Kuang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 663 (2013)

Parts:Kuang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Reporting Judge:The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Docket Number:IMM-8486-12

Federal Court - Kuang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Source: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2013/2013fc663/2013fc663.html

Federal Court

Cour fédérale

Date: 20130620

Docket: IMM-8486-12

Citation: 2013 FC 663

Ottawa, Ontario, this 20 th day of June 2013

Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard


Wei Liang KUANG

Applicant and





[1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 (the “Act”). The applicant seeks a mandamus order compelling Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC] to release his permanent resident (“PR”) card to him within 15 days of the date of the granting of an order to do so.

[2] The applicant, his wife and their son became permanent residents of Canada in February 2003. The family subsequently returned to China, where the applicant was employed by a Canadian business.

[3] The applicant, his wife and their son applied for travel documents on December 16, 2008. Their applications were refused on June 7, 2009, as a visa officer found the applicant’s employment with the Canadian business was not genuine and that he and his family had not satisfied their residency obligations under section 28 of the Act for the five-year period under consideration.

[4] The applicant and his family appealed this decision to the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD]. In February 2011, the IAD determined that the applicant had satisfied the section 28 residency requirements for permanent residency over the five-year period of December 23, 2003 to December 22, 2008. As such, the family maintained their permanent resident status. The Minister filed an application for judicial review with the Federal Court, but the application was discontinued.

[5] In light of the IAD decision, on July 19, 2011, the family applied for renewal of their PR cards. The applications were approved and CIC notified the applicant and his family that they were to pick up their PR cards in Vancouver on June 29, 2012. The CIC notices included the following statement:

PLEASE NOTE: All permanent residents are subject to examination for residency obligation at time of card distribution. An officer will review your documents and may request additional information to determine your eligibility for a PR card.

[6] On June 26, 2012, the applicant and his wife arrived in Vancouver. The applicant was questioned by the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] at the airport. The respondent states that this interview raised questions about the applicant’s compliance with his residency obligation. The applicant asserts that the CBSA did not permit him to speak to his legal counsel and only allowed him to leave the airport after extended questioning.

[7] The applicant and his wife were not given their PR cards when they arrived at the CIC office for their appointments on June 29, 2012. Rather, they were required to complete additional residency questionnaires and submit additional supporting documents regarding the applicant’s overseas employment by the Canadian business.

[8] The applicant’s counsel wrote to CIC and objected to the request for residency obligation information, claiming it was inappropriate in light of the IAD decision. CIC did not respond to this letter. On July 31, 2012, as a “gesture of good faith” the applicant submitted some of the requested documents and completed residency questionnaires to CIC.

[9] On August 22, 2012, the applicant filed this application for judicial review. He is the only member of his family that is a party to the application.

[10] CIC issued a letter to the applicant on March 7, 2013 inviting him and his wife to an interview on March 27, 2013 for the purpose of evaluating their compliance with the residency obligation under paragraph 28(2)( a ) of the Act.

[11] On March 28, 2013, CIC issued another letter indicating that it had scheduled a final interview for the applicant on April 25, 2013, for the same purpose. The letter indicated that should the applicant and his wife not attend the interview, their five-year PR cards would be sent to the Case Processing Centre in Sydney for destruction.

[12] On April 3, 2013, the applicant’s lawyer indicated that an interview should not be scheduled before the Federal Court had the chance to adjudicate whether...

To continue reading