Date: 20071003
Docket: IMM-1147-07
Citation: 2007
FC 996
Ottawa, Ontario, October 3, 2007
Present:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Simon Noël
BETWEEN:
FADI
MOUSSALLY
Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
In this
application for judicial review, Mr. Fadi Moussally (the applicant) seeks an
order setting aside the decision by P. Passaglia, a pre-removal risk assessment
officer, dated March 1, 2007, refusing to grant an exemption under
section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.
27 (IRPA) on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
I. Issue
[3]
For the
following reasons, the decision is not patently unreasonable. Accordingly, the
application for judicial review will be dismissed.
II. Facts
[4]
A citizen
of Lebanon, the applicant came to Canada on July 13, 2002, on a temporary visa,
to participate in World Youth Day in Toronto.
[5]
On August
22, 2002, he claimed refugee protection in Montréal.
[6]
On March
3, 2003, the War Crime Unit intervened at the Immigration and Refugee Board
(IRB) to ask that the applicant be excluded under section F of the Geneva
Convention.
[7]
On October
26, 2004, the IRB denied the applicant’s refugee claim but did not accept the
request for exclusion. The application for leave and judicial review of that
decision was dismissed by this Court on June 17, 2006.
[8]
On
November 10, 2005, the applicant filed an application for permanent residence
based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations. This application was
refused on July 10, 2006, based on the result of the risk assessment.
[9]
On August
30, 2006, the applicant filed this application for judicial review.
III. Impugned decision
[10]
After
reviewing all the evidence in the file, the officer determined that the
applicant had not discharged his burden of proving that he would face unusual,
undeserved or disproportionate hardship if he had to leave Canada to apply for
permanent residence.
IV. Analysis
Standard of review
[11]
The
applicant argues that the officer’s decision is patently unreasonable. The
respondent acknowledges that the appropriate standard of review is patent
unreasonableness.
[12]
After
considering the entire record and hearing the submissions of counsel, I find
that the officer’s decision does not contain any errors requiring the
intervention of this Court. I note, in particular, that the applicant contends
that he has formed ties in Canada, but he has paid no income tax despite the
fact that he had remunerative employment. Forming ties in Canada can be done in
a number of ways, and monetary contribution to the expenses of the state is
certainly an important factor to consider.
[13]
The
applicant also argues that he was unaware that the Lebanese authorities require
notification of any Lebanese citizen who is subject to removal so that
authorization for the citizen’s return to Lebanon can be obtained before he or
she is allowed to leave Canada. He submits that the officer should have taken
this information into account in his analysis. The applicant adds, at paragraph
23 of his memorandum and even in his affidavit at paragraph 37, that [TRANSLATION] “this information, which he
did not know about before, was disclosed to him by the officer responsible for
the enforcement of the applicant’s removal, André Martel, when the applicant
was informed of officer Paglia’s refusal.”
[14]
These
submissions are incorrect because officer Passaglia’s decision is dated March
2, 2007, while the applicant had been informed of the modus operandi of the
Lebanese authorities on December 4, 2006. In fact, according to the certified
documents in the record, a report of an interview between the Canada Border
Services Agency and the applicant states the following at page 134:
[TRANSLATION]
4-12-06 Subject came with a friend
Georges KESSERWANI. Subject informed that I must make an application for his
return to Lebanon. Next appointment scheduled for March 5, 2007, at
9:00 a.m.
[15]
The
application for judicial review is dismissed since the officer’s decision does
not contain any errors, certainly no patently unreasonable errors, that would
justify the intervention of this Court.
[16]
I asked
counsel if they had any questions for certification; none were submitted.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES THAT:
-
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
-
No
question will be certified.
“Simon
Noël”
Mary
Jo Egan, LLB
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1147-07
STYLE OF CAUSE: FADI
MOUSSALLY and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
(MCI)
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 25, 2007
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: Mr.
Justice Simon Noël
DATED: October 3, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Richard Sheitoyan FOR
THE APPLICANT
Sherry Rafai Far FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Richard Sheitoyan FOR
THE APPLICANT
28 Notre-Dame East, Suite 201
Montréal, Quebec H2Y 1B9
Sherry Rafai Far FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Department of Justice Canada
Guy Favreau Complex
200. René-Lévesque Blvd. West
East Tower, 12th floor
Montréal, Quebec H2Z 1X4