January 2025
MUHAMMAD TEHSEEN IMM-3167-24 2025 FC 55 JANUARY 10, 2025
In 2025, Muhammad Tehseen, a Pakistani citizen applied for a work permit, but his application was rejected. The Officer claimed that the Applicant lacked sufficient experience as a meat cutter. The Officer’s GCMS notes indicate that this conclusion was reached solely on an unclear hiring date in an undated letter signed by a possible business partner from Tehseen Meat Shop. However, several sources contradict this judgement, namely the Applicant’s application form, his resume, statutory declaration to the letter from his co-owner and statements from store customers. Each of these sources provides information to negate the Officer’s determination that the Applicant was inexperienced. As such, the application was allowed.
LANXI PENG IMM-1419-24 2025 FC 2 JANUARY 2, 2025
In 2025, Lanxi Peng applied for permanent residency, but experienced significant delays from IRCC in her application. The Court states in Jia 2014 FC 596 that all relevant circumstances must be considered when determining whether a delay is unreasonable, including IRCC’s average processing times. In this case, the Applicant’s PNP application remained undecided for nearly four years, more than three times the posted average processing period.
IRCC was required to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay but failed to do so. Although IRCC confirmed receipt of all necessary documents between August and December 2023, it still did not justify the prolonged processing time of the PNP application. The only relevant updates the Applicant received came from the MP and OINP. IRCC not only failed to provide a satisfactory justification but offered almost no reasoning at all (Conille at para 23).
The Respondent claimed that the lengthy delay was justified due to the Applicant’s “lengthy immigration history”. However, the court finds this reasoning insufficient, given the Applicant’s straightforward immigration background. She had two study permits denied on technical grounds in 2014, and her refugee claim was rejected along with her work permit application in 2019.
Furthermore, the Applicant was not given precise information about the pending status of her eligibility and criminality assessments, nor was it clear whether her security assessment had begun. These explanations were inadequate for the delay in the Applicant’s case. Justice Gador concurred with Justice Gascon, who stated that delays related to pending security assessments are not satisfactory.
“The integrity of the immigration system” is not only based on inadmissibility decisions, as other objectives of the statutory framework are outlined in subsection 3(1)] of IRPA. The Applicant correctly observes that the delay in this case undermines the main objectives of IRPA, including family reunification, consistent standards, timely processing and fair procedures (IRPA, ss 3(1)(d), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(f.1)). Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the Applicant’s potential inadmissibility had been thoroughly reviewed.
Both the Applicant and her mother experienced significant emotional and physical distress due to the unreasonable delays in the application process. The delay has affected the Applicant’s career, causing it to stagnate. She also reported suffering from insomnia, hair loss, heart palpitations and cold sweats. Her mother also felt very anxious and had trouble sleeping as a result of being apart from her daughter for an extended period. The Applicant highlighted that her mother is her only immediate family member and has been waiting for a reunion since she submitted her application in March 2021. Furthermore, the Applicant stated that the challenges they faced while awaiting her PNP application have prevented her from working since April 2024. The court agrees with the Applicant that vacations do not constitute family reunification. Temporary reunions during vacations do not address the Respondent’s failure to uphold the objective of family reunification as outlined in paragraph 3(1)(d) of the IRPA. This is especially true since the goal is to reunite families in Canada, not through temporary visits abroad.
Overall, the excessive delay, the stress it caused the Applicant and her mother, and the conflict with IRPA’s objectives support the Applicant’s position. Thus, the balance of convenience rests with the Applicant in this case.
Almuhtadi v C.C.I., 2021 FC 712 confirms that IRCC’s authority to assess admissibility does not justify the delay, especially given the Applicant’s affidavit explaining its negative impact on her and her mother (para. 49). As a result, the court issued an order of mandamus, requiring IRCC to decide on the Applicant’s PNP application within 90 days. The application was allowed.
