 
 Immigration and  
Refugee Board  
Immigration Appeal Division  
 Commission de l'immigration  
et du statut de réfugié  
Section d’appel de l’immigration  
 
IAD File No. / No Dossier de la SAI : MB2 -02508  
Client ID No. / No ID Client : 5981 -8386  
 
Reasons and Decisio n  Motifs et décision  
Sponsorship Appeal  
 
 
Appellant(s)   Appelant(s)  
Gregory ATAMBI  
Respondent   Intimé  
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration  
Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration  
 Date(s) of Hearing   Date(s) de l'audience  
(In Chambers)  
 
Place of Hearing   Lieu de l'audience  
Montréal, Québec  
Date of decision   Date de la décision  
October  11, 2012  
Panel   Tribunal  
Me MaXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
Appellant's Counsel   Conseil de l’appelant(s)  
N/A  
Minister's Counsel   Conseil de l’intimé  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
2012 CanLII 98510 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No Dossier de la SAI : MB2 -02508  
Client ID No. / No ID Client : 5981 -8386  
2 
 
 
 
 Reasons for Decision  
[1] These are the reasons in support of the decision concerning an appeal lodged by  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXthe appellant), pursuant to subsection 63(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection 
Act1 (the Act ), relating to the refusal to grant permanent residence as a member of the family class to 
his wife, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXthe applicant) . 
[2] The application was refused on the basis of paragraph 117(9) (d) of the Immigration and 
Refugee Protection Regulations2 (the Regulations ), which sta tes the following:  
117.   (9) A foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by 
virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if  
(…)  
(d) subject to subsection  (10), the sponsor previously made an application for 
permanent residence and  became a permanent resident and, at the time of that 
application, the foreign national was a non -accompanying family member of the 
sponsor and was not examined.  
 
[3] In particular, the immigration officer determined that the applicant was not a member of the 
family class because the appellant had not declared her during the processing of h is application for 
permanent residence.  Having failed to disclose the existence of his wife, she was not examined and 
she is not a member of the family class.  The immigrati on officer considered that the appellant’s 
failure to  disclose the applicant when his  application for permanent residence was being processed 
prevents h im from sponsoring h er in the future . 
[4] By letter dated June 28, 2012, the Immigration Appeal Division req uested submissions from 
the appellant and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on the application of paragraph 
117(9)( d) of the Regulations .  
[5] The appellant filed submissions on July 26, 2012.  On August 15, 2012, submissions were 
received by the Min ister’s counsel.    
                                                                 
1  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. (2001), chap. 27 , as amended . 
2  Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002 -227, June 11, 2002, as amended.  
2012 CanLII 98510 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No Dossier de la SAI : MB2 -02508  
Client ID No. / No ID Client : 5981 -8386  
3 
 
 
 
 [6] At issue is whether the app ellant’s wife who was a non -accompanying family member and 
was not declared during the processing of the appellant’s permanent residence application, and was  
therefore not examined, can now be sponsored as a me mber of the family class.    
[7] The evidence in the file reveals that the app ellant failed to declare his wife during the 
processing of his permanent residence application and until he arrived at the point of entry and was 
granted permanent residence in Canad a.  
[8] The unchallenged evidence reveals that the appellant married the applicant on March 24, 2009.  
The appellant was granted permanent residence status in Canada on May 6, 2009.    
[9] Counsel for the Minister alleges that the appellant had the obligation to d isclose his marriage 
and wife to the Canadian immigration authorities even if his visa had been issued on 
November  7, 2008.  He had the obligation to disclose her during the processing of his permanent 
residence application until the time he was granted pe rmanent residence in Canada.  He failed to 
disclose her and she was therefore not examined.   
[10]  In his submissions, the appellant admitted that he did not disclose his marriage and his wife.  
He alleged that he already had his permanent resident visa , he was  confused and forgot to disclose her 
to Canadian immigration authorities.  He alleged that he arrived in Canada and was granted 
permanent resident status on May 6, 2009 and only once in Canada, he called Canada immigration to 
update his status.    
[11]  The fact  that the appellant did not disclose the existence of his wife to the immigration officer 
at the latest when he was granted permanent residence status on May 6, 2009 and that his wife was 
not examined is not disputed by either party.  
[12]  In the decision XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, the Federal Court confirmed the extent of the period rega rding 
the obligation to disclose a change in  the family unit :  
                                                                 
3  De la Fuente  c. Canada (M.C.I.),  2006  FCA 186.  
2012 CanLII 98510 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No Dossier de la SAI : MB2 -02508  
Client ID No. / No ID Client : 5981 -8386  
4 
 
 
 
  
[49] Finally, I do not believe that reading paragraph 117(9) (d) in this manner renders 
section 51  of the Regulations  redundant ( Tauseef , paragraph 26). It is true that section 51 , 
like paragraph 117(9) (d), seeks to ensure full disclosure of the family unit. Section 51  
does so by imposing on applicants an ongoing obligation to disclose any change in their 
marital status between the time when the visa is obtained and the time when entry is 
sought. That two provisions are aimed at ensurin g that full disclosure of family members 
is made up to the time of entry highlights the importance of the timely definition of the 
family unit, but no redundancy arises when regard is had to the different means employed 
by these provisions to achieve this goal.  
[50]In my view, construing the phrase “at the time of that application” as proposed in 
XXXX , achieves the intended effect and promotes family unification within the scheme 
provided under the IRPA  towards that end.  
  
[51]I would therefore answer the second certified question as follows: the phrase “at the 
time of that application” in paragraph 117(9) (d) of the Regulations  contemplates the 
life of the application from the time when it is initiated by the fil ing of the 
authorized form to the time when permanent resident status is granted at a port of 
entry.  
(Tribunal’s emphasis)  
  
[13]  The Tribunal finds that the appellant had the obligation to disclose the change in his marital 
status and had the obligation  to inf orm the I mmigration officer at the Canadian Embassy that he got 
married on March 24, 2009.  The fact that his permanent re sident visa had already been issued on 
November 7, 2008 has no effect on this obligation to disclose any change in marital status unti l the 
time he was  granted permanent resident status.   He had to inform Canadian immigration authorities in 
order to enable them to proceed to examining his wife regardless of whether or not she was 
accompanying him to Canada at the time.       
[14]  The Tribunal  has carefully reviewed the evidence and the jurisprudence regar ding th e 
interpretation to be given to paragraph 117(9)( d) of the Regulations .  The Federal Court has 
determined that a non-accompanying foreign national who was not declared and examined at t he time 
the application for permanent residence was made and granted is n ot a member of the family class, 
regardless of the reasons for not disclosing th e foreign national.  In the decision XXXXXX v. Canada 
(M.C.I.) , the Federal Court determined the follow ing : 
2012 CanLII 98510 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No Dossier de la SAI : MB2 -02508  
Client ID No. / No ID Client : 5981 -8386  
5 
 
 
 
 [24] The Court of Appeal has therefore decided that the impugned regulation is not 
utltra vires  the IRPA particularly in cases where there is a misrepresentation to 
immigration authorities. Here, however, the Applicant did not know of his son's 
exist ence at the time of his application for permanent residence. He cannot, therefore, 
be said to have concealed this information or to have misrepresented his 
circumstances. In my view, it matters not whether non -disclosure is deliberate or 
not. The regulatio n is clear, paragraph 117(9)( d) makes no distinction as to the 
reason for which an non -accompanying family member of the sponsor was not 
disclosed in his application for permanent residence. What matters, is the 
absence of examination by an officer that ne cessarily flows from the non -
disclosure.  This interpretation is consistent with the findings of my Colleague, 
Justice XXXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXXXX v. M.C.I.,  [2005] F.C.J. No. 852 , 2005 FC 678 , 
where the scope and effect of the impugned regulation  were found not to be limited 
to cases of fraudulent non -disclosure. At paragraph 11 of his reasons, my learned 
colleague wrote, "... Whatever the motive, a failure to disclose which prevents the 
immigration officer from examining the dependent precludes future 
sponsorshi p of that person as a member of the family class. 4 
 
[15]  The Tribunal follows this reasoning.  The appellant did not declare h is wife  at the time he 
made h is application for permanent residence until he was granted permanent residence in Canada and 
arrived at the Port of Entry .  She was not exam ined by Immigration authorities, and she is, therefore, 
not a member of the family class , pursuant to paragraph 117(9)( d) of the Regulations .  
[16]  Pursuant to section 65 of the Act , the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to  consider 
humanitarian and comp assionate grounds.  
Conclusion  
[17]  For the reasons stated, the Tribunal dismiss es the appeal.  
                                                                 
4  XXXXXX  v. Canada (M.C.I.) , 2008 FC 32. See also : XXXXXXXXXXXXX v. Canada (M.C.I.) , 2005 F C 104 ; XXXX  v. 
Canada (M.C.I.) , 2005 FC 678 ; XXXX  v. Canada (M.C.I.) , 2005 FC 510.  
2012 CanLII 98510 (CA IRB)
IAD File No. / No Dossier de la SAI : MB2 -02508  
Client ID No. / No ID Client : 5981 -8386  
6 
 
 
 
 NOTICE OF DECISION  
 
The appeal is dismissed . 
 
 
 MaXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX   
 Me MaXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  
 October 11th, 2012   
 Date  
rc 
  
 NOTE - Judicial review  - Under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , you may make an 
application to the Federal Court for judicial review of this decision, with leave of that Court.  You may wish to get advice 
from counsel as soon as possible, since there are time limits for this application.  
 
2012 CanLII 98510 (CA IRB)

