Sellappah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 198 : Court Finds TRP Refusal Reasonable Where Original Family Visit Was Completed and Circumstances Did Not Justify Extension

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Shanmugarajah Sellappah and Nesaratnam Shanmugarajah’s applications to renew their Temporary Resident Permits under subsection 24(1) of the IRPA. The Sri Lankan applicants had originally received TRPs to enter Canada and visit relatives. They later sought extensions, relying partly on Mr. Sellappah’s medical condition, their financial resources, and family support in Canada. The Court dismissed judicial review, finding that the officer reasonably concluded that the original purpose of the TRPs had been fulfilled and that their circumstances did not justify further permits.

Key Principle

A Temporary Resident Permit under subsection 24(1) of the IRPA is an exceptional discretionary remedy available to a foreign national who is inadmissible or otherwise does not meet the requirements of the Act. The applicant must demonstrate circumstances that justify granting the permit. Personal inconvenience, sympathetic circumstances, financial ability, or family support alone do not necessarily meet this threshold. An officer may consider whether the purpose for which the original TRP was issued has already been fulfilled and whether the applicant can pursue other immigration options from outside Canada.

Background

Mr. and Mrs. Sellappah were citizens of Sri Lanka who entered Canada in 2013 using Temporary Resident Permits. The permits were issued so that they could visit relatives living in Canada.

In 2015, Mr. Sellappah learned that he had a medical condition for which surgery had been recommended. He did not undergo the surgery.

The couple later applied to renew their TRPs. They argued that continued temporary status was appropriate because they had sufficient financial resources to support themselves in Canada and received emotional support from their daughter and her family.

The officer refused the applications. The officer found that the purpose underlying the original TRPs, allowing the applicants to visit family in Canada, had already been satisfied. The officer also considered that they could return to Sri Lanka and seek admission to Canada through other available immigration provisions.

Court Findings

• TRPs Operate Within an Exceptional Regime

The Court emphasized that issuing a TRP involves a broad discretionary decision. Relying on Farhat, the Court described subsection 24(1) as establishing an “exceptional regime.” Applicants seeking this discretionary relief must demonstrate circumstances going beyond ordinary inconvenience.

• Family and Financial Circumstances Did Not Require Renewal

The Court acknowledged that the applicants had financial resources and emotional support from family members in Canada. However, these circumstances did not establish that renewing their TRPs was justified. The Court found no error in the officer’s conclusion that the original purpose of their temporary admission had already been achieved.

• Medical Condition Did Not Make the Refusal Unreasonable

The Court recognized that Mr. Sellappah’s physical condition invited sympathy. Surgery had been recommended after his medical problem was discovered in 2015. Nevertheless, the existence of medical difficulties did not automatically require a positive exercise of discretion under subsection 24(1). The Court was not persuaded that the officer had acted unreasonably in balancing the applicants’ personal circumstances against the exceptional nature of TRP relief.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The officer reasonably concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated circumstances justifying renewal of their Temporary Resident Permits. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Sellappah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 198 (CanLII)