Background
Oseikhuemen Ihenyen applied in August 2021 for permanent residence under the international-graduates category of a temporary resident-to-permanent resident public policy. He held a valid work permit when he applied, but the permit expired on November 20, 2023, and he lost his temporary resident status.
An immigration officer reviewed the application on December 4, 2024, and refused it because Ihenyen neither held valid temporary resident status nor was eligible to restore that status when the application was assessed. Ihenyen sought judicial review, arguing that the policy required valid status only when the application was submitted, that the officer should have requested updated documents or waived the requirement, and that a supplemental policy supported approval. He also alleged procedural unfairness and a breach of legitimate expectations.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Aylen dismissed the application. The Court held that criterion “f” of the policy clearly required an applicant to reside in Canada with valid temporary resident status, or be eligible to restore that status, both when the application was received and when it was approved. Criterion “g,” addressing the evidence required with an application, was an additional mandatory criterion and did not qualify or contradict criterion “f.” Because Ihenyen indisputably lacked valid status in December 2024, the officer’s refusal was reasonable.
The officer had no obligation to request updated status documents when no valid status existed, and no discretion to waive the mandatory requirement. The supplemental policy did not assist Ihenyen: he had not applied under it, and it addressed refusals based solely on applicants being outside Canada at the time of decision, not refusals based on loss of temporary status. The Court also rejected the procedural-fairness claim because IRCC had made no clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation that valid status would not be required at approval; internal IRCC documents could not constitute representations made to him.
Key Takeaways
- Applicants under this TR-to-PR public policy must maintain valid temporary resident status, or remain eligible for restoration, through the date of approval.
- An immigration officer cannot waive a mandatory policy eligibility requirement and need not request updated documents where they could not establish eligibility.
- Legitimate expectations require a clear, unambiguous and unqualified government representation; internal agency materials not communicated to an applicant do not suffice.
Why It Matters
The ruling confirms that satisfying eligibility requirements when a TR-to-PR application is filed does not necessarily preserve eligibility throughout lengthy processing. Where a public policy expressly imposes conditions at both filing and approval, applicants must continue meeting those conditions until a final decision is made.
It also confines the supplemental policy to its stated purpose: protecting otherwise eligible applicants whose applications were refused solely because they were outside Canada when decided. It does not cure the loss of valid temporary resident status.