Date: 20250331 |
Docket: IMM-15974-23 |
Citation: 2025 FC 584 |
Ottawa, Ontario, March 31, 2025 |
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan |
BETWEEN: |
SARANPREET KAUR |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Saranpreet Kaur (the “Applicant”
) seeks judicial review of the decision of an Officer (the “Officer”
) refusing to reconsider her application for permanent residence pursuant to the “Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident”
pathway policy (the “Policy”
), developed pursuant to section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”
).
[2] The Applicant arrived in Canada on April 27, 2018 on a valid study permit. That study permit expired on March 31, 2022, and she lost her temporary resident status as of that date.
[3] The Applicant applied for permanent residence via the Policy on July 7, 2021. The Officer refused the application on September 13, 2023 on the grounds that the Applicant no longer had valid temporary resident status in Canada, as required by the Policy.
[4] The Applicant applied for reconsideration on October 13, 2023, and the request was refused on November 23, 2023. That decision is the subject of this application for judicial review.
[5] Provision (e) of the Policy is relevant and requires that applicants:
Reside in Canada with valid temporary resident status (or be eligible to restore their status) and be physically present in Canada at the time the application for permanent residence is received and when the application is approved.
[6] The Applicant argues that the Provision should be interpreted to require valid temporary resident status only at the time the application is received, so long as an applicant is physically present in Canada when the application is approved.
[7] The Applicant further submits that she was unable to maintain her temporary resident status as a result of severe health issues, and that the Officer should have considered these circumstances in making the decision.
[8] The Respondent, for his part, argues that the Officer correctly interpreted the provision.
[9] The Respondent also submits that an Officer has no discretion to ignore or waive eligibility requirements for public policies under section 25.2 of the Act.
[10] The decision of the Officer is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, following the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653.
[11] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review "bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision"
; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.
[12] I agree with the submissions of the Respondent. The Officer’s interpretation of the Policy is reasonable.
[13] Allowing reconsideration of the Applicant’s application would have been “contrary to the express terms of the Public Policy, and unreasonable”
; see the decision in Bello v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1094 at paragraph 45.
[14] Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.