Date: 20060726
Docket: IMM-7164-05
Citation: 2006 FC 917
Ottawa, Ontario, July 26, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
EVA VAJDA AND GABOR CZENE
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Eva Vajda left Hungary for Canada in 2001. After her efforts to obtain Canada's protection were unsuccessful, she requested an exemption, based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, from the usual obligation to apply for permanent residence from outside Canada. Mr. Gabor Czene, Ms. Vajda's common law spouse, was included in her application as a dependant. An immigration officer denied Ms. Vajda's request.
[2] Ms. Vajda argues that the immigration officer failed to explain adequately why she was not entitled to humanitarian and compassionate relief. She asked to have her application reconsidered by another officer. I can find no basis for overturning the officer's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
[3] Did the immigration officer fail to give adequate reasons for dismissing Ms. Vajda's application for humanitarian and compassionate relief?
II. Analysis
[4] I can overturn the officer's decision only if I find that his reasons failed to communicate the rationale for his conclusion.
[5] Ms. Vajda argues that the officer's decision contains "boilerplate" reasoning, not a genuine analysis of the factors favouring her application. She suggests that this is a product of the guidelines provided to immigration officers in their policy manuals (see Inland Processing Manual 5.). These guidelines, she alleges, are so detailed that they actually prescribe how officers should draft their decisions. As a result, officers do not conduct a thorough and independent analysis of the humanitarian and compassionate factors in an applicant's favour. Rather, they simply apply the guidelines mechanically, compose superficial reasons, and fail to give sincere consideration to the applicant's personal circumstances. Ms. Vajda says that this is true of the officer's decision in her case.
[6] Ms. Vajda's application was based on the following circumstances:
· she and Mr. Czene have been in Canada since 2001;
· she has a good employment record in Canada and has worked most recently as a care-giver for an elderly person suffering from Alzheimer's disease;
· she has saved some money;
· she has made friends in Canada; and
· Mr. Czene has also worked in Canada, establishing a dry-wall business.
[7] The officer considered all of these factors, but concluded that they did not demonstrate that Ms. Vajda would suffer unusual or disproportionate hardship if she were required to apply for permanent residence from Hungary. In particular, the officer noted that:
· much of the time the applicants were in Canada was spent pursuing their refugee claims;
· both applicants grew up in Hungary, have family there and speak Hungarian;
· their skills and savings will assist them in reintegrating into Hungarian society;
· Ms. Vajda has not undergone any training in Canada or become involved in the community;
· in particular, Ms. Vajda has no training in the care of Alzheimer's patients;
· alternative care arrangements exist for the person Ms. Vajda has been assisting; and
· the applicants' friendships in Canada can continue even if they return to Hungary.
[8] In my view, the officer considered the relevant factors and explained why they did not justify an exemption. His decision was based on the evidence before him and was adequately explained. I accept Ms. Vajda's observation that the officer's written reasons are rather formulaic. However, officers should not be expected to achieve high literary standards in their reasons. What is important is that they consider the relevant factors and explain their conclusions adequately. I am satisfied that the officer did so in this case and I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Email this Content