Beltran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 806

Email this Content

Citations
2005 FC 806

Case tabs

Text of decision

Date: 20050603

Docket: IMM-3805-04

Citation: 2005 FC 806

Ottawa, Ontario, this 3rd day of June, 2005

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE

BETWEEN:

JORGE ENRIQUE BLANCO BELTRAN

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

O'KEEFE J.

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision made by a visa officer in Colombia at the Canadian Embassy. The visa officer concluded that the applicant was not a member of the "source country class", pursuant to subsection 148(1) and paragraph139(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 and therefore, that he is not in need of resettlement.

Background

[2] The applicant applied for a permanent resident visa as a foreign national in need of refugee protection as a member of a source country class, pursuant to subsection 148(1) and paragraph 139(1)(e). He is from Colombia and says that he fears for his life because of threats from the Narco traficantes and the Paramilitaries.

[3] He was a property evaluator for the palace of justice in Cali, Colombia. He was to evaluate properties that would then be sold at auction to repay the government for debts owed. Most of these properties were owned by narcotic traffickers. He was told by certain narcotic traffickers that he was to fix a particular price on the said properties. If the prices were fixed higher on the properties, they could not be auctioned, because only when the debts had reached 75% of the value of the property could they be seized and auctioned by the government. He received threatening letters from these individuals and had subsequently handed them over to the "CTI" to show them what was happening.

[4] In October 2002, he starting receiving more threats and went to stay with his uncle out of fear that they would harm him. He was told that the traffickers showed up at his house shortly after he left, at which time they threatened his butler.

[5] The applicant underwent an interview at the Canadian Embassy in Bogota, Colombia on November 12, 2003. There was an interpreter present, as the applicant did not speak English. The visa officer conducted the interview and concluded that the applicant could have gone to other parts of Colombia and have been safe, and therefore, did not qualify as a person who needed resettlement in Canada.

Reasons of the Visa Officer

[6] The visa officer concluded that the applicant was not a person in need of resettlement because he appeared to have "the possibility of a durable solution in Colombia". The visa officer concluded that he had not made an effort to try and leave Valle and find another area that was safer. The applicant indicated that the people threatening him had told him they would find him no matter where he went, but the fact that he did not even try to relocate was detrimental to his application. The visa officer further stated that the applicant had been unable to demonstrate that he was personally affected by the conflict and that he could not continue living in Colombia.

Issues

[7] The issues are as follows:

1. Did the visa officer breach the rules of procedural fairness when she created a legitimate expectation that she would provide an opportunity for the applicant to provide further documentation, and then made that decision prior to that time period passing?

2. Has the applicant failed to submit any evidence to justify his case?

3. Are the affidavits from the translator admissible as evidence?

Applicant's Submissions

[8] The applicant submitted that the visa officer breached the rules of procedural fairness when she created a legitimate expectation that she would provide an opportunity for the applicant to provide further documentation, and then made her decision prior to that time period passing.

[9] The applicant was told during the interview with the visa officer that he would have two years to submit further information if his situation changed. The visa officer made the decision to deny his application based on the information before her at the end of the interview and subsequently sent him written reasons on November 19, 2003.

[10] The applicant submitted that in advising the applicant that he would have two years to provide further information, the visa officer created a legitimate expectation. He submitted that this is a breach of procedural fairness and is therefore a reviewable error.

[11] No Evidence

The applicant submitted that the notes that he entered as evidence were written in Spanish as the applicant does not speak English. They were in fact attested to by the applicant, in Colombia. They were subsequently translated into English to ensure that the Court could use them. The translator was not attesting to the truth of the contents, but to the accuracy of his translation. The applicant therefore submitted that it is not in the interest of justice to strike them.

Respondent's Submissions

[12] The respondent submitted that the applicant has failed to point to any error in substance or procedure in the decision of the visa officer. The only argument that the applicant has made is that the visa officer should have waited two years to make her determination.

[13] The respondent submitted that the applicant's arguments fail for a number of reasons: he has failed to support his argument with any admissible evidence, the evidence of the visa officer directly contradicts his allegations, and the procedure which the applicant urged the Court to uphold would actually be contrary to the principles of fairness.

[14] No Evidence

The applicant made two sets of notes in Spanish on May 24 and 28, 2004. They were translated into English by a translator in Canada and have been attached as exhibits to the affidavit of the translator. The applicant himself has not sworn an affidavit attesting to the truth of the content of the notes. Furthermore, the translator was not present at the interview, and has no knowledge, personal or otherwise, as to what occurred during the interview. The affidavit must be sworn to by the affiant himself if the documents have been translated (Rules 81(1) and 80(2.1) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998).

[15] The respondent further submitted that the affiant (in this case the translator) could not be cross-examined as this would lead to answers of "I don't know".

[16] Evidence from the Visa Officer

The respondent submitted that the only evidence before the Court is that of the visa officer, which is unequivocal. The visa officer stated that she never indicated to the applicant that no decision would be made for two years; she had in fact told him at the end of the interview that she was refusing his application. She told him that his file would remain open for two years in order to allow him to provide new information in the event that his circumstances changed in a significant way.

[17] Principles of Fairness

The respondent submitted that the application should fail because the applicant has not shown how the procedure adopted by the visa officer was unfair. There would be no justification for the visa officer to wait two years to make a decision, given that she was in a position to render a decision at the time of the interview, and especially given the dangerous situations that most applicants for refugee protection find themselves in. What the applicant has proposed as a procedure is in fact contrary to procedural fairness.

Relevant Statutory Provisions

[18] The relevant sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations state:

139. (1) A permanent resident visa shall be issued to a foreign national in need of refugee protection, and their accompanying family members, if following an examination it is established that

(a) the foreign national is outside Canada;

(b) the foreign national has submitted an application in accordance with section 150;

(d) the foreign national is a person in respect of whom there is no reasonable prospect, within a reasonable period, of a durable solution in a country other than Canada, namely

(i) voluntary repatriation or resettlement in their country of nationality or habitual residence, or

(ii) resettlement or an offer of resettlement in another country;

(e) the foreign national is a member of one of the classes prescribed by this Division;

(f) one of the following is the case, namely

(i) the sponsor's sponsorship application for the foreign national and their family members included in the application for protection has been approved under these Regulations,

(ii) in the case of a member of the Convention refugee abroad or source country class, financial assistance in the form of funds from a governmental resettlement assistance program is available in Canada for the foreign national and their family members included in the application for protection, or

(iii) the foreign national has sufficient financial resources to provide for the lodging, care and maintenance, and for the resettlement in Canada, of themself and their family members included in the application for protection;

(g) if the foreign national intends to reside in a province other than the Province of Quebec, the foreign national and their family members included in the application for protection will be able to become successfully established in Canada, taking into account the following factors:

(h) if the foreign national intends to reside in the Province of Quebec, the competent authority of that Province is of the opinion that the foreign national and their family members included in the application for protection meet the selection criteria of the Province; and

(i) subject to subsection (3), the foreign national and their family members included in the application for protection are not inadmissible.

(2) Paragraph (1)(g) does not apply to a foreign national, or their family members included in the application for protection, who has been determined by an officer to be vulnerable or in urgent need of protection.

148. (1) A foreign national is a member of the source country class if they have been determined by an officer to be in need of resettlement because

(a) they are residing in their country of nationality or habitual residence and that country is a source country within the meaning of subsection (2) at the time their permanent resident visa application is made as well as at the time a visa is issued; and

(b) they

(i) are being seriously and personally affected by civil war or armed conflict in that country,

(ii) have been or are being detained or imprisoned with or without charges, or subjected to some other form of penal control, as a direct result of an act committed outside Canada that would, in Canada, be a legitimate expression of freedom of thought or a legitimate exercise of civil rights pertaining to dissent or trade union activity, or

(iii) by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, are unable or, by reason of such fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of any of their countries of nationality or habitual residence.

(2) A source country is a country

(a) where persons are in refugee-like situations as a result of civil war or armed conflict or because their fundamental human rights are not respected;

(b) where an officer works or makes routine working visits and is able to process visa applications without endangering their own safety, the safety of applicants or the safety of Canadian embassy staff;

(c) where circumstances warrant humanitarian intervention by the Department in order to implement the overall humanitarian strategies of the Government of Canada, that intervention being in keeping with the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; and

(d) that is set out in Schedule 2.

150. (1) An application for a permanent resident visa submitted by a foreign national under this Division must be made at the immigration office outside Canada that serves the applicant's place of residence and must be accompanied by either an undertaking or

(a) a referral from a referral organization;

(b) a referral resulting from an arrangement between the Minister and a government of a foreign state or any institution of such a government relating to resettlement; or

(c) a referal resulting from an agreement relating to resettlement entered into by the Government of Canada and an international organization or a government of a foreign state.

(2) A foreign national may submit a permanent resident visa application without a referral or an undertaking if the foreign national resides in a geographic area that the Minister has determined under subsection (3) to be a geographic area in which circumstances justify the submission of permanent resident visa applications not accompanied by a referral or an undertaking.

139. (1) Un visa de résident permanent est délivré à l'étranger qui a besoin de protection et aux membres de sa famille qui l'accompagnent si, à l'issue d'un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis:

a) l'étranger se trouve hors du Canada;

b) il a présenté une demande conformément à l'article 150;

c) il cherche à entrer au Canada pour s'y établir en permanence;

d) aucune possibilité raisonnable de solution durable n'est, à son égard, réalisable dans un délai raisonnable dans un pays autre que le Canada, à savoir :

(i) soit le rapatriement volontaire ou la réinstallation dans le pays dont il a la nationalité ou dans lequel il avait sa résidence habituelle,

(ii) soit la réinstallation ou une offre de réinstallation dans un autre pays;

e) il fait partie d'une catégorie établie dans la présente section;

f) selon le cas :

(i) la demande de parrainage du répondant à l'égard de l'étranger et des membres de sa famille visés par la demande de protection a été accueillie au titre du présent règlement,

(ii) s'agissant de l'étranger qui appartient à la catégorie des réfugiés au sens de la Convention outre-frontières ou à la catégorie de personnes de pays source, une aide financière publique est disponible au Canada, au titre d'un programme d'aide, pour la réinstallation de l'étranger et des membres de sa famille visés par la demande de protection,

(iii) il possède les ressources financières nécessaires pour subvenir à ses besoins et à ceux des membres de sa famille visés par la demande de protection, y compris leur logement et leur réinstallation au Canada;

g) dans le cas où l'étranger cherche à s'établir dans une province autre que la province de Québec, lui et les membres de sa famille visés par la demande de protection pourront réussir leur établissement au Canada, compte tenu des facteurs suivants :

(i) leur ingéniosité et autres qualités semblables pouvant les aider à s'intégrer à une nouvelle société,

(ii) la présence, dans la collectivité de réinstallation prévue, de membres de leur parenté, y compris celle de l'époux ou du conjoint de fait de l'étranger, ou de leur répondant,

(iii) leurs perspectives d'emploi au Canada vu leur niveau de scolarité, leurs antécédents professionnels et leurs compétences,

(iv) leur aptitude à apprendre à communiquer dans l'une des deux langues officielles du Canada;

h) dans le cas où l'étranger cherche à s'établir dans la province de Québec, les autorités compétentes de cette province sont d'avis que celui-ci et les membres de sa famille visés par la demande de protection satisfont aux critères de sélection de cette province;

i) sous réserve du paragraphe (3), ni lui ni les membres de sa famille visés par la demande de protection ne sont interdits de territoire.

(2) L'alinéa (1)g) ne s'applique ni à l'étranger ni aux membres de sa famille visés par la demande de protection qui, selon l'agent, sont vulnérables ou ont un besoin urgent de protection.

148. (1) Appartient à la catégorie de personnes de pays source l'étranger considéré par un agent comme ayant besoin de se réinstaller en raison des circonstances suivantes:

a) d'une part, il réside dans le pays dont il a la nationalité ou dans lequel il a sa résidence habituelle, lequel est un pays source au sens du paragraphe (2) au moment de la présentation de la demande de visa de résident permanent ainsi qu'au moment de la délivrance du visa;

b) d'autre part, selon le cas:

(i) une guerre civile ou un conflit armé dans ce pays ont des conséquences graves et personnelles pour lui,

(ii) il est détenu ou emprisonné dans ce pays, ou l'a été, que ce soit ou non au titre d'un acte d'accusation, ou il y fait ou y a fait périodiquement l'objet de quelque autre forme de répression pénale, en raison d'actes commis hors du Canada qui seraient considérés, au Canada, comme une expression légitime de la liberté de pensée ou comme l'exercice légitime de libertés publiques relatives à des activités syndicales ou à la dissidence,

(iii) il ne peut, craignant avec raison d'être persécuté du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de ses opinions politiques ou de son appartenance à un groupe social particulier, ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays.

(2) Est un pays source celui qui répond aux critères suivants:

a) une guerre civile, un conflit armé ou le non-respect des droits fondamentaux de la personne font en sorte que les personnes qui s'y trouvent sont dans une situation assimilable à celle de réfugiés au sens de la Convention;

b) un agent y travaille ou s'y rend régulièrement dans le cadre de son travail et est en mesure de traiter les demandes de visa sans compromettre sa sécurité, celle des demandeurs ni celle du personnel de l'ambassade du Canada;

c) les circonstances justifient une intervention d'ordre humanitaire de la part du ministère pour mettre en oeuvre les stratégies humanitaires globales du gouvernement canadien, intervention qui est en accord avec le travail accompli par le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés;

d) il figure à l'annexe 2.

150. (1) L'étranger fait sa demande de visa de résident permanent au bureau d'immigration hors Canada qui dessert son lieu de résidence et l'accompagne soit d'un engagement soit de l'une des recommandations suivantes:

a) une recommandation d'une organisation de recommandation;

b) une recommandation découlant d'une entente en matière de réinstallation conclue entre le ministre et le gouvernement d'un État étranger ou d'une institution de ce gouvernement;

c) une recommandation découlant d'un accord en matière de réinstallation conclu entre le gouvernement du Canada et une organisation internationale ou le gouvernement d'un État étranger.

(2) L'étranger peut présenter une demande de visa de résident permanent sans joindre à celle-ci une recommandation ou un engagement s'il réside dans une région géographique que le ministre désigne, en vertu du paragraphe (3), comme une région dans laquelle les circonstances justifient que les demandes de visa de résident permanent puissent ne pas y être accompagnées d'une recommandation ou d'un engagement.

[19] The relevant sections of the The Federal Court Rules, 1998 state:

80. (1) Affidavits shall be drawn in the first person, in Form 80A.

(2.1) Where an affidavit is written in an official language for a deponent who does not understand that official language, the affidavit shall

(a) be translated orally for the deponent in the language of the deponent by a competent and independent interpreter who has taken an oath, in Form 80B, as to the performance of his or her duties; and

(b) contain a jurat in Form 80C.

(3) Where an affidavit refers to an exhibit, the exhibit shall be accurately identified by an endorsement on the exhibit or on a certificate attached to it, signed by the person before whom the affidavit is sworn.

81. (1) Affidavits shall be confined to facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent, except on motions in which statements as to the deponent's belief, with the grounds therefor, may be included.

(2) Where an affidavit is made on belief, an adverse inference may be drawn from the failure of a party to provide evidence of persons having personal knowledge of material facts.

80. (1) Les affidavits sont rédigés à la première personne et sont établis selon la formule 80A.

(2.1) Lorsqu'un affidavit est rédigé dans une des langues officielles pour un déclarant qui ne comprend pas cette langue, l'affidavit doit:

a) être traduit oralement pour le déclarant dans sa langue par un interprète indépendant et compétent qui a prêté le serment, selon la formule 80B, de bien exercer ses fonctions;

b) comporter la formule d'assermentation prévue à la formule 80C.

(3) Lorsqu'un affidavit fait mention d'une pièce, la désignation précise de celle-ci est inscrite sur la pièce même ou sur un certificat joint à celle-ci, suivie de la signature de la personne qui reçoit le serment.

81. (1) Les affidavits se limitent aux faits dont le déclarant a une connaissance personnelle, sauf s'ils sont présentés à l'appui d'une requête, auquel cas ils peuvent contenir des déclarations fondées sur ce que le déclarant croit être les faits, avec motifs à l'appui.

(2) Lorsqu'un affidavit contient des déclarations fondées sur ce que croit le déclarant, le fait de ne pas offrir le témoignage de personnes ayant une connaissance personnelle des faits substantiels peut donner lieu à des conclusions défavorables.

Analysis and Decision

[20] Issue 1

Did the visa officer breach rules of procedural fairness when it created a legitimate expectation that it would provide an opportunity for the applicant to provide further documentation, and then made that decision prior to that time period passing?

The applicant submitted that the visa officer created a legitimate expectation for him by telling him that his file would be kept open for two years so as to allow the applicant to file any new information. The applicant submitted that the visa officer breached the duty of procedural fairness by making a decision on the applicant's file on November 19, 2003, approximately seven days after the interview. In her affidavit, the visa officer stated that she orally told the applicant at the end of the interview that his application was being refused.

[21] The visa officer does not deny that she told the applicant that she would keep his file open for two years in case his circumstances changed in this period.

[22] I am satisfied that a legitimate expectation that the visa officer would not decide the applicant's application for two years was not created. The visa officer merely stated that the file would be left open should the applicant's situation change significantly. Supposedly, the application could be looked at again. Given the nature of an application pursuant to section 148 of the Regulations, it is not reasonable to leave a decision of such an application for two years when the conditions of such an application would dictate a quick decision.

[23] Consequently, I would find that no breach of the duty of procedural fairness occurred.

[24] Issue 2

Has the applicant failed to submit any evidence to justify his case?

The applicant's notes, written in Spanish, were translated into the English language by an interpreter in Canada. The interpreter swore an affidavit stating that his interpretation was a true and correct interpretation of the Colombian documents. The respondent submitted that Rule 80(2.1) applies, however, I am of the view that this rule applies to the situation where a person who does not understand one of the official languages of Canada gives an affidavit in one of the official languages. That was not the case here as the interpreter interpreted the Colombian documents that were written in Spanish.

[25] Rule 81 of the Federal Court Rules, supra, requires that affidavits shall be confined to facts within the personal knowledge of the deponent, except on motions in which statements as to the deponent's belief with the grounds therefor, may be included. I agree with the respondent that there is no evidence on the record to indicate that the interpreter has personal knowledge of the information mentioned by the applicant. Even if it is subsection 12(1) of the Federal Court Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, S.O.R./2002-232 that applies rather than Rule 81of the Federal Court Rules, my determination on this issue would not change.

[26] I am of the opinion that I need not decide whether the applicant's documents are admissible as I am of the view that even if admissible they will not assist the applicant. The record shows that the visa officer considered all of the information that was before her.

[27] I am therefore of the view that the visa officer did not make a reviewable error and the application for judicial review must be dismissed.

[28] Neither party wished to submit a serious question of general importance for my consideration for certification.

ORDER

[29] IT IS ORDERED that the application for judicial review is dismissed.

"John A. O'Keefe"

J.F.C.

Ottawa, Ontario

June 3, 2005

FEDERAL COURT

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-3805-04

STYLE OF CAUSE: JORGE ENRIQUE BLANCO BELTRAN

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP &

IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: February 24, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF: O'KEEFE J.

DATED: June 3, 2005

APPEARANCES:

Wennie Lee

FOR APPLICANT

Ann Margaret Oberst

FOR RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Lee & Company

North York, Ontario

FOR APPLICANT

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

FOR RESPONDENT

You are here

Beltran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 806

Citations2005 FC 806

Case tabs

Citations
2005 FC 806