Is this what happen after you won your appeal. Appeal was approved at full hearing.
- Thread starter frankie538
- Start date
ok Good luck, please update us when you get passport request or whatever they ask.
Well! Received an email the week after to submit updated docs and submitted them on November 15. Background check started this week
hello house, i am a nigeria and my spouse sponsor application was refused 03/02/2020 and my spouse in canada was given right to appeal the decision. is there anyone with useful information on how to make this appeal smooth or it will be okay by me to hire a lawyer for the process
hello house, i am a nigeria and my spouse sponsor application was refused 03/02/2020 and my spouse in canada was given right to appeal the decision. is there anyone with useful information on how to make this appeal smooth or it will be okay by me to hire a lawyer for the process
You can do it by yourself, you are not required any lawrer at this stage, lawyer will not help you, only charge fee from side and he will wait for court decision, which you can do by yourself.
Hi Mary,
I just want to confirm again about this 2 question
A). been refused refugee status in, or an immigrant or permanent resident visa or visitor or temporary resident visa to, Canada....?
B). been refused admission to, or ordered to leave, Canada or any other country?
So what did you tick in your application YES for both?
cuz I thought it just YES for question “a” , and NO for question “b” (the ”b” one is asking been refused admission to Canada which is not the case cuz only got refuse to pr visa to Canada Haven’t even been enter the country.
please correct me if I’m wrong cuz my lawyer told me NO for “b”
hi shaheen,
i need some clarification about submitting new docs.
I do understand submitting updated application kit, which im Kind of confused with the word “application kit” . Am I supposed to submit the entire application kit or just only the ones mention below IMM0008, 5406, 5669.
cuz im doubting why it said updated application kit which must include the below ones. I thought that I have to submit all the application kit like the ones we did fill out when we start sponsoring. Correct me if I’m wrong.
An updated application kit which must include the following:
a. IMM 0008 - Application forPermanent Residence for yourself;
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/IMM0008ENU_2D.pdf
b. IMM 5669 - Schedule A - Background Information for yourself and all your dependants over 18 years old;
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/imm5669E.pdf
c. IMM 5406 - Additional FamilyInformation for yourself and all your dependants over 18 years old;
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/IMM5406E.PDF
2. An updated IMM 5476 - Use of a Representative form, if you are designating a representative. If you are no longer using your previous representative, please complete Section C of IMM 5476 to cancel your previous representative.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/IMM5476E.pdf
3. A copy of the biometric page of your and any dependants’ valid passport.
Please note that your passport must be valid for at least 6 monthsprior to your entry to Canada.
***** NOTE : also can u help me what did you answer this 2 question??..?
A). been refused refugee status in, or an immigrant or permanent resident visa or visitor or temporary resident visa to, Canada....?
B). been refused admission to, or ordered to leave, Canada or any other country?
did u put YES on “a &b”. Or
just yes for “a”
No for “b”
really appreciated if u can help me with my doubts.
Hello! My name is Marie I’ve been away from my husband since March 4 2018 forward to now basically we’ve met in Montreal he’s from Belgium he came to visit 2015 we met fell in love quick, he’s been in Belgium Canada refuse once in 2019 November we was granted an appeal we won, they said now all he need to do is redo his police report and medical he did everything was good. Then COVID came they ask for more info we gave them, they refuse a second time they said our marriage is not real even after we showed so many proof. I really need help. They said we can appeal again is that right after we won the first one. Plz in need information or who can I call
Hi
[1] Atulkumar (the “Appellant”) was designated a permanent resident
of Canada in November 2009 but spent extensive periods of time in India thereafter. In February
2016, he applied for a travel document to enable him to return to Canada, which was denied
because it was also determined he had not complied with the residency obligations of section 28
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).
1 The letter advising the Appellant of
this decision contained information about his right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the “IAD”). He was provided with a blank Notice of
Appeal form which the enclosure letter advised had to be submitted within 60 days if he wished
to appeal the visa officer’s determination.
[2] The Appellant did not file his Notice of Appeal for more than 4 years.
[3] The IAD has jurisdiction to consider an application to extend the 60 day time period for
filing an appeal, but a person applying for such relief must provide evidence sufficient to
demonstrate the following:
(a) a continuing intention to pursue the appeal;
(b) a reasonable explanation for the delay in not filing the appeal on a timely basis;
(c) that no prejudice to the Respondent has arisen from the delay, and
(d) that the appeal has some merit;
For the balance of this decision, the Appellant will be referred to as the Applicant because he
brought an application for an order extending the time limit to facilitate filing his appeal in
March 2020.
[4] For the reasons set out below, I find the evidence is insufficient to warrant exercise of my
discretion as requested by the Applicant. As a result, the application to extend time for filing the
[5] This application was determined in Chambers (without an oral hearing). The Applicant
provided written submissions supported by accompanying documents on or about March 20,
2020. Unfortunately, the application could not be processed efficiently because it arrived as the
IAD office was closing for several months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the Respondent
received notice of the application, the Respondent requested and was granted a brief extension of
time to provide a reply. The Minister’s submissions were received on July 22, 2020, and it was
then possible to complete analysis of the application and prepare this decision.
[6] I have taken all documents and submissions filed by both parties into account, including
excerpts from GCMS notes contained in the original Record regarding the Applicant’s
permanent resident status and the Applicant’s affidavit(s).
ANALYSIS
[7] As noted above, an application to extend time to file an appeal after 60 days have passed
must be supported by evidence which satisfies the preconditions or factors necessary to justify a
discretionary remedy in favor of an applicant who has failed to meet the prescribed deadline.
[8] While the Minister submits the evidence must establish all four enumerated factors for
the application for extension of time to succeed, the Federal Court of Appeal’s guidance in
Grewal2
encourages a more dynamic and case-specific analysis. A determination of whether any
applicant’s explanations justify granting an extension must turn on the facts but also support the
broader objective of doing justice between the parties. Thus, the exercise of discretion involves
weighing and balancing sometimes competing considerations, which is a fluid, rather than
formulaic, process. Employing this approach, my findings regarding the presence or absence of
factors which might support granting the remedy the Applicant seeks are below.
[9] The Applicant has not provided evidence to support a reasonable conclusion that he
formed an intention to appeal the residency obligation decision he received in 2016 over the past
4 years. Instead, the Applicant’s evidence is limited to a detailed account of obstacles he
encountered only during the month of March 2016 which inhibited his ability to obtain timely
advice about a potential appeal. The Applicant deposed he was busy taking his daughter to and
from State Board examinations and that his wife suffered an injury which required him care for
her and assume responsibility for household chores. However, the Applicant’s submission is
silent on whether or why he did nothing further to advance his appeal after March 2016. He has
not submitted evidence that he thought about or did anything regarding an appeal until his
application was filed approximately 6 months ago.
[10] The Minister submits a reasonable inference can be drawn that the Applicant accepted the
visa officer’s decision and recognized it was correct. He had already returned to live in India by
the time the decision was rendered, and no evidence was submitted to demonstrate he intended to
return to Canada thereafter. Effectively, the Applicant ceased living in Canada when he returned
to India in 2015 and he acknowledged he was no longer a permanent resident of Canada at and
after that time.
The Applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in filing the Notice
of Appeal
[11] The onus is on the Applicant to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Approximately 4 years passed between the date he received the decision advising him he was no
longer considered a permanent resident of Canada and the date he endeavoured to launch his
appeal. There is no question the Applicant was aware he had 60 days to properly file a Notice of
Appeal, but he failed to do so. This is not a case where the Applicant missed the deadline by a
few weeks or even months. More than 4 years passed, and the Applicant provided no evidence
which might have justified or explained his circumstances.
[12] The Applicant noted in his submission that he hoped to obtain legal advice or the
assistance of an immigration consultant but eventually he represented himself in this application.
Other than describing personal challenges and family obligations during the month immediately
following his receipt of the residency obligation decision, the Applicant provided no account of
his circumstances thereafter. If, for example, the Applicant had been prevented from diligently
pursuing his appeal for reasons outside his control, he should have provided such evidence for
consideration. He did not do so, and I am therefore prepared to draw a negative inference that
such evidence does not exist. The Applicant’s lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal coupled
with virtually no explanation for the inordinate delay weigh against exercising discretion in his
favour.
The appeal has little, if any, merit
[13] The Applicant has not provided evidence or a submission related to the potential merits
of the appeal. The Applicant does not appear to challenge the legal validity of the visa officer’s
decision regarding the loss of his permanent resident status because he admitted, in 2016, that he
no longer met his residency obligation. Moreover, excerpts from the Record reflect that the
Applicant and his immediate family reside in India and there is no indication any of them intend
to return to Canada in the foreseeable future.
[14] The GCMS notes attached to the Minister’s submission demonstrate that the visa officer
carefully considered whether humanitarian and compassionate (“H & C”) factors might have
warranted discretionary relief and retention of the Applicant’s permanent resident status in 2016.
The Applicant was invited, twice, to provide information which might have supported H & C
relief, and the evidence the Applicant ultimately provided was insufficient to tip the scales in his
favor. Since that time, the Applicant has provided nothing further which might be construed as
new potential evidence regarding H & C factors which might support the prospect that the appeal
[15] The Minister submits the residency obligation decision is both reasonable and valid in
law. The Record is clear that the Appellant did not satisfy his residency obligation by being
physically present in Canada for 730 days in the five year period and he did not present
compelling H & C circumstances which might have warranted discretionary relief by the visa
office. I agree with the Minister’s submission, and the Applicant has introduced no new
evidence in this application which might indicate a different outcome could result if the case was
considered anew.
The Respondent would suffer minimal prejudice if the application was allowed and the
appeal was permitted to proceed, but procedural fairness concerns remain.
[16] The Respondent has a legislative mandate to participate in applications and litigation
arising from IRPA and is a publicly funded, fully staffed, entity. As a result, I cannot conclude
the Respondent would suffer substantial prejudice if the application was allowed and the appeal
was permitted to proceed. The Respondent would be able to rely on file records and its
institutional resources to support its position in the appeal hearing, and it is unlikely the passage
of time has diminished the strength of the its case.
[17] That said, broadening my analysis to consider the integrity and efficient functioning of
Canada’s immigration system leads inevitably to acknowledging that natural justice and the rule
of law require finality in decisions. Timely appeals are vital to procedural fairness, and
indeterminate opportunities to pursue reconsiderations are not. Indeed, permitting review of
decisions intended to be final well after they are rendered and relied upon creates uncertainty and
procedural instability.
[18] Absent a compelling reason to reopen a matter reasonably considered closed several
years ago, the interests of justice support adherence to the prescribed appeal period. To do
otherwise could erode the Respondent’s institutional ability to discharge its mandate which is
also contrary to the public interest objectives IRPA is intended to protect and advance.
[1] Atulkumar (the “Appellant”) was designated a permanent resident
of Canada in November 2009 but spent extensive periods of time in India thereafter. In February
2016, he applied for a travel document to enable him to return to Canada, which was denied
because it was also determined he had not complied with the residency obligations of section 28
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”).
1 The letter advising the Appellant of
this decision contained information about his right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the “IAD”). He was provided with a blank Notice of
Appeal form which the enclosure letter advised had to be submitted within 60 days if he wished
to appeal the visa officer’s determination.
[2] The Appellant did not file his Notice of Appeal for more than 4 years.
[3] The IAD has jurisdiction to consider an application to extend the 60 day time period for
filing an appeal, but a person applying for such relief must provide evidence sufficient to
demonstrate the following:
(a) a continuing intention to pursue the appeal;
(b) a reasonable explanation for the delay in not filing the appeal on a timely basis;
(c) that no prejudice to the Respondent has arisen from the delay, and
(d) that the appeal has some merit;
For the balance of this decision, the Appellant will be referred to as the Applicant because he
brought an application for an order extending the time limit to facilitate filing his appeal in
March 2020.
[4] For the reasons set out below, I find the evidence is insufficient to warrant exercise of my
discretion as requested by the Applicant. As a result, the application to extend time for filing the
[5] This application was determined in Chambers (without an oral hearing). The Applicant
provided written submissions supported by accompanying documents on or about March 20,
2020. Unfortunately, the application could not be processed efficiently because it arrived as the
IAD office was closing for several months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the Respondent
received notice of the application, the Respondent requested and was granted a brief extension of
time to provide a reply. The Minister’s submissions were received on July 22, 2020, and it was
then possible to complete analysis of the application and prepare this decision.
[6] I have taken all documents and submissions filed by both parties into account, including
excerpts from GCMS notes contained in the original Record regarding the Applicant’s
permanent resident status and the Applicant’s affidavit(s).
ANALYSIS
[7] As noted above, an application to extend time to file an appeal after 60 days have passed
must be supported by evidence which satisfies the preconditions or factors necessary to justify a
discretionary remedy in favor of an applicant who has failed to meet the prescribed deadline.
[8] While the Minister submits the evidence must establish all four enumerated factors for
the application for extension of time to succeed, the Federal Court of Appeal’s guidance in
Grewal2
encourages a more dynamic and case-specific analysis. A determination of whether any
applicant’s explanations justify granting an extension must turn on the facts but also support the
broader objective of doing justice between the parties. Thus, the exercise of discretion involves
weighing and balancing sometimes competing considerations, which is a fluid, rather than
formulaic, process. Employing this approach, my findings regarding the presence or absence of
factors which might support granting the remedy the Applicant seeks are below.
[9] The Applicant has not provided evidence to support a reasonable conclusion that he
formed an intention to appeal the residency obligation decision he received in 2016 over the past
4 years. Instead, the Applicant’s evidence is limited to a detailed account of obstacles he
encountered only during the month of March 2016 which inhibited his ability to obtain timely
advice about a potential appeal. The Applicant deposed he was busy taking his daughter to and
from State Board examinations and that his wife suffered an injury which required him care for
her and assume responsibility for household chores. However, the Applicant’s submission is
silent on whether or why he did nothing further to advance his appeal after March 2016. He has
not submitted evidence that he thought about or did anything regarding an appeal until his
application was filed approximately 6 months ago.
[10] The Minister submits a reasonable inference can be drawn that the Applicant accepted the
visa officer’s decision and recognized it was correct. He had already returned to live in India by
the time the decision was rendered, and no evidence was submitted to demonstrate he intended to
return to Canada thereafter. Effectively, the Applicant ceased living in Canada when he returned
to India in 2015 and he acknowledged he was no longer a permanent resident of Canada at and
after that time.
The Applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in filing the Notice
of Appeal
[11] The onus is on the Applicant to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Approximately 4 years passed between the date he received the decision advising him he was no
longer considered a permanent resident of Canada and the date he endeavoured to launch his
appeal. There is no question the Applicant was aware he had 60 days to properly file a Notice of
Appeal, but he failed to do so. This is not a case where the Applicant missed the deadline by a
few weeks or even months. More than 4 years passed, and the Applicant provided no evidence
which might have justified or explained his circumstances.
[12] The Applicant noted in his submission that he hoped to obtain legal advice or the
assistance of an immigration consultant but eventually he represented himself in this application.
Other than describing personal challenges and family obligations during the month immediately
following his receipt of the residency obligation decision, the Applicant provided no account of
his circumstances thereafter. If, for example, the Applicant had been prevented from diligently
pursuing his appeal for reasons outside his control, he should have provided such evidence for
consideration. He did not do so, and I am therefore prepared to draw a negative inference that
such evidence does not exist. The Applicant’s lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal coupled
with virtually no explanation for the inordinate delay weigh against exercising discretion in his
favour.
The appeal has little, if any, merit
[13] The Applicant has not provided evidence or a submission related to the potential merits
of the appeal. The Applicant does not appear to challenge the legal validity of the visa officer’s
decision regarding the loss of his permanent resident status because he admitted, in 2016, that he
no longer met his residency obligation. Moreover, excerpts from the Record reflect that the
Applicant and his immediate family reside in India and there is no indication any of them intend
to return to Canada in the foreseeable future.
[14] The GCMS notes attached to the Minister’s submission demonstrate that the visa officer
carefully considered whether humanitarian and compassionate (“H & C”) factors might have
warranted discretionary relief and retention of the Applicant’s permanent resident status in 2016.
The Applicant was invited, twice, to provide information which might have supported H & C
relief, and the evidence the Applicant ultimately provided was insufficient to tip the scales in his
favor. Since that time, the Applicant has provided nothing further which might be construed as
new potential evidence regarding H & C factors which might support the prospect that the appeal
[15] The Minister submits the residency obligation decision is both reasonable and valid in
law. The Record is clear that the Appellant did not satisfy his residency obligation by being
physically present in Canada for 730 days in the five year period and he did not present
compelling H & C circumstances which might have warranted discretionary relief by the visa
office. I agree with the Minister’s submission, and the Applicant has introduced no new
evidence in this application which might indicate a different outcome could result if the case was
considered anew.
The Respondent would suffer minimal prejudice if the application was allowed and the
appeal was permitted to proceed, but procedural fairness concerns remain.
[16] The Respondent has a legislative mandate to participate in applications and litigation
arising from IRPA and is a publicly funded, fully staffed, entity. As a result, I cannot conclude
the Respondent would suffer substantial prejudice if the application was allowed and the appeal
was permitted to proceed. The Respondent would be able to rely on file records and its
institutional resources to support its position in the appeal hearing, and it is unlikely the passage
of time has diminished the strength of the its case.
[17] That said, broadening my analysis to consider the integrity and efficient functioning of
Canada’s immigration system leads inevitably to acknowledging that natural justice and the rule
of law require finality in decisions. Timely appeals are vital to procedural fairness, and
indeterminate opportunities to pursue reconsiderations are not. Indeed, permitting review of
decisions intended to be final well after they are rendered and relied upon creates uncertainty and
procedural instability.
[18] Absent a compelling reason to reopen a matter reasonably considered closed several
years ago, the interests of justice support adherence to the prescribed appeal period. To do
otherwise could erode the Respondent’s institutional ability to discharge its mandate which is
also contrary to the public interest objectives IRPA is intended to protect and advance.
[QUOTE="atulkumar, post: 9316780, member: 793801" (2)
CONCLUSION
[19] The evidence and submissions of the Applicant are inadequate to warrant exercise of my
discretion to permit an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. The evidence does not
establish the Applicant had a continuing intention to pursue his appeal or that the appeal has
merit. Further, the Applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and there
are procedural fairness concerns which would negatively impact the Respondent and the integrity
of Canada’s immigration regime if the application was allowed. As a result, I find the interests
of justice and fairness as between the parties require dismissal of this applicat
Please help me or guide me
How to resolve this case
[/QUOTE]
CONCLUSION
[19] The evidence and submissions of the Applicant are inadequate to warrant exercise of my
discretion to permit an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. The evidence does not
establish the Applicant had a continuing intention to pursue his appeal or that the appeal has
merit. Further, the Applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and there
are procedural fairness concerns which would negatively impact the Respondent and the integrity
of Canada’s immigration regime if the application was allowed. As a result, I find the interests
of justice and fairness as between the parties require dismissal of this applicat
Please help me or guide me
How to resolve this case
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
The appeal was refused.
This means your PR status has been officially lost.
If you want to become a PR again, you would need to reapply from scratch through an economic immigration program like Express Entry.
