By Sukhram Ramkissoon
An 81-year-old citizen of Ukraine who seeks to gain permanent residence status in Canada and lives with his family and his daughter was recently granted judicial review by Federal Court to resubmit his application for a Temporary Resident Permit.
The man, who I will call Hector, was left in the care of his son in Ukraine who was diagnosed with alcoholism and mental health issues related to his addiction. Hector, who shared an apartment with his son, lived under stressful conditions, causing him to show signs of depression due to his son’s aggressive and abusive behavior.
In 2008, following his multiple unsuccessful attempts since 2004 to obtain a visitor visa to Canada, his daughter applied to sponsor him under the family class program and was found eligible as a sponsor. In November 2011, he was issued a multiple entry visitor visa which expired on May 24, 2013, and he traveled to Canada on Jan. 10, 2012, with an expressed dual intent.
Believing that his visa authorized him to remain in Canada until its expiration date of May 24, 2013, he applied for an extension of that visa in April 2013 and was informed by CIC that both his application for extension and sponsorship application were rejected in June 2013. His daughter then submitted an appeal with respect to the sponsorship application to the Immigration Appeal Division.
In August 2013, as he was not entitled to restoration of his status and due to his inadmissibility to Canada, he submitted a Temporary Resident Permit application, pending the outcome of his daughter’s appeal.
In support of his application, Hector provided submissions and evidence demonstrating that:
- a) He would suffer hardship were he to return to Ukraine;
b) He does not have any family, support, or access to social services in Ukraine;
c) He has established himself with his family in Canada, who provide for his needs;
d) The best interests of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren living in Canada favour allowing him to remain temporarily in Canada.
In February 2014, the officer rejected his application for a TRP and cited a number of reasons including that the applicant was issued a temporary visa on the premise he had dual intent and that he would return to Ukraine after his authorized stay. However, the officer had “little faith” the applicant would leave Canada if the appeal in his daughter’s sponsorship appeal was refused.
Hector then filed for judicial review in Federal Court. The judge in the written reasons stated, “This court has found that the purpose of TRPs is to soften the sometimes harsh consequences of the strict application of (the) IRPA which surfaces in cases where there may be “compelling reasons” to allow a foreign national to enter or remain in Canada despite inadmissibility or non-compliance with (the) IRPA”.
In conclusion, the judge ruled “the evidence, when read carefully and as a whole, demonstrates Hector’s establishment with his family and members of the community in Canada, the evidence of potential hardship faced upon return to Ukraine, as well as the best interests of his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, require further in-depth examination” and granted judicial review.
Sukhram Ramkissoon is a member of ICCRC and specializes in immigration matters at 3089 Bathurst St., Suite 219A, Toronto. Phone 416-789-5756.