Septem​ber 12, 2008
Case type: Residency Obligation Appeal
Summary: On July 22, 2007, a visa officer determined that the appellants failed to comply with the residency obligations set out in section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the IRPA). The appellants appealed these refusals to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) pursuant to section 63(4) of the IRPA. The appeals were allowed. The decision of the officer made outside of Canada on the appellants’ residency obligations was set aside. The IAD found that the appellants did not lose their permanent resident status. The appellants did not meet the residency obligations set out in section 28 of the IRPA and the refusal was valid in law. However, the panel can consider whether to allow the appellants’ appeals under its discretionary authority to grant special relief under section 67(1)(c) of the IRPA. Taking into account the high number of days of residency and the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision, the panel concluded that there were sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant the granting of special relief.
