Docket: IMM-2761-15
Citation:
2016 FC 59
Toronto, Ontario, January 19, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SADIA TARIQ
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
ORDER AND REASONS
(Delivered
orally from the bench in Toronto, Ontario on January 18, 2016)
[1]
Sadia Tariq, [the Applicant] has applied for
judicial review of a Decision dated April 10, 2015 in which Citizenship and
Immigration Canada (CIC) refused her application for permanent residence in the
Federal Skilled Worker category (the Decision). The application is made
pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
2001, c 27 (the IRPA).
[2]
The Applicant is a 39 year old female citizen of
Pakistan. She currently resides in Karachi with her husband.
[3]
The Applicant applied for permanent resident
status (the PR Application) in December of 2014 in the occupation category “Dietitians & Nutritionists”.
[4]
The Applicant’s brother-in-law is a permanent
resident of Canada and was included in the Applicant’s PR Application because
his presence in Canada is a factor to be considered when an Officer awards a
maximum of 5 points for “adaptability”.
[5]
CIC’s Checklist for the PR Application lists the
documents CIC would accept to prove that the Applicant’s brother-in-law is a
Canadian resident. They are: a tenancy agreement, an employer’s letter
confirming employment, a monthly credit card invoice or other bill, a bank
statement and a Notice of Assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency. As well,
the Checklist states on page 1:
If your application lacks any of the
documents without a reasonable justification it will be returned to you or in
certain circumstances could result in the refusal of your application.
[6]
The Checklist also indicates that all documents
must be less than 6 months old at the time of the PR Application.
[7]
There was no issue that the brother-in-law was a
permanent resident (he is now a citizen) and that he was in fact the
Applicant’s brother-in-law. The only issue was his residency in Canada. The
document submitted with the PR Application in December 2014 to prove his residence
was a Tenancy Agreement dated April 5, 2011.
[8]
The Tenancy Agreement was for a 1 year term from
May 1st, 2011 to April 30th, 2012. It provided that the tenancy
would continue after April 30, 2012 unless the parties entered into a new
agreement or unless a party failed to give proper notice.
[9]
Unfortunately, the Applicant did not provide
evidence that the tenancy had in fact continued after April 30, 2012. For this
reason, the Applicant received no points for adaptability. This meant that she
received 66 of the 67 points she needed to qualify for permanent residence.
[10]
The Applicant was not sent a letter indicating
that the Tenancy Agreement was unacceptable before her PR Application was
refused (the Refusal).
[11]
After the Refusal, additional documents were
sent to CIC. One was a letter from the property manager at the brother-in-law’s
residence confirming that he was still a tenant when the PR Application was filed.
However, the Decision states in bold type “Any
different or new documentary information that you submit cannot be taken into
consideration.” As well a request for reconsideration was made by the
brother-in-law’s Member of Parliament. However, it was refused because it was
not made by the Applicant and in any event, as the Decision stated, a
reconsideration would not take documents into account that had not been filed
with the PR Application.
I.
Issue
[12]
The Applicant says the Decision is unreasonable
because a breach of procedural fairness occurred when she was not sent a letter
notifying her that the Tenancy Agreement was not accepted to establish the
brother-in-law’s residence in Canada.
II.
Discussion
[13]
There was no issue about the authenticity of the
Tenancy Agreement or the Applicant’s credibility. The Checklist established the
requirements for acceptable documents and warned the Applicant that her failure
to provide proper documents could result in the refusal of her PR Application.
The simple fact is that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient supporting
documentation to show that the Tenancy Agreement remained current 6 months or
less before she filed her PR Application.
III.
Conclusion
[14]
In these circumstances, there was no requirement
for notice before the PR Application was refused. Accordingly, the Decision was
reasonable and the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
IV.
Certification
[15]
No question was posed for certification for
appeal.
Email this Content