Date: 20030908
Docket: IMM-4190-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1042
Ottawa, Ontario, September 8, 2003
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
JUNIOR MWAMBA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review from a decision by the adjudicator Dianne Tordorf ("the adjudicator") of the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("the IRB"), rendered from the bench on August 23, 2002, in which she ordered the release of Junior Mwamba ("the respondent") under certain conditions.
FACTS
[2] The respondent is a citizen of the Republic of the Congo ("the Congo"). He stated that he arrived in Canada (Dorval) on July 26, 2002.
[3] On or about July 31, 2002, he claimed refugee status.
[4] On August 22, 2002, the respondent met with an Immigration officer, Sabine Simard. In that interview he identified himself as Junior Mwamba, born on March 4, 1983, in the Congo.
[5] The respondent said that he left the Congo on July 25, 2002, in transit to Cameroon and France. He then said he took an Air Canada flight from Paris and arrived at Dorval in the afternoon. The respondent further stated that he could no longer remember the flight number and had destroyed his air ticket.
[6] The respondent travelled on a French passport issued in the name of Jean-Jacques Lambert, whose birth date he no longer remembered.
[7] He sent the passport back by mail in a preaddressed envelope to France and did not remember the address.
[8] He travelled alone and obtained a travel document through a friend of his father, one Col. Bienvenu Bondo.
[9] The respondent passed through Canadian customs and was admitted on the basis of the French passport.
[10] He knew no one in Canada, had no money and said that he had never had a passport issued in his own name by his country. He further stated that he could not obtain any other identity document as his family had disappeared.
[11] The respondent said he feared persecution on the ground that he was being sought by the army in his country.
[12] Following the interview the Immigration officer issued a report pursuant to section 44 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("the Act"), in which she alleged that the respondent was covered by paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Act and section 6 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations ("the Regulations"), namely inadmissible status. A departure order was made for Junior Mwamba.
[13] On the same day, pursuant to paragraph 58(1)(d) of the Act, the Minister's delegate issued an opinion that the respondent's identity had not been established but might be.
[14] The respondent was also arrested without a warrant pursuant paragraph 55(2)(b) of the Act, for identity purposes, because there were reasonable grounds to believe that he fell in the category covered by paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Act and section 6 of the Regulations. A detention order for identity purposes was also issued.
[15] On August 22, 2002, the adjudicator reviewed the respondent's detention. After hearing the parties, she ordered the respondent be released subject to certain conditions.
[16] It is this decision which is the subject of the instant application for judicial review.
POINT AT ISSUE
[17] Did the adjudicator commit an error justifying the Court's intervention when she ordered that the respondent be released?
ANALYSIS
[18] I consider that the adjudicator erred in ordering the release of the respondent. In fact, the reasons for her decision showed that in addition to considering part of the factors set out in the Regulations, the adjudicator took an irrelevant factor into account.
[19] The fact that the adjudicator considered the removal order as establishing that the IRB accepted the respondent's identity is a patently unreasonable error (that is, an excess of jurisdiction), as the applicant maintained.
[20] The adjudicator did examine the criteria laid down by Parliament in sections 244 and 247 of the Regulations; however, the undue weight accorded to the fact that the removal order was a presumption that the person's identity had been established has no basis either in the Act or the Regulations.
[21] In fact, with section 228, the Act allows a removal order to be made once a person is considered inadmissible: the officer has no discretion as such.
[22] Thus, the removal order is issued automatically, even when the identity of the claimant or his or her credibility has not yet been finally established.
[23] In the circumstances, the scope given the removal order by the adjudicator, going so far as to suggest that it could be a presumption that the identity had been established, is entirely unreasonable.
[24] At the same time, the adjudicator blew hot and cold on the claimant's credibility. At page 10 of the hearing transcript the adjudicator stated:
[TRANSLATION]
I will say at once that I will not get into a discussion and weigh expertise or whether this is sufficient. What I have before me is a report from the Immigration laboratory, who are nevertheless specialists in examining - more specialized than I am - examining documents to see whether they are authentic at first sight, and based on their experience, your document has the characteristics of an unauthentic document, and they give the reasons here.
[25] Elsewhere, the adjudicator mentioned that the respondent cooperated and did not contradict himself in the information provided. It seems clear that the only proof of the respondent's identity apart from his testimony is the birth certificate, the authenticity of which was questioned by the Department and by the adjudicator herself.
[26] For the adjudicator to base her decision on a criterion other than those set out in the Regulations, so as to offset the arguments put forward by the applicant, and regardless of the Act and Regulations, is patently unreasonable. I have no hesitation in finding that the application for judicial review should be allowed.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- the application for judicial review be allowed and the matter referred back to the IRB for hearing by a different adjudicator;
- the respondent suggested a question for certification:
Is the fact that the Immigration officer made a removal order against the respondent a relevant factor when the IRB must rule on release pursuant to paragraph 58(1)(d) of the Act?
- in my opinion, this question raises no question of general importance. Consequently, no question will be certified.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
APPENDIX A
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
Section 55 of the Act provides that a foreign national may be detained in certain circumstances, inter alia for identification:
|
55(1) An officer may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a permanent resident or a foreign national who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe is inadmissible and is a danger to the public or is unlikely to appear for examination, an admissibility hearing or removal from Canada.
|
55(1) L'agent peut lancer un mandat pour l'arrestation et la détention du résident permanent ou de l'étranger dont il a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'il est interdit de territoire et qu'il constitue un danger pour la sécurité publique ou se soustraira vraisemblablement au contrôle, à l'enquête ou au renvoi.
|
|
55(2) An officer may, without a warrant, arrest and detain a foreign national, other than a protected person,
...
|
55(2) L'agent peut, sans mandat, arrêter et détenir l'étranger qui n'est pas une personne protégée dans les cas suivants :
. . .
|
|
(b) if the officer is not satisfied of the identity of the foreign national in the course of any procedure under this Act.
|
b) l'identité de celui-ci ne lui a pas été prouvée dans le cadre d'une procédure prévue par la présente loi.
|
|
55(3) A permanent resident or a foreign national may, on entry into Canada, be detained if an officer
|
55(3) L'agent peut détenir le résident permanent ou l'étranger, à son entrée au Canada, dans les cas suivants :
|
|
(a) considers it necessary to do so in order for the examination to be completed; or
|
a) il l'estime nécessaire afin que soit complété le contrôle;
|
|
(b) has reasonable grounds to suspect that the permanent resident or the foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security or for violating human or international rights.
|
b) il a des motifs raisonnables de soupçonner que celui-ci est interdit de territoire pour raison de sécurité ou pour atteinte aux droits humains ou internationaux.
|
|
55(4) If a permanent resident or a foreign national is taken into detention, an officer shall without delay give notice to the Immigration Division.
|
55(4) L'agent avise sans délai la section de la mise en détention d'un résident permanent ou d'un étranger.
|
Section 58(1) of the Act requires that the IRB order the release of a person in detention unless certain facts are established. Section 58(1)(d) is what concerns us:
|
58.(1) The Immigration Division shall order the release of a permanent resident or a foreign national unless it is satisfied, taking into account prescribed factors, that
...
|
58.(1) La section prononce la mise en liberté du résident permanent ou de l'étranger, sauf sur preuve, compte tenu des critères réglementaires, de tel des faits suivants :
. . .
|
|
(d) the Minister is of the opinion that the identity of the foreign national has not been, but may be, established and they have not reasonably cooperated with the Minister by providing relevant information for the purpose of establishing their identity or the Minister is making reasonable efforts to establish their identity.
|
d) dans le cas où le ministre estime que l'identité de l'étranger n'a pas été prouvée mais peut l'être, soit l'étranger n'a pas raisonnablement coopéré en fournissant au ministre des renseignements utiles à cette fin, soit ce dernier fait des efforts valables pour établir l'identité de l'étranger.
|
Section 244 of the Regulations sets out the criteria to be considered when deciding on detention or release. The applicable paragraph in the case at bar is 244(c):
|
244. For the purposes of Division 6 of Part 1 of the Act, the factors set out in this Part shall be taken into consideration when assessing whether a person
...
|
244. Pour l'application de la section 6 de la partie 1 de la Loi, les critères prévus à la présente partie doivent être pris en compte lors de l'appréciation :
. . .
|
|
(c) is a foreign national whose identity has not been established.
|
c) de la question de savoir si l'intéressé est un étranger dont l'identité n'a pas été prouvée.
|
The relevant criteria for implementing s. 244(c) of the Regulations are:
|
247. (1) For the purposes of paragraph 244(c), the factors are the following:
|
247. (1) Pour l'application de l'alinéa 244c), les critères sont les suivants :
|
|
(a) the foreign national's cooperation in providing evidence of their identity, or assisting the Department in obtaining evidence of their identity, in providing the date and place of their birth as well as the names of their mother and father or providing detailed information on the itinerary they followed in travelling to Canada or in completing an application for a travel document;
|
a) la collaboration de l'intéressé, à savoir s'il a justifié de son identité, s'il a aidé le ministère à obtenir cette justification, s'il a communiqué des renseignements détaillés sur son itinéraire, sur ses date et lieu de naissance et sur le nom de ses parents ou s'il a rempli une demande de titres de voyage;
|
|
(b) in the case of a foreign national who makes a claim for refugee protection, the possibility of obtaining identity documents or information without divulging personal information to government officials of their country of nationality or, if there is no country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence;
|
b) dans le cas du demandeur d'asile, la possibilité d'obtenir des renseignements sur son identité sans avoir à divulguer de renseignements personnels aux représentants du gouvernement du pays dont il a la nationalité ou, s'il n'a pas de nationalité, du pays de sa résidence habituelle;
|
|
(c) the destruction of identity or travel documents, or the use of fraudulent documents in order to mislead the Department, and the circumstances under which the foreign national took that actions;
|
c) la destruction, par l'étranger, de ses pièces d'identité ou de ses titres de voyage, ou l'utilisation de documents frauduleux afin de tromper le ministère, et les circonstances dans lesquelles il s'est livré à ces agissements;
|
|
(d) the provision of contradictory information with respect to identity at the time of an application to the Department; and
|
d) la communication, par l'étranger, de renseignements contradictoires quant à son identité pendant le traitement d'une demande le concernant par le ministère;
|
|
(e) the existence of documents that contradict information provided by the foreign national with respect to their identity.
[emphasis added]
|
e) l'existence de documents contredisant les renseignements fournis par l'étranger quant à son identité.
[nos italiques]
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
FILE: IMM-4190-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Applicant
and
JUNIOR MWAMBA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: August 5, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: Blais J.
DATE OF REASONS: September 8, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Michel Pépin FOR THE APPLICANT
Hoang Nguyen FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE APPLICANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
Johanne Doyon and Hoang Nguyen FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content