent
est tenu de se conformer aux instructions du ministre sur l’exécution du
contrôle.
18. (1) Quiconque
cherche à entrer au Canada est tenu de se soumettre au contrôle visant à
déterminer s’il a le droit d’y entrer ou s’il est autorisé, ou peut l’être, à
y entrer et à y séjourner.
(2) Le présent
article s’applique également aux personnes qui, sans quitter le Canada,
cherchent à quitter une zone aéroportuaire réservée aux passagers en transit
ou en partance.
19. (1) Tout
citoyen canadien, au sens de la Loi sur la citoyenneté, et toute
personne inscrite comme Indien, en vertu de la Loi sur les Indiens, a
le droit d’entrer au Canada et d’y séjourner conformément à la présente loi;
l’agent le laisse entrer sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle fait à son
arrivée, de sa qualité.
(2) L’agent
laisse entrer au Canada le résident permanent sur preuve, à la suite d’un
contrôle fait à son arrivée, qu’il a ce statut.
27. (1) Le
résident permanent a, sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente
loi, le droit d’entrer au Canada et d’y séjourner.
(2) Le
résident permanent est assujetti aux conditions imposées par règlement.
28. (1) L’obligation
de résidence est applicable à chaque période quinquennale.
(2) Les
dispositions suivantes régissent l’obligation de résidence :
a) le résident
permanent se conforme à l’obligation dès lors que, pour au moins 730 jours
pendant une période quinquennale, selon le cas :
(i) il est effectivement
présent au Canada,
(ii) il accompagne, hors
du Canada, un citoyen canadien qui est son époux ou conjoint de fait ou, dans
le cas d’un enfant, l’un de ses parents,
(iii) il travaille, hors
du Canada, à temps plein pour une entreprise canadienne ou pour
l’administration publique fédérale ou provinciale,
(iv) il accompagne, hors
du Canada, un résident permanent qui est son époux ou conjoint de fait ou,
dans le cas d’un enfant, l’un de ses parents, et qui travaille à temps plein
pour une entreprise canadienne ou pour l’administration publique fédérale ou
provinciale,
(v) il se conforme au mode
d’exécution prévu par règlement;
b) il suffit au
résident permanent de prouver, lors du contrôle, qu’il se conformera à
l’obligation pour la période quinquennale suivant l’acquisition de son
statut, s’il est résident permanent depuis moins de cinq ans, et, dans le cas
contraire, qu’il s’y est conformé pour la période quinquennale précédant le
contrôle;
c) le constat par l’agent que des
circonstances d’ordre humanitaire relatives au résident permanent — compte
tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché — justifient le
maintien du statut rend inopposable l’inobservation de l’obligation précédant
le contrôle.
41. S’agissant de
l’étranger, emportent interdiction de territoire pour manquement à la
présente loi tout fait — acte ou omission — commis directement ou
indirectement en contravention avec la présente loi et, s’agissant du
résident permanent, le manquement à l’obligation de résidence et aux
conditions imposées.
44. (1) S’il
estime que le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui se trouve au Canada est
interdit de territoire, l’agent peut établir un rapport circonstancié, qu’il
transmet au ministre.
(2) S’il estime le rapport bien fondé, le
ministre peut déférer l’affaire à la Section de l’immigration pour enquête,
sauf s’il s’agit d’un résident permanent interdit de territoire pour le seul
motif qu’il n’a pas respecté l’obligation de résidence ou, dans les
circonstances visées par les règlements, d’un étranger; il peut alors prendre
une mesure de renvoi.
(3) L’agent ou la Section de l’immigration peut
imposer les conditions qu’il estime nécessaires, notamment la remise d’une
garantie d’exécution, au résident permanent ou à l’étranger qui fait l’objet
d’un rapport ou d’une enquête ou, étant au Canada, d’une mesure de renvoi.
46. (1) Emportent
perte du statut de résident permanent les faits suivants :
a) l’obtention de la
citoyenneté canadienne;
b) la confirmation en
dernier ressort du constat, hors du Canada, de manquement à l’obligation de
résidence;
c) la prise d’effet de la
mesure de renvoi;
d) l’annulation en dernier
ressort de la décision ayant accueilli la demande d’asile ou celle d’accorder
la demande de protection.
63. (3) Le
résident permanent ou la personne protégée peut interjeter appel de la mesure
de renvoi prise au contrôle ou à l’enquête.
|
The relevant
portions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227, are as follow:
|
28. For
the purposes of subsection 15(1) of the Act, a person makes an application in
accordance with the Act by
(a)
submitting an application in writing;
(b)
seeking to enter Canada;
(c)
seeking to transit through Canada as provided in section 35; or
(d)
making a claim for refugee protection.
37.
The examination of a person who seeks to enter Canada, or who makes an
application to transit through Canada, ends only when
(a)
a determination is made that the person has a right to enter Canada, or is authorized to enter Canada as a temporary resident or permanent resident, the person
is authorized to leave the port of entry at which the examination takes place
and the person leaves the port of entry;
(b)
if the person is an in-transit passenger, the person departs from Canada;
(c)
the person is authorized to withdraw their application to enter Canada and an officer verifies their departure from Canada; or
(d)
a decision in respect of the person is made under subsection 44(2) of the Act
and the person leaves the port of entry.
56. (2)
An application for a permanent resident card must be made in Canada and include
(a)
an
application form that contains the following information, namely,
(i)
the
applicant’s name and date and place of birth,
(ii)
the
applicant’s gender, height and eye colour,
(iii)
the
date on which and the place where the applicant became a permanent resident,
(iv)
the
applicant’s mailing address,
(v)
the
addresses of all of the applicant’s places of residence during the previous
five years,
(vi)
the
names and addresses of the applicant’s employers and educational institutions
attended, during the previous five years,
(vii)
the
periods during the previous five years that the applicant was absent from Canada,
(viii)
[Repealed,
SOR/2008-188, s. 1]
(ix)
whether
a report under subsection 44(1) of the Act has been made in respect of the
applicant or whether a decision was made outside of Canada that they have
failed to comply with the residency obligation under section 28 of the Act,
and
(x)
whether
the applicant has lost their permanent resident status or has been issued a
removal order;
(c)
a copy of
(i)
any
document described in paragraphs 50(1)(a)
to (h) — or, if the applicant does
not hold one of those documents, any document described in paragraphs 178(1)(a) and (b)
— that is currently held by the applicant or was held by the applicant at the
time they became a permanent resident,
(ii)
a
certificate of identity issued in Canada to the applicant by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, or
(iii)
refugee
travel papers issued in Canada to the applicant by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs;
(d)
a copy of
(i)
the
form IMM1000, entitled “Record of Landing”, held by the applicant,
(ii)
a provincial
driver’s license held by the applicant,
(iii)
a
photo-identity card held by the applicant and issued by a province,
(iv)
a
student card held by the applicant and issued by a provincially accredited
college or university, or
(v)
the
most recent notice of assessment within the meaning of the Income Tax Act received
in relation to the applicant’s income tax return; and
(e)
two identical photographs that
(i)
were
taken not more than 12 months before the application was made,
(ii)
[Repealed,
SOR/2008-188, s. 1]
(iii)
are
in black and white or colour on paper,
(iv)
show
a full front view of the applicant’s head and shoulders and have a white
background,
(v)
have
a view of the applicant’s head that is at least 25 mm (one inch) and at most
35 mm (1.375 inches) in length,
(vi)
show
the applicant’s face unobscured by sunglasses or any other object, and
(vii)
have
a dimension of 35 mm (1.375 inches) by 45 mm (1.75 inches).
57.
(1) Subject to subsection (3), every person who applies for a permanent
resident card must make and sign the application on their own behalf.
59. (1) An officer
shall, on application, issue a new permanent resident card if
(a) the
applicant has not lost permanent resident status under subsection 46(1) of
the Act;
|
28. Pour
l’application du paragraphe 15(1) de la Loi, la demande est faite au titre de
la Loi lorsque la personne, selon le cas :
a) présente la demande par
écrit;
b) cherche à entrer au Canada;
c) cherche à transiter par le
Canada aux termes de l’article 35;
d) demande l’asile.
37. Le
contrôle de la personne qui cherche à entrer au Canada ou qui fait une
demande de transit ne prend fin que lorsqu’un des événements suivants
survient :
a) une décision est rendue selon
laquelle la personne a le droit d’entrer au Canada ou est autorisée à entrer
au Canada à titre de résident temporaire ou de résident permanent, la
personne est autorisée à quitter le point d’entrée et quitte effectivement le
point d’entrée;
b) le passager en transit quitte
le Canada;
c) la personne est autorisée à
retirer sa demande d’entrée au Canada et l’agent constate son départ du
Canada;
d) une décision est
rendue en vertu du paragraphe 44(2) de la Loi à l’égard de cette personne et
celle-ci quitte le point d’entrée.
56. (2) La
demande de carte de résident permanent doit être faite au Canada et
comporter :
a) un formulaire qui contient
les renseignements suivants :
(i)
les
nom, date et lieu de naissance du demandeur,
(ii)
son
sexe, sa taille, et la couleur de ses yeux,
(iii)
la
date à laquelle il est devenu résident permanent et le lieu où il l’est
devenu,
(iv)
son
adresse postale,
(v)
l’adresse
civique de chacune de ses résidences au cours des cinq dernières années,
(vi)
les
nom et adresse de ses employeurs et des établissements scolaires qu’il a
fréquentés au cours des cinq dernières années,
(vii)
ses
périodes de séjour à l’étranger au cours des cinq dernières années,
(viii)
[Abrogé,
DORS/2008-188, art. 1]
(ix)
la
mention, le cas échéant, qu’il a fait l’objet d’un rapport aux termes du
paragraphe 44(1) de la Loi ou qu’il a fait l’objet, hors du Canada, d’un constat
de manquement à l’obligation de résidence visée à l’article 28 de la Loi,
(x)
la
mention, le cas échéant, qu’il a perdu son statut de résident permanent ou a
été l’objet d’une mesure de renvoi;
c) une copie de
l’une des pièces suivantes :
(i)
le
document mentionné à l’un des alinéas 50(1)a) à h) ou, à
défaut, le document mentionné à l’un des alinéas 178(1)a) et b),
que détient le demandeur ou qu’il détenait à la date à laquelle il est devenu
résident permanent,
(ii)
le
certificat d’identité délivré au demandeur au Canada par le ministre des
Affaires étrangères,
(iii)
le
titre de voyage de réfugié délivré au demandeur au Canada par le ministre des
Affaires étrangères;
d) une copie de
l’un des documents suivants :
(i)
le
formulaire IMM1000 intitulé « Fiche relative au droit
d’établissement » dont le demandeur est titulaire,
(ii)
le
permis de conduire provincial dont le demandeur est titulaire,
(iii)
la
carte d’identité avec photo délivrée au demandeur par une province,
(iv)
la
carte d’étudiant délivrée au demandeur par un collège ou une université
accrédités auprès d’une province,
(v)
le
plus récent avis de cotisation, au sens de la Loi de l’impôt sur le revenu,
reçu relativement à la déclaration de revenu du demandeur;
e) deux
photographies identiques qui ont les caractéristiques suivantes :
(i)
elles
ont été prises au cours des douze derniers mois précédant la date de la
demande,
(ii)
[Abrogé,
DORS/2008-188, art. 1]
(iii)
elles
sont en couleur ou en noir et blanc sur papier,
(iv)
elles
montrent la tête et les épaules du demandeur vu de face sur fond blanc,
(v)
la
tête du demandeur y occupe un espace d’au moins 25 mm (1 pouce), mais d’au
plus 35 mm (1,375 pouce) de long,
(vi)
le
visage du demandeur n’est pas caché par des lunettes de soleil ou autres
objets,
(vii)
leurs
dimensions finies sont de 35 mm (1,375 pouce) sur 45 mm (1,75 pouce).
57. (1)
Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), toute personne qui fait une demande de carte
de résident permanent doit la faire pour elle-même et la signer.
59. (1) L’agent
délivre, sur demande, une nouvelle carte de résident permanent si les
conditions suivantes sont réunies :
a) le demandeur
n’a pas perdu son statut de résident permanent aux termes du paragraphe 46(1)
de la Loi;
|
Email this Content