computergeek
VIP Member
- Jan 31, 2012
- 278
- 124
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-O/LA
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 06-03-2012
- AOR Received.
- 21-06-2012
- File Transfer...
- 21-6-2012
- Med's Done....
- 11-02-2012
- Interview........
- Waived
- Passport Req..
- 26-09-2012
- VISA ISSUED...
- 10-10-2012
- LANDED..........
- 13-10-2012
The latter case is also after the fifth application. There are things being said here "between the lines" (which does happen). I think the decision is a bit dubious (who spends that much time trying to get their spouse into Canada as an MOC?)frege said:Well, what I mean is bound by "res judicata." Here are examples of what I'm talking about (the second one is particularly shocking):
http://canlii.ca/t/ftb0q
http://canlii.ca/t/ft9c7
Note that the former case shares a common pattern with the latter case: nothing new was added sufficient to convince CIC that the original decision was wrong. I actually agree that in the present case if they were to reapply under the same circumstances the previous decision would likely be used to refuse a new application. However, the OP pointed to evidence the IO was not considering - and telling an applicant that they have 24 hours to respond to substantive concerns will very likely not make it through a JR - that's not in keeping with the standards of procedural fairness required by the courts.
It would ALSO provide additional evidence for a subsequent application. Applying outland while living abroad would likely also make a difference.
http://canlii.ca/t/2cm0n - this is an interesting FCA decision (so it's binding on the Federal Courts) that observes: "We agree with the judge that the principle of functus officio does not strictly apply in non-adjudicative administrative proceedings and that, in appropriate circumstances, discretion does exist to enable an administrative decision-maker to reconsider his or her decision." and "In this case, the decision-maker failed to recognize the existence of any discretion. Therein lay the error. The immigration officer was not barred from reconsidering the decision on the basis of functus officio and was free to exercise discretion to reconsider, or refuse to reconsider, the respondent’s request." (Note that the original immigration applicant was the respondent in this appeal - CIC lost and was appealing that loss.)