 
IAD.34.1 (October 2007) Disponible en français 
  
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada  Immigration Appeal Division 
 Commission de l'immigration et  du statute de réfugié du Canada  Section d'appel de l'immigration
 
 
 IAD File No./N° de dossier : TB0-04658 Client ID No./ N° ID client : 4083-2973   
Reasons and Decision − Motifs et décision 
 
SPONSORSHIP 
   Appellant(s) Appelant(s) 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
  Respondent Intimé 
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de I'Immigration  
 Date(s) and Place Date(s) et Lieu de of Hearing l’audience 
In Chambers Toronto, Ontario  
 Date of Decision Date de la Décision 
August 22, 2011  
 Panel Tribunal 
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Q.C. 
  Appellant’s Counsel Conseil de l’appelant(s) 
N/A 
  Minister’s Counsel Conseil de l’intimé 
N/A  
2011 CanLII 90920 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TB0-04658 Client ID No./ N° ID client : 4083-2973  1   
 NOTICE OF DECISION AND REASONS 
 [1] This is the hearing of a sponsorship appeal brought by XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the appellant) against a decision not to issue a pe rmanent residence visa to his spouse, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the applicant), who is a citizen and resident of India.  [2] The appellant married the applicant in In dia on January 8, 2005.  He then sponsored a permanent resident application made by the applican t that was received by the visa office at New Delhi on July 18, 2005.  [4] The application for permanent residence was made by the applicant was refused by a refusal letter dated February 22, 2010 by operation of subsection 11(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act) and paragraph 133(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) which subsection and paragraph read as follows:  
If sponsor does not meet requirements  (2) The officer may not issue a visa or other document to a foreign national whose sponsor does not meet the sponsorship requirements of this Act.  Requirements for sponsor  113. (1) A sponsorship application shall only be approved by an officer if, on the day on which the application was filed and from that day until the day a decision is made with respect to the application, there is evidence that the sponsor  (c) is not subject to a removal order;
  [5] Subsection 2(2) of the Act provides that references to “this Act” include the regulations made under the Act.  [6] The appellant is a permanent residence of Canada who acquired permanent resident status on July 26, 2000.  He was ordered excluded from  Canada on January 28, 2009 by a Member of the Immigration Division following an admissibility  hearing because he was found to be a person described in paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Act which reads as follows: 
2011 CanLII 90920 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TB0-04658 Client ID No./ N° ID client : 4083-2973  2   
 Misrepresentation  40. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation  (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenti ng or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
  [7] The appellant was found by Immigration Divi sion Member to have entered into a bad faith marriage with a former spouse for the pr imary purpose of acquiring permanent resident status in Canada.  [8] The appellant, acting under subsection 63(3 ), appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division against the decision made at an admissibi lity hearing to make a removal order against him.  On June 8, 2011, my colleague, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, dismissed the appeal.  [9] By letter dated May 26, 2011 a tribunal officer  advised the appellant that he is under a removal order and therefore did not meet the re quirements to sponsor under paragraph 133(1)(c) of the Regulations.  [10] The appellant was requested to provide wr itten submissions on this issue on or before June 23, 2010.  The appellant has not filed any s ubmissions on his right to sponsor the applicant for immigration to Canada.  [11] There is not evidence before the Immigr ation Appeal Division to show whether the appellant has sought leave for judicial review of Member XXXXXX’ decision or whether he has brought an application in the Federal Court to stay execution of the removal order made against him.  [12] The appellant is subject to the remova l order made against him on January 28, 2009 following his admissibility hearing.  
2011 CanLII 90920 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TB0-04658 Client ID No./ N° ID client : 4083-2973  3   
 [13] Under paragraph 46(1)(c) of the Act a person loses permanent resident status when a removal order made against them comes into for ce.  By operation of paragraph 49(1)(c) of the Act a removal order comes into force on the latest  of the following dates ... the day of the final determination of the appeal, is an appeal is made.     [14] Under subsection 63(3) of the Act a permanent resident is afforded the right to appeal against a decision made following an admissibility  hearing ordering his removal from Canada.  The appellant availed himself of such right.  His appeal was dismissed by Member XXXXXX on June 8, 2011.  [15] The appellant has no further right to appeal.  He has the right however, under subsection 72(1) of the Act to apply for leave and for judicial revi ew by the Federal Court with respect to the decision made by Member XXXXXX.  [16] In the Case of Obi,
1 a citizenship appeal, Mr. Justice XXXXXXX had occasion to consider the applicability of subsection 14(1.1) of the Citizenship Act that reads as follows:  
Interruption of proceedings (1.1) Where an applicant is a permanent resident who is the subject of any admissibility hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , the citizenship judge may not make a determination under subsection (1) until there has been a final determination whether
, for the purposes of that Act, a removal order shall be made against that applicant
. [emphasis added] 
 [17] His Lordship stated at paragraph 31 of his written reasons for decision that “This scheme of IRPA implies that the final determination c oncerning a removal order occurs at the appeal level, the IAD, where the right to an appeal exists
.” 
 [18] The panel finds this reasoning is ap plicable to the facts of this case.  
                                                           
1 XXX v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2001 FC 573. 
2011 CanLII 90920 (CA IRB)
IAD File No./N° de dossier : TB0-04658 Client ID No./ N° ID client : 4083-2973  4   
 [19] The removal order made against the appellant came into force on June 8, 2011, which is the day of the final determination of the appeal.  The appellant is eligible for removal at any time.   [20] The appellant therefore does not meet the requirements to sponsor under paragraph 133(1)(c) of the Regulations.  [21] This appeal is dismissed.  
 NOTICE OF DECISION 
The appeal is dismissed .       “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Q.C.”  
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Q.C.      August 22, 2011  
    Date   
 Judicial Review – Under section 72 of the Immigration an d 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. 
   
2011 CanLII 90920 (CA IRB)

