Date: 20081204
Docket: IMM-860-08
Citation: 2008 FC 1350
Ottawa, Ontario, December
4, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
HOUSYVEL
CESAR
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
facts of this case are simple. The Applicant was the subject of a spousal
sponsorship application which was dismissed because the Applicant was
inadmissible on the grounds of serious criminality as per paragraph 36(2)(a)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
(IRPA). The Applicant, a failed refugee claimant, was convicted in June of 2006
of impaired driving pursuant to section 253A of the Criminal Code,
R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (Criminal Code). This offence is punishable either on
summary conviction or under indictment.
[2]
The
Applicant takes issue with the decision on two grounds. The first is that the Respondent
failed to provide adequate reasons; the second is that the Respondent failed to
provide the Applicant with an opportunity for an interview.
[3]
The
two errors are, in reality, alleged denials of procedural fairness. As such,
they are subject to review on a standard of correctness (Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9).
[4]
With
respect to the first grounds, the adequacy of the reasons, the reasons provided
were that the Applicant was inadmissible by virtue of a conviction on an
indictable offence, and therefore the spousal sponsorship application must be
dismissed.
[5]
While
the Applicant complains that the Respondent should have expanded upon the
provisions of the Criminal Code and the IRPA, the reasons provided communicated
precisely why the Applicant was inadmissible. There was no question that the
conviction was applicable; and there was no question that, while the offence was
both a summary conviction and an indictable offence, by virtue of the IRPA the
conviction is deemed to be a conviction on an indictable offence.
[6]
With
respect to the second grounds, the Applicant relies on Citizenship and
Immigration Canada’s Inland Processing Manual for his argument that he was erroneously
denied an opportunity for an interview.
[7]
There
was no obligation to grant an interview, and the Applicant’s reliance on the
Inland Processing Manual is entirely misplaced. The Manual is not law, and does
not in this instance create any legitimate expectation with respect to the
procedures to be followed. In any event, the language is permissive, and not
mandatory, with respect to the granting of an interview.
[8]
Of
equal importance is that the interview would have served no purpose, as there
were no questions or issues to be resolved. The Applicant was the person
against whom the conviction was registered, there was no question that the
conviction still stood, and no pardon had been issued. An interview was not
mandatory, there was no need for an interview, and - consequently - there is no
breach of the rules of procedural fairness.
[9]
For
these reasons, this judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question to
be certified.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Email this Content