By Sukhram Ramkissoon

In a recent Federal Court decision, it was ruled that a Confirmation of Permanent Residence cannot be amended unless there is a clerical error by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

Let us examine this case. The applicant sought relief with respect to a refusal by IRCC which denied a request to change her surname, her given name, and her date of birth.

The applicant is a Canadian citizen and became a permanent resident in 2001.  In 2019, thirteen (13) years after obtaining citizenship and eighteen (18) years after obtaining permanent residence, she filed a Request to Amend the Record of Landing (RARL) to change her full name and her date of birth from Victoria born 1987 to Gloria born 1988. In an affidavit submitted with IRCC, Victoria explained that she traveled to Canada and obtained citizenship under an assumed identity and submitted her true birth certificate which she contends to be her real name and date of birth.

Her aunt was sponsored by her husband some time before 2001 and the application included Victoria as an adoptive child of the aunt and therefore her aunt’s accompanying dependent. Her aunt later decided she would not take Victoria with her to Canada. After the travel documents were issued, she arranged to take her niece Gloria, in Victoria’s place.

Gloria, who was then thirteen years old, entered Canada using Victoria’s passport and has been living under her identity ever since.  She submitted the application in an attempt to set the record straight and correct the personal information in her Record of Landing. Her application was refused, and the letter explained that IRCC’s policy was that the Record of Landing is a historical document. As such, only those errors made by departmental officials at the time of the applicant’s arrival in Canada could result in an amendment to the document. Specifically, the Officer noted that as a historical document, it does not change to reflect life events such as marriage, the birth of children, name changes, death, or other happenings that occur after a person becomes a permanent resident of Canada.

The Officer found no amendment was warranted based on IRCC’s policy as the information recorded in the Applicant’s Record of Landing accurately captured the personal information in the passport presented for the Applicant at the time of her landing and refused the request.

After filing her Federal Court matter, the learned judge stated that while the notes are brief, they identify the request to change the Applicant’s given name from Victoria to Gloria. The Officer found that the Applicant provided insufficient proof to support her application and stated that the Applicant should provide a “Court Judgment document.”   

It was acknowledged by the Applicant that the Amending Guide provides for a process and does not allow for changes to her date of birth, only a change of name. The learned judge further stated that the Guide requires that individuals provide at least two identity and civil status documents issued prior to the date on which they entered Canada. In addition, the IRCC policy document “Naming Procedures: Managing Existing Records – Change of Name Request” sets out specific procedures for change of name requests. This document indicates that when a person submits an RARL application, and it is determined that IRCC made a clerical or administrative error at the time of landing, a correction will be made in the record and in IRCC’s system of record.

It also specifically states that historical documents such as an immigration record of landing or Confirmation of Permanent Residence will not be amended unless a clerical or administrative error was made by IRCC.

Requests for a name change for reasons other than a clerical or administrative error require a “legal or administrative decision as evidence.” The Applicant presented only her own affidavit and birth registration document, which was issued over 17 years after her arrival in Canada.

The applicant observes that if the Minister were to pursue revocation of her citizenship for misrepresentation under section 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, the Applicant would have the opportunity to make submissions relating to her personal circumstances that warrant special relief and she could retain her citizenship.

The judge stated that the jurisprudence is clear that misrepresentations made by a parent implicate a minor child for the purpose of a substantive revocation and cessation application and dismissed the application for judicial review by the applicant.

This article is written for information purposes and should not be taken as legal advice.  If you are in such a situation, seek out legal representation from an expert.

SUKHRAM RAMKISSOON is a member of CICC and specialises in Immigration Matters at No. 3089 Bathurst Street, Suite 219A, Toronto, Ontario, Phone 416 789 5756.