Date:
20110921
Docket: IMM-885-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1083
Calgary, Alberta, September 21, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
|
ALONSO ELENES
GAONA
SUSANA GASTELUM
OCHOA AND
ALONSO ELENES
GASTELUM
|
|
|
Applicants
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review, pursuant to section 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, of a decision denying the
applicants’ application to permit them to apply for permanent residence from
within Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate grounds (H&C
application).
[2]
The
applicants, Alonso Elenes Gaona, his wife Susana Gastelum Ochoa, and their son
Alonso Elenes Gastelum, age 12 are citizens of Mexico. Not party to this
application is their Canadian born son, Pierre-Alexandre Elenes, now nearly two
years of age.
[3]
They
came to Canada in 2005. Their claim for refugee protection was denied in
2006. A recent PRRA application was also dismissed. Their application for
judicial review of the PRRA decision, heard together with this application,
will be dismissed.
[4]
Many
issues were raised in the written memorandum; however, only two were pursued at
the hearing and, in my view, only one was worth serious consideration:
- Did the
officer err in the assessment of the facts by not correctly weighing the
positive factors put forth by the applicants, thus making the decision
unreasonable?
- Did the
officer apply the wrong test in assessing the children’s best interests by
merely determining what was adequate for them?
[5]
The
applicants submit that the officer did not properly consider all the positive
factors pertaining to their H&C application. They refer to the officer’s
decision where it was noted, in part, that:
1. The
applicants are hard working individuals who demonstrated a willingness to
integrate into the Canadian workforce;
2. The
applicants have integrated into the community through community organizations,
volunteer work and other community activities;
3. The
applicants submitted letters from Calgary Police Service, demonstrating that
they have a good civil record in Canada;
4. The
applicants submitted letters of support demonstrating that they have made many
friends during their stay in Canada, and that people have expressed their
recommendation for permanent residency.
[6]
The
test on an H&C application is not whether the applicants are worthy of
staying in Canada, but rather whether the applicants will face undue and
undeserved or disproportionate hardship in being removed from Canada to apply
for permanent residence from outside the country as is the norm. The test is
not whether the applicants are deserving. Justice Paul Rouleau in Nazim v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 125 at para 15, stated
that:
The H&C process is
designed to provide relief from unusual, undeserved or disproportionate
hardship. The test is not whether the applicant would be, or is, a welcome
addition to the Canadian community. In determining whether humanitarian and
compassionate circumstances exist, immigration officers must examine whether
there exists a special situation in the person's home country and whether undue
hardship would likely result from removal. The onus is on the applicant to
satisfy the officer about a particular situation that exists in their country
and that their personal circumstances in relation to that situation make them
worthy of positive discretion.
[7]
It
was reasonable for the officer to determine that the positive factors put forth
by the applicants did not amount to undue and undeserved or disproportionate
hardship should they be removed from Canada. The officer was guided by section
5.16 of the IP5 Manual which states that positive consideration should be given
“if the applicant has been in Canada for a significant period of time due to
circumstances beyond the applicant’s control” [emphasis added]. In this
case the applicants have remained in Canada since at least 2006 by their own
choosing, not through anything beyond their control. I therefore find that the
officer did not fail to properly weigh the positive factors in support of the
application or reach an unreasonable decision even considering the establishment
of these applicants in Canada.
[8]
The
officer does engage in an analysis of the best interests of the two minor
children; however, I find that the analysis fails to meet the requirements set
out in the jurisprudence.
[9]
The
officer finds with respect to 12-year old Alonzo that “[t]here is little
questioning that his best interests would be met were he to remain in Canada.”
The officer then goes on to examine the impact on Alonzo if he is returned to
Mexico and finds that if he were to be removed to Mexico his interests would
not be “compromised.” As for the younger son, Pierre-Alexandre, the officer
finds that his best interests are to “remain as a family unit, with the
emotional, physical and financial support of his parents.” This is hardly surprising.
It would be a very unusual case where an infant’s best interests are that he be
removed from his parents and family. Contrary to his brother’s situation, the
officer makes no finding as to whether his interests are best served by
remaining in Canada or being removed to Mexico. The officer fails to clearly
and specifically address how Pierre-Alexandre would be affected by his removal
to Mexico with his parents. The officer ought to have initially considered
Pierre-Alexandre’s best interests and then subsequently considered whether his
removal from Canada would compromise those interests, such that the family
ought to remain in Canada on H&C grounds.
[10]
The
officer acknowledged that the evidence “demonstrates that corruption, violence
and human rights violations are problems in Mexico.” The officer states that
“[t]hese are risks unfortunately faced by all people residing in Mexico.”
Accordingly, these would be risks faced by Pierre-Alexandre if he is removed.
As such, the officer needed to examine them in order to be alert, alive and
sensitive to this child’s interests. The officer did not. He or she fails to
deal with this child’s
interest as a Citizen of Canada in not being removed to such an environment.
Accordingly, I find a failure to properly weigh this child’s interests.
Simply, the analysis of the impact on this child of his removal to Mexico is
wanting and for that reason this application is allowed.
[11]
Neither
party proposed a question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that this application is allowed, the
H&C application is remitted to be determined by a different panel, and no
question is certified.
“Russel W. Zinn”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-885-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALONSO
ELENES GAONA et al. v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: September 19, 2011
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: ZINN,
J.
DATED: September 21, 2011
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Birjinder Mangat
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
Ms. Camille Audain
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mangat Law Office
Calgary, Alberta
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|