Law360 Canada ( June 27, 2025, 2:09 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Pepa from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal which affirmed a decision dismissing her application for judicial review. Pepa was issued a permanent resident visa as an accompanying dependent child of her father. After the visa was issued and before she came to Canada, Pepa married. Upon her arrival in Canada, she disclosed to an immigration officer her marital status. Because there was a change in her circumstances, Pepa was admitted for further examination and was not landed. The further examination resulted in a referral for an admissibility hearing at the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (ID). By the time the hearing commenced, her visa had expired. Following the admissibility hearing, the ID issued a removal order against Pepa. Relying on s. 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Pepa appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD). The IAD concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal since Pepa’s visa had expired when the removal order was issued. On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the IAD’s decision was reasonable and dismissed the application. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Pepa argued that to access the right of appeal under s. 63(2), a person had to hold a visa on arrival to Canada. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration submitted that it was when the removal order was made....