Gennai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Source text
Gennai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2016-04-29 Neutral citation 2016 FC 481 File numbers IMM-1104-15 Decision Content Date: 20160429 Docket: IMM-1104-15 Citation: 2016 FC 481 Ottawa, Ontario, April 29, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: MASARU GENNAI Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is dismissed, reasons to follow. The following question is certified: If an application for permanent residence is incomplete as it fails to meet the requirements prescribed by s 10 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPA Regulations”) and the application and all supporting documents are returned to the applicant pursuant to s 12 of the IRPA Regulations, does the application still “exist” such that it preserves or “locks in” the applicant’s position in time so that a subsequently submitted complete application must be assessed according to the regulatory scheme that was in effect when the first, incomplete application was submitted? “E. Heneghan” Judge …
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Gennai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2016-04-29 Neutral citation 2016 FC 481 File numbers IMM-1104-15 Decision Content Date: 20160429 Docket: IMM-1104-15 Citation: 2016 FC 481 Ottawa, Ontario, April 29, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: MASARU GENNAI Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is dismissed, reasons to follow. The following question is certified: If an application for permanent residence is incomplete as it fails to meet the requirements prescribed by s 10 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (“IRPA Regulations”) and the application and all supporting documents are returned to the applicant pursuant to s 12 of the IRPA Regulations, does the application still “exist” such that it preserves or “locks in” the applicant’s position in time so that a subsequently submitted complete application must be assessed according to the regulatory scheme that was in effect when the first, incomplete application was submitted? “E. Heneghan” Judge
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80