Date: 20001026
Docket: IMM-171-00
BETWEEN:
NATHALINE QUADROS
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HANSEN J.
[1] Nathaline Quadros seeks judicial review of the November 21, 1999 decision of a Program Manager at the Canadian Embassy in Abu Dhabi.
[2] The applicant was granted permanent residence in Canada upon her arrival on May 16, 1997. Six days later she returned to Bahrain and her employment at Caltex Bahrain where she had been working since 1994. She obtained a Returning Resident Permit valid from July 22, 1997 to July 22, 1999. In June 1999, she applied for a two year extension of her Returning Resident Permit citing the birth of her daughter in February 1999 and her desire to complete her Bachelor of Technology in Computing Degree. The request was refused.
[3] The Program Manager refused the request because the applicant had left Canada only a few days after receiving her permanent residence status and for the purpose of resuming her employment in Bahrain.
[4] In July 1999, the applicant retained counsel and submitted a new application for a Returning Resident Permit on the basis that she had returned to Bahrain to further her education. The Program Manager agreed to consider her new request and asked the applicant to submit additional documentation regarding her program of studies in Bahrain.
[5] The officer, after reviewing the new documentation, concluded that the applicant was not outside Canada for the purpose of upgrading her skills, but rather, to complete her employment contract. Nonetheless, the officer, taking into account the fact that she had married and had a child, authorized a Retuning Resident Permit valid until July 30, 2000 to give her an opportunity to submit an application to sponsor her husband and child. It was noted on the permit that "no extensions will be granted". The Program Manager also indicated in the letter he was "... of the opinion that you will cease to be a permanent resident of Canada if you do not return to Canada within the authorized period, i.e. July 31, 2000."
[6] The applicant first submits that the refusal to grant the requested extension requires the concurrence of both an immigration officer and a senior immigration officer as contemplated under subsection 26(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978. As no determination was made regarding the applicant's permanent residence status and a permit was, in fact, issued this provision of the Regulations is not relevant.
[7] The applicant also argues that the Program Manager erred in treating the issuance of the permit as discretionary when subparagraph 26(2)(c)(ii) of the Regulations provides that "... an immigration officer shall issue a returning resident permit to a permanent resident who ... left Canada for the purpose of upgrading his professional, academic or vocational qualifications" [emphasis added].
[8] This provision mandates the issuance of a Returning Resident Permit where the applicant, in addition to having complied with the requirements of paragraphs 26(2)(a) and (b), has met one of the four criteria enumerated under paragraph 26(2)(c). In the present case, the Program Manager reasonably concluded that the applicant did not leave to "upgrading her professional, academic or vocational qualifications", but rather, to complete her contract with the firm for which she had been working with since 1994 and that her attendance at school was incidental to her employment. As noted earlier, he did, however, issue an Returning Resident Permit because of her personal circumstances.
[9] The applicant also argues that the Program Manager exceeded his jurisdiction by noting on the permit that "no extensions will be granted". She argues that there is no legal authority for one officer to bind all other officers regarding future applications for a Returning Resident Permit. She submits that his status as a Program Manager effectively precludes any future immigration officer from granting a permit. I agree with the respondent's submission that whether another officer on a subsequent application for a permit would feel bound or fettered by the notation is speculative at this time.
[10] The applicant also argued that the Program Manager, without authority, made a decision regarding her permanent residence status. I do not accept this argument. He only offered an opinion that her status would be in jeopardy should she not return prior to the end of July 2000.
[11] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[12] Neither party submitted a question for certification.
"Dolores M. Hansen"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 26, 2000