Date:
20120704
Docket:
IMM-9675-11
Citation:
2012 FC 847
Calgary, Alberta, July 4, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
|
|
TONY VAVACHAN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Regrettably
for Mr. Vavachan, the failure to inform Citizenship and Immigration Canada
(CIC) that the $300.00 processing fee transmitted by him and his friend was
intended to be applied to both their applications, resulted in the second
application to be reviewed, Mr. Vavachan’s, being rejected for failure to pay
the required fee. By the time he was informed of this failure and its
consequences, it was too late for him to apply for restoration of his temporary
resident status and work permit.
[2]
Mr.
Vavachan is a citizen of India. He came to Canada on August 28, 2010, with the
authority to remain until July 30, 2011. He was enrolled in a one-year study
program and received his transcript attesting that he completed all the courses
required on June 17, 2011.
[3]
On
June 19, 2011, he and his similarly situated friend, Mr. Patel, applied for a
work visa. Instead of each paying CIC the $150.00 registration fee separately,
they paid $300.00, effectively covering both of their fees. While this
procedure is permissible, they failed to indicate that this was intended to
cover both and when Mr. Patel’s application was processed the overpayment was
returned to him.
[4]
Mr.
Vavachan’s first work permit application was rejected on September 8, 2011,
because it was missing the $150.00 fee – Mr. Patel’s overpayment had been
refunded the week prior.
[5]
On
October 26, 2011, Mr. Vavachan submitted a second application. Although this
application was complete and included the required fee, it was refused because
it was mailed after the 90 day period prescribed at section 182 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. The Regulations require
that the application be made within 90 days of the applicant being notified
that he or she has successfully completed the requirements for their course of
study. Mr. Vavachan received the transcript of his marks on June 17, 2011;
accordingly his application was out of time.
[6]
I
am unable to agree with applicant’s submission that the officer failed to
assess his situation or that the cause of his misfortune was CIC’s delay in
processing his first application. Those who send payment to the government
with no indication as to how or to whom that payment is to be credited are the
authors of their own misfortune if the payment is not credited as they wish.
That is what occurred here.
[7]
Although
the Court agrees with Mr. Vavachan that he might have had time within the 90
day period to resubmit the application had the initial application been
processed more quickly, there is no evidence that the processing was done in
other than the usual manner or that the respondent can be faulted for the time
taken.
[8]
In
the circumstances before the Court, the officer’s decision was not only
reasonable, it was correct.
[9]
For
these reasons this application must be dismissed. Neither party proposed a
question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the
application is dismissed and no question is certified.
"Russel
W. Zinn"
Email this Content