Date:
20121106
Docket:
IMM-289-12
Citation:
2012 FC 1298
Toronto, Ontario,
November 6, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
BETWEEN:
|
|
SHOUKAT HUSSAIN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
[1]
This
is an application under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (Act) for judicial review of the decision of
a Senior Immigration Officer (Officer), dated 4 October 2011 (Decision), which
refused the Applicant’s application for permanent residence from within Canada
on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds under subsection 25(1) of
the Act.
BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant is a 42-year-old male from Gujranwala, Pakistan. He is married with
one son, and is a sweet-maker by trade. He first came to Canada in 2003, based on a work permit authorizing him to work at Vattan Grocery and Sweethouse as a
sweet-maker. His wife and son did not come with him. The Applicant continued
working in Canada, obtaining extensions of his work permit, the last of which
was valid until 10 February 2008.
[3]
The
Applicant’s father was from the Kashmir region in Pakistan, and was an activist
who believed Kashmir ought to be an independent state. The Applicant carried on
these beliefs and joined the Jammu Kashmir Peoples National Party (JKPNP) in
2000. The mandate of JKPNP is the cessation of violence in Kashmir and the
restoration of its lost sovereignty. The Pakistani government does not support Kashmir independence and monitored the activities of the Applicant’s father.
[4]
The
Applicant attended a JKPNP rally in 2001 where he was arrested, but he was
released after paying a bribe. In 2002, the Applicant was involved in a
recruiting campaign for JKPNP when he was beaten up by members of the Hizbul
Mujahideen (HM) who do not support the independence of Kashmir. The next day
someone showed up at the Applicant’s house and told him to stop his activities
or face the consequences. Also in 2002, the Applicant met someone who was
impressed with his sweet-making abilities and talked with him about coming to Canada to work for a sweets business in Calgary. The Applicant was interested because he had been
looking to leave Pakistan due to the persecution he faced for his political
beliefs.
[5]
On
13 September 2003, JKPNP organized a large rally. The police and the HM
attacked the rally, but the Applicant escaped. That night the police raided the
Applicant’s home, but he was at his friend’s house at the time. The Applicant’s
wife phoned him and told him that the police were looking for him and they had
said they will arrest him anytime, anywhere, in Pakistan. The Applicant feared
the police would come and arrest him and so he left for Canada on 16 September 2003.
[6]
Since
the Applicant began working in Canada he has been sending money back to his
wife and son in Pakistan in order to support them. The Applicant’s wife does
not work and his family depends on the money he sends to them each month. The
Applicant says he has become established in Canada, has consistently worked to
support himself, and has no intention of relying on social assistance in the
future.
[7]
On
8 January 2008, the Applicant’s employer (Mr. Rehman) received a positive
Labour Market Opinion (LMO) from Service Canada. By letter dated 6 March 2008
the Applicant’s application for a work permit was denied on the basis that his
employer’s LMO had been cancelled. This was an error. Meanwhile, the
Applicant’s work permit had expired on 10 February 2008. Mr. Rehman immediately
contacted Service Canada, who replied by letter dated 18 March 2008 stating
that “the file was cancelled as the location of the business on the application
no longer exists.” The Applicant also applied for reinstatement of his status
around the same time, but did so without a LMO because one had not been
received at that time. Mr. Rehman then replied to Service Canada by letter on
24 March 2008 confirming that his store was still operational and had been for
the past 12 years. Service Canada did not offer to correct their error, and
told Mr. Rehman that he must submit a new Foreign Worker Application.
[8]
Mr.
Rehman submitted a new Foreign Worker Application on 24 March 2008. The
Applicant and Mr. Rehman made inquiries to Citizenship and Immigration Canada
(CIC) and to the MP’s Office, and were advised that the Applicant was out of
status and needed to apply to have it reinstated. On 17 April 2008, CIC refused
both the reinstatement application and the work permit application on the basis
that the Applicant did not have a valid LMO. In response, the Applicant
contacted both Service Canada and his MP, and a positive LMO was issued on 24
April 2008.
[9]
On
the same day that the positive LMO was issued, 24 April 2008, the Applicant
sent the LMO with a covering letter to the Case Processing Centre (CPC) in
Vegreville requesting consideration. The Applicant was not aware that he should
have submitted a completely new application and processing fee. There were no
directions or indications of the steps that needed to be taken in the
Applicant’s letter from CIC, nor did the Applicant have the assistance of legal
counsel. The Applicant did not receive any response to his letter dated 24
April 2008.
[10]
After
subsequent inquiries, the Applicant and Mr. Rehman attended the MP’s Office on
17 July 2008. They were advised that the Applicant needed to submit a new
application for restoration, and that 17 July 2008 was the last day to do so. A
new restoration application was sent to CPC Vegreville that day. On 11 August
2008, the application was transferred to CIC Calgary. On 8 December 2008, the
Applicant received a letter from CPC Vegreville advising him of the transfer to
CIC Calgary, as well as refunding him $150 representing overpayment of fees.
[11]
By
letter dated 5 January 2009, the Applicant was advised that he was in violation
of the Act as a result of overstaying his visa. On 1 September 2009, the
Applicant was issued an Exclusion Order. Copies of the letters from CIC could
not be found in the Certified Tribunal Record (CTR), or the Applicant’s
Tribunal Record.
[12]
The
Applicant submitted an application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) on
9 October 2009 and an H&C application on 29 October 2009 on the basis that
he had suffered unusual prejudice due to the errors made by CIC in regards to
the LMO and his work permit, and that he would face a risk of harm if returned
to Pakistan based on his membership in JKPNP.
[13]
In
support of these two applications the Applicant submitted his JKPNP membership card,
a letter from JKPNP’s President confirming the Applicant’s involvement with the
group, and a letter from his wife. The Applicant also submitted two sets of
documents during the intermittent time period: one on 21 August 2010 and one on
7 November 2010. Submitted on 21 August 2010 were Western Union receipts
showing transfers of money from the Applicant to his wife, as well as a letter
from XL Foods Inc. confirming the Applicant’s employment there. Submitted on 7
November 2010 were updated versions of these same documents. These are
available on pages 36-48 of the CTR. The PRRA application was rejected on 3
October 2011. The same Officer considered the H&C application and rejected
it on 4 October 2011. The Officer notified the Applicant of the Decision by
letter dated 4 October 2011 (Refusal Letter).
DECISION UNDER
REVIEW
[14]
The
Decision in this case consists of the Refusal Letter and the H&C Reasons
for Decision (Reasons) which the Officer signed on 4 October 2011. The Officer
reiterated that the Applicant bore the onus of showing that his personal
circumstances are such that the hardship of having to obtain permanent
residence from outside Canada would be unusual and undeserved, or
disproportionate.
[15]
The
Officer noted that the Applicant had not provided sufficient corroborating
objective documentary evidence to demonstrate that the risk he personally faced
if returned to Pakistan was unusual and undeserved or disproportionate. She
noted that this was the same risk put forward in the Applicant’s PRRA application,
which had been denied.
[16]
The
Officer stated that the Applicant’s membership in JKPNP was not in dispute. She
found that the letter from the President of the party was lacking in detail and
she gave it low probative value. She also noted that the Applicant had not
provided other corroborative evidence such as police reports, medical reports,
or news articles about the arrests and beatings he claims to have suffered.
[17]
The
Officer reviewed the letter from the Applicant’s wife; it said that his life is
in danger in Pakistan and an arrest warrant has been issued for him. The
Applicant’s wife said that it is hard for her to live in Pakistan, and she recommended that he not return. The Officer found that the letter was
lacking in detail, there was no corroborating evidence to support what was
stated in it, and that it was written by someone with a personal interest in
the application.
[18]
The
Officer pointed out that the Applicant has been in Canada since 2003 and has
never filed a refugee claim. He also did not provide any evidence to
corroborate the risks he says he faces in Pakistan, or any evidence to indicate
that after an absence of 8 years anyone would still be interested in his JKPNP
activities there. The Officer stated that some state protection exists in Pakistan, and it would not be an unusual, undeserved, or disproportionate hardship for him
to access it.
[19]
The
Officer noted that although the Applicant provided receipts showing monthly
transfers of money to his wife in Pakistan, he did not provide evidence that
his wife and son depend on this money for their survival. The letter from the
Applicant’s wife did not discuss how this money is used, or the well-being of
their son. The Officer found that, considering the best interests of the child,
though it may be difficult for the Applicant’s family to stop receiving the
financial support, there is nothing to suggest it would have a negative impact
of such magnitude that an exemption is justified in this case.
[20]
The
Officer pointed out that the Applicant has no family living in Canada. He also did not provide any letters of support from anyone in Canada. The Officer said that although the Applicant has presented evidence to indicate a measure of
establishment in Canada, this was to be expected of someone who has lived in Canada for the past eight years. She then stated that the Applicant did not provide
evidence to indicate that he is no longer unemployed.
[21]
The
Officer reiterated that the question at hand was not whether the Applicant
would make a good addition to Canadian society, but whether he would face
unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship if returned to Pakistan. The Officer found that the Applicant was not established in Canada to the extent that his departure would amount to such.
[22]
The
Officer stated that there was nothing in the evidence to suggest the Applicant
would have trouble reintegrating into Pakistani society. The Applicant’s wife
and son, as well as several other family members, continue to reside in Pakistan. The Applicant operated a sweets business before coming to Canada, and it is reasonable to expect him to pursue similar opportunities upon his return.
The Applicant knew or should have known that his authorization to work in Canada was for a limited time period, and though he was entitled to remain in Canada once it expired to pursue other avenues leading to permanent residence it cannot be said that
the resulting hardship was not anticipated by the Act or was beyond his
control.
[23]
The
Officer stated that the test applicable is not whether the Applicant would face
any hardship upon return to Pakistan, but whether the hardship faced is
unusual, undeserved, or disproportionate. The Officer found that the
Applicant’s return to Pakistan will no doubt cause hardship, but that it did
not meet the required threshold. The fact that Canada is a more desirable place
to live than Pakistan is not determinative.
[24]
The
Officer said that she considered the risk to the Applicant if returned to Pakistan, the best interests of the child, personal relationships that would create hardship if
severed, degree of establishment in Canada, and the Applicant’s ties to Pakistan. She found that on the evidence before her the Applicant had not shown that his
personal circumstances are such that he would face unusual, undeserved, or
disproportionate hardship if returned to Pakistan, and thus she refused his
H&C application.
ISSUES
[25]
The
Applicant raises the following issues in this application:
i.
Whether
the Officer breached the duty of fairness owed to the Applicant by failing to
consider evidence of employment which supported his establishment in Canada.
ii.
Whether
the Officer breached the duty of fairness owed to the Applicant by failing to
provide sufficient reasons.
STANDARD OF
REVIEW
[26]
The
Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9
held that a standard of review analysis need not be conducted in every
instance. Instead, where the standard of review applicable to a particular
question before the court is well-settled by past jurisprudence, the reviewing
court may adopt that standard of review. Only where this search proves
fruitless must the reviewing court undertake a consideration of the four
factors comprising the standard of review analysis.
[27]
In
Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 SCR
817 [Baker], the Supreme Court of Canada held that when reviewing an
H&C decision, “considerable deference should be accorded to Immigration
Officers exercising the powers conferred by the legislation, given the
fact-specific nature of the inquiry, its role within the statutory scheme as an
exception, the fact that the decision-maker is the Minister, and the
considerable discretion evidenced by the statutory language” (paragraph 62).
Justice Michael Phelan followed this approach in Thandal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 489, at paragraph 7. The review of
evidence is part of the fact-finding exercises of a tribunal, and one to which
considerable deference is owed; it is not a matter of procedural fairness (see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009
SCC 12 [Khosa]. The standard of review on the first issue is
reasonableness.
[28]
In
Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador
(Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 [Newfoundland Nurses], the Supreme
Court of Canada held at paragraph 14 that the adequacy of reasons is not a
stand-alone basis for quashing a decision. Rather, “the reasons must be read
together with the outcome and serve the purpose of showing whether the result
falls within a range of possible outcomes.” With respect to the second issue, the
adequacy of the reasons will be analysed along with the reasonableness of the
Decision as a whole.
[29]
When
reviewing a decision on the standard of reasonableness, the analysis will be
concerned with “the existence of justification, transparency and
intelligibility within the decision-making process [and also with] whether the
decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are
defensible in respect of the facts and law.” See Dunsmuir, above, at
paragraph 47, and Khosa at paragraph 59. Put another way, the Court
should intervene only if the Decision was unreasonable in the sense that it
falls outside the “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible
in respect of the facts and law.”
STATUTORY
PROVISONS
[30]
The
following provision of the Act is applicable in this proceeding:
|
25. (1) The
Minister must, on request of a foreign national in Canada who is inadmissible
or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on request of a foreign
national outside Canada, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign
national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an
exemption from any applicable criteria or obligations of this Act if the
Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate
considerations relating to the foreign national, taking into account the best
interests of a child directly affected.
|
25. (1)
Le ministre doit, sur demande d’un étranger se trouvant au Canada qui est interdit
de territoire ou qui ne se conforme pas à la présente loi, et peut, sur
demande d’un étranger se trouvant hors du Canada, étudier le cas de cet étranger;
il peut lui octroyer le statut de résident permanent ou lever tout ou partie
des critères et obligations applicables, s’il estime que des considérations
d’ordre humanitaire relatives à l’étranger le justifient, compte tenu de
l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché.
|
ARGUMENTS
The
Applicant
[31]
The
Applicant points out that the Officer stated that he had provided no evidence
of his employment, when in fact he did. That being the case, his employment was
disregarded in the analysis. The Officer stated that the submissions from 7
November 2010 were considered, but they clearly were not.
[32]
The
Officer specifically said, on page 5 of the Reasons, that “the Applicant has
not provided information to indicate that he is no longer unemployed.” This
formed part of the Officer’s Decision, and was an error. The Applicant submits
that this tainted the Decision and, based on Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848 at page 863, the Decision
ought to be considered a nullity. The Applicant also states that consideration
of these documents could have changed the outcome of the decision.
[33]
The
Applicant submits that the Officer simply reviewed and partially analyzed the
information negative to the Applicant, but glossed over the positive evidence.
The Applicant cites as an example the statement of the Officer that the
“Applicant has presented evidence to indicate a measure of establishment in Canada. Having lived in Canada for approximately eight years a measure of establishment is
expected to occur.” The Officer made no mention that the Applicant held his
position as a sweet-maker for almost five years, and completely ignored the
evidence of his current employment (discussed above).
[34]
More
importantly, the Officer paid no attention to the reason why the Applicant was
out of status in the first place. The Applicant provided extensive submissions
in regards to the errors made in regards to his LMO, but this was never
mentioned by the Officer. This was a crucial part of the Applicant’s H&C
application, and the Officer disregarded it entirely in her reasons.
[35]
The
Applicant submits the Decision cannot stand up to a somewhat probing
examination due to the Officer’s disregard of significant portions of the
evidence that was before her (see Naddaf v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2005 FC 824). For a decision to be upheld, the
conclusions drawn by the Officer must be logically valid based on the evidence
at hand (Baker at paragraph 63).
[36]
The
Applicant cites Adu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005
FC 565 [Adu] in support of his arguments. The analysis portion of the
decision under review in that case consisted of the following at para 13:
I acknowledge that both applicants have established
themselves in Canada. It is reasonable to expect that after more than ten years
in Canada, they would become established. Both applicants have upgraded their
skills in Canada and have been steadily employed. They have not had to rely on
social services for financial support. Despite the positive contributions the
applicants have made, I am not satisfied that they have sufficiently
demonstrated that the requirement of applying for a visa at a visa office
abroad represents unusual, undeserved, or disproportionate hardship.
Justice
Anne Mactavish went on to find, at paragraph 14:
[T]hese ‘reasons’ are not really reasons at all,
essentially consisting of a review of the facts and the statement of a
conclusion, without any analysis to back it up. That is, the officer simply
reviewed the positive factors militating in favour of granting the application,
concluding that, in her view, these factors were not sufficient to justify the
granting of an exemption, without any explanation as to why that is. This is
not sufficient, as it leaves the applicants in the unenviable position of not
knowing why their application was rejected.
[37]
The
Applicant asserts that the Decision is deficient in the same manner as the
decision in Adu. The Officer did not provide specific reasons or
analysis as to why she rejected the Applicant’s claim, and the Decision ought
to be quashed.
The Respondent
[38]
The
Respondent states that the exemption found in section 25 of the Act is not
designed to be used as an alternative method of immigration to Canada; it is a
discretionary remedy only to be used to special circumstances (see Vidal v
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 13 Imm LR (2d) 123
(FCTD); Shahla v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999]
FCJ No 1270 (TD) at paragraphs 12-14; Saini v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 154 at paragraph 19; Adams v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1193 at
paragraph 30). The Officer concluded that an exception was not warranted in
this case, and it was reasonable for her to do so.
[39]
The
onus was on the Applicant to make sure all the evidence was before the Officer
that was required to make an informed decision (Jeffrey v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 605 at paragraph 25 [Jeffrey]).
It is for the Applicant to show that he will suffer unusual and undeserved or
disproportionate hardship if made to return to Pakistan, not for the Officer to
explain why he will not. The Respondent points to the Jeffrey decision,
where Justice Richard Mosley said at paragraph 27:
The applicant’s submission that the reasons in this
case are inadequate ultimately comes down to this: that the officer must
explain why the applicant's removal will not cause him unusual, undeserved or
disproportionate hardship. That is what he appears to take from Adu
which he describes as being on all fours with this application. With respect, I
cannot agree. In Adu, the applicant could not have understood the
reasons why his H & C application was refused, as the officer only pointed
to the strengths of his position. In this case, the officer pointed to the
inadequacies of the application. The applicant would not be left in any doubt
as to why it was refused.
[40]
The
Respondent asserts that this case is distinguishable from Adu on the
same basis as Jeffrey. As in Jeffrey, the Decision at hand was
based on the evidence that was produced by the Applicant for consideration. It
was for the Applicant to clearly articulate all grounds of his H&C
application (Melchor v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2004 FC 1327 at paragraph 13), and he failed to do so.
[41]
The
Newfoundland Nurses case states, at paragraph 14,
that reasons are to be read together with the outcome to determine if the final
result falls within the range of possible outcomes. The Court also found, at
paragraph 16, that a finding does not have to be made on each element of
evidence that leads to the final decision. The Dunsmuir criteria of
justification, transparency, and intelligibility will be met if the reviewing
court can understand why and how a decision was made. In the case at hand, the
Officer clearly stated her reasons for coming to a negative conclusion. The
Officer primarily based her Decision to reject the H&C application on two
factors: the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that his return to
Pakistan would have a significant negative impact on his son; and the
Applicant’s degree of establishment in Canada did not warrant an exclusion from
the Act’s requirement that he apply for permanent residency from outside
Canada.
[42]
In
reaching the above conclusions, the Officer reviewed the letters submitted by
the Applicant and found that they were lacking in detail and not supported by
corroborating evidence. She also noted the Applicant’s wife had a personal
interest in the outcome of the application. The Officer also reviewed the Western Union receipts, and reasonably stated that this evidence did not demonstrate that
the Applicant’s family relied on this money for their survival. Nor was there
any other evidence demonstrating the Applicant’s return to Pakistan would be harmful to the best interests of his child. She also found the
Applicant’s return to Pakistan would be facilitated by his familiarity with the
society and culture, and that he had easily transferable job skills. It can be
reasonably inferred from the Decision that the Officer determined the Applicant
would continue to be able to support his family from Pakistan.
[43]
The
Officer also considered the evidence of the Applicant’s establishment in Canada before rendering the Decision. She noted there was no evidence submitted by friends
or associates of the Applicant in Canada. The Applicant had the burden of
demonstrating the hardship he would suffer; thus the Officer reasonably
concluded that severing the Applicant’s relationships in Canada would not cause unusual, undeserved, or disproportionate hardship.
[44]
While
the Officer did make an error in stating that the Applicant had not submitted
evidence that he was no longer unemployed, this error is not one that ought to
be reviewable. The Decision was grounded in the evidence submitted by the
Applicant, and the Applicant’s record does not indicate that had this
information been reviewed the result would have been different. Even though
there was an error made in this regard, the Officer’s reasons meet the Dunsmuir
requirements of justification, transparency, and intelligibility.
ANALYSIS
[45]
The
Applicant alleges breach of procedural fairness on the part of the Officer for
overlooking evidence and for inadequate reasons. Neither of these grounds is a
basis for procedural unfairness. The real issue is whether overlooking evidence
renders the Decision unreasonable. As for reasons, the recent case of Nurses’
Union, above, at para 22 makes it clear that the adequacy of reasons should
no longer be considered as a procedural fairness issue on a stand-alone basis,
but should be assessed within the general context of the reasonableness of the
Decision.
[46]
In
my view, the only point of substance which the Applicant raises is the
Officer’s mistake in saying that the “Applicant has not provided information to
indicate that he is no longer unemployed.” This means that the Officer
overlooked the evidence the Applicant submitted which showed that he was
employed by XL Foods Inc. This evidence is relevant to the Officer’s assessment
of the Applicant’s establishment in Canada which, in turn, is considered
together with hardship, the best interests of the child, and any other relevant
factors used to determine whether the Applicant’s returning to Pakistan would occasion unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship. In other
words, the Officer’s mistake about the Applicant’s current employment status
cannot be treated in isolation. The issue is whether it renders the Decision as
a whole unreasonable.
[47]
The
Officer’s general conclusion on establishment is that the evidence “does not
support that the Applicant has become established in Canada to the extent that
his departure would amount to an unusual and undeserved or disproportionate
hardship.” There is nothing in the Decision itself that would suggest that,
given all of the other establishment factors, the Officer would have reached a
different conclusion had she understood that the Applicant was, in fact,
employed at that time.
[48]
A
reading of the establishment section of the Decision reveals that, employment
aside, the Applicant’s connection to Canada is very low. The Applicant has no
family members in Canada, and there were no support letters from friends and
acquaintances or organizations to which he might have connections.
[49]
The
evidence is also clear that his family is in Pakistan and that his purpose for
being in Canada is to find work and earn money to send back to Pakistan. We know that his family depends upon the financial support he provides, but there
is no evidence that the Applicant will not be able to support his family if he
returns to Pakistan. He says that he sends $5000 per year, but there is
insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the family will not be able
to manage. The Applicant actually acknowledges in his H&C application that
“it is difficult to be separated from my wife and son.”
[50]
When
all of these establishment factors are taken into account, it is clear that the
Applicant has very little connection to Canada, other than as a source of income
to support his wife and son in Pakistan. The only possible hardship related to
establishment is, then, the loss of Canadian income. But this factor cannot be
fully assessed because, as the Officer points out, there is not enough evidence
about the situation in Pakistan to ascribe a meaningful weight to the loss of
Canadian income.
[51]
In
the full context of the Decision, I do not believe that, reasonably speaking,
the mistake about the Applicant’s employment status in Canada is material. The Officer acknowledged the employment factor of significance (his
ability to earn money and send it back to Pakistan) and dealt with it in the
Decision. That factor cannot be given a significant weight without evidence of
the full situation of his family in Pakistan, which was not provided.
[52]
In
addition, the Officer takes into account such a wide range of considerations in
reaching her final conclusions that, objectively speaking, it cannot be said
that she might have reached a different conclusion had she correctly understood
the Applicant’s employment status in Canada.
[53]
This
is the only mistake I can find in the whole Decision — which is very
comprehensive and detailed — and given all the other factors at play which the
Officer reasonably analyzed, I cannot say that this mistake is material enough
to make a difference to the final conclusion. If an error is not significant it
will not render the Decision unreasonable (see Garavito Olaya v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2012 FC 913 at paragraph 67; Renderos
Moran v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2012 FC 546 at
paragraph 57).
[54]
I
have considered all of the points raised and arguments advanced by the
Applicant. In my view, this is the only matter of substance. The Decision is
justified, transparent and intelligible and falls within the range of possible,
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law as
posited in Dunsmuir.
[55]
Counsel
agree there is no question for certification and the Court concurs.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application is dismissed.
2.
There
is no question for certification.
“James
Russell”
Email this Content