Focus On

EXCLUSION - (Inadmissible persons) - Misrepresentation

Tuesday, January 28, 2020 @ 6:23 AM  

Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Application by Zeng for judicial review of an immigration officer’s decision that the five-year inadmissibility period and prohibition applied. The applicant misrepresented his marriage to a Canadian citizen as genuine to obtain permanent resident status. Before the 2014 amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which increased the inadmissibility period for misrepresentation from two years to five years came into effect, an exclusion order was made again the applicant. He left Canada in 2015. This became the date on which the exclusion order against him was enforced and marked the start of the inadmissibility period. In November 2017, he again applied for permanent residence in Canada, sponsored by his third wife.

HELD: Application allowed. The two-year inadmissibility period applied to the applicant. Applying the five-year inadmissibility period to a foreign national found inadmissible for misrepresentation and subject to a removal order before the amendments came into effect would amount to the retrospective application of the amendments. The amendments appeared designed to further deter fraudulent applications by increasing the adverse consequences of a finding of misrepresentation. In the absence of any legislative indication that the amendments were intended to apply retrospectively, the inadmissibility period imposed by an exclusion order for misrepresentation prior to the date the amendments came into effect continued to be two years, whether the exclusion order was enforced before or after that date.

Zeng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2019] F.C.J. No. 1451, Federal Court, N. McHaffie J., December 11, 2019. Digest No. TLD-January272020004