Does an immigration officer have the authority to treat the application of a six-year-old child who is living “IN CANADA” As though she has “NOT YET ENTERED” the country? Is that truly what Canadian law provides, and does the legal provision (SUBSECTION 11(1) OF THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT) that was relied on to hold the permanent-residence application IN FACT APPLY to the child’s circumstances “INSIDE CANADA and already holds valid visitor visa”?
The screenshot attached to this post shows the immigration letter confirming that the six-year-old child’s permanent-residence application HAS BEEN ON HOLD SINCE MID-2022—nearly three years—despite the fact that we met every immigration requirement and had already been asked for the child’s passport, the final step before the permanent-resident visa could be issued. The officer changed their mind to stop the process at all. The immigration officer is insisting on applying a statutory provision that is entirely irrelevant to this case, apparently to delay the process and harm the family, without any lawful basis or explicit authority. This is clearly an abuse of the power entrusted to him.
As confirmed in the letter from IRCC in 2022 ( I have reviewed your application and documents you submitted in its support. Subsection 11(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides that a foreign national must, BEFORE ENTERING CANADA, apply to an officer for a visa or any other document required by the Regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.)
Provided the link for that subsection from (Canada Justice Laws Website): https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/i-2.5/section-11.html
Oh justice! Respecting to the scope of the rule, s. 11(1) speaks only to the moment before entering Canada. Once the person is inside, that subsection is no longer engaged. So, If the child is already in Canada and holds valid temporary resident status, the “apply before entering Canada” rule in s. 11(1) is no longer in play. The child may proceed with a permanent-residence application under the appropriate program, provided they keep visitor status current and meet all ordinary sponsorship and admissibility requirements.
The matter has been explained repeatedly and all supporting evidence provided, yet—regrettably—neither the officer nor Peter Fragiskatos, the Member of Parliament for London Centre who has been monitoring the file since 2022, has responded. It appears they are too busy to deal with a very simple case that was opened in 2021 and unlawfully suspended by discriminatory government employees from 2022 until present.
I had already supplied Immigration with full proof that I obtained final appeal-court judgments in Kuwait before moving to Canada for good, yet my application was ignored on the grounds that I am a “terrorist” and “suspected of abducting my children”—simply because someone thought so, or because my ex-husband levelled the accusation without a shred of evidence. Is this really how Canadian government employees should treat Muslims?
Their excuse was that they were waiting for a Canadian court ruling on the abduction charge my ex-husband filed against me in 2023—nine months after they had already frozen the file for no reason. Eventually I produced conclusive proof of my innocence: the February 2024 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada at Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0>, issued after lengthy proceedings—fully two years after my six-year-old daughter’s permanent-residence application had been put on hold without justification.
They still excuse that they are waiting the custody, which is not used anymore in Ontario, but rather is called a (decision-making responsibilities order). I provided them with the whole requirements, but they are still “IGNORING”!. Since February 16, 2024, the judgment confirms that the custody orders were issued in Canada. Also, the judgment confirms that the solo decision-making responsibility for the three children, at paragraph 304 https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0#par304. At Aldahleh v. Zayed, 2024 ONSC 547 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3bl0>
The most recent letter from the IRCC officer in Jordan brings up the decision-making order yet again. If I already hold that order, what exactly are they waiting for? Do they expect it to be withdrawn first, as they seem to assume?
The IRCC letter dated 2022 that originally put the file on hold cited custody-type orders that must be obtained “before entering Canada.” Yet, under the SHARIA-BASED LAW judgments issued in Kuwait, the mother already holds full legal authority to make decisions for the children without the father’s consent or signature—a safeguard meant to protect the children from their abusive father. Could IRCC staff, who seem openly hostile toward Muslims practising their faith in Canada, be refusing to recognise those orders for that very reason? Are they clinging to the claim that Sharia law is unjust—something that is clearly untrue?
My experience mirrors what the Canadian Senate documented about systemic bias: “RAD audits are extremely detailed and complex, producing audit reports that are voluminous in length… The audits can extend over lengthy periods of time, sometimes lasting up to five years or more… In essence, the charity is presumed to be guilty until it can prove that all of the allegations and suspicions raised by RAD are baseless, which is generally an impossible threshold to meet.” In the same way, the officials in IRCC and the Superior Court of Justice and other government organizations handling my file have stretched the process out for years with no valid legal justification—treating me as if I were guilty simply because I am a Muslim practicing my faith in Canada. Their prolonged delays amount to presuming wrongdoing first and demanding I prove my innocence, in direct contradiction to Canada’s fundamental principle that a person is innocent until proven otherwise.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Constitution Act, 1982 (being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982 c 11)
Section 11 — Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
Any person charged with an offence has the right
…
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
*****************************************************************************
The hatred against Muslims confirmed by the Canadian Senate—not only at the individual level within Canadian society but also within official bodies—must be addressed urgently by our esteemed government. Action is needed not merely because the Senate has acknowledged and affirmed this reality, but because our respected government must heed Muslims’ grievances with far greater seriousness and effectiveness.
Since 2023, I have been filing formal complaints about the racism and brutality I face at the hands of those in power who manipulate Muslim cases, yet my case is still being ignored by our honorable government. We will not surrender; we will keep demanding our rights—whatever the cost, whatever the cost.
BUT IS THE REALITY THAT MUSLIMS FACE TRULY CONSISTENT WITH CANADA’S ESTEEMED LAWS? AND DO THOSE IN POSITIONS OF POWER AND INFLUENCE IN CANADA RESPECT THE LAWS THEY SWORE TO UPHOLD—AND THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS THEY PLEDGED TO FOLLOW—WHEN DEALING WITH MUSLIMS?
Despite official rhetoric denouncing hate, the facts on the ground—and recent parliamentary reports—show that Islamophobia remains deeply embedded in Canadian state institutions, undermining Muslims’ rights, safety, and basic freedoms. (https://sencanada.ca/en/info-page/parl-44-1/ridr-islamophobia/, a 2023 Senate report and the House of Commons Justice Committee’s December 2024 report both acknowledge “alarming and unprecedented levels” of Islamophobia and call on the government to take urgent action. (https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/JUST/Reports/RP13263244/justrp26/justrp26-e.pdf) The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report (November–December 2024) explicitly recommends that “the government take effective steps to understand and confront Islamophobia in federal workplaces and review the relevant laws and policies.” It further asks, “If the parliamentary committee itself confirms systemic racism within government departments, how can officials deny the problem?”
Despite the previous Prime Minister’s statements on 15 March 2024 (https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2024/03/15/statement-prime-minister-international-day-combat-islamophobia) —the International Day to Combat Islamophobia—and on 29 January 2025 —the anniversary of the Quebec City attack—declaring that “hate has no place in Canada,” security policies, actions on the ground, and the rise in hate crimes reveal a clear gap between words and deeds. (https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/statements/2025/01/29/statement-prime-minister-national-day-remembrance-quebec-city-mosque#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe're%20taking%20action.,policies%2C%20programs%2C%20and%20services.)
Even the Special Representative, Amira Elghawaby, on Combating Islamophobia acknowledged, after meeting with the Prime Minister in November 2024, that the phenomenon “threatens our social cohesion.” (https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/campaigns/combatting-islamophobia-canada/media/meeting-prime-minister-2024.html)
****************************************************************************************
The time has come—ALLAH Almighty willing.
The time has come—by the aid of ALLAH Almighty, the Disposer of all affairs.