Date: 20080107
Docket: IMM-3465-06
Citation: 2008 FC 15
Ottawa, Ontario, January 7,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
INDER SINGH
GURSHARAN
KAUR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. OVERVIEW
[1]
This
is the judicial review of one of many refusals to grant the Applicant a visa
based upon the fact that he is believed to be a people-smuggler. It is time to
have this issue properly and fairly addressed and not in the mechanistic manner
his visa applications appear to have been considered.
II. BACKGROUND
[2]
The
principal Applicant had first applied for a temporary resident’s visa in August
1996 which was refused. All the subsequent visa refusals have been based on
this 1996 refusal.
[3]
The
1996 refusal was based on an interview with Mr. Singh wherein he claimed to
have been duped into smuggling a technician into the Netherlands. The visa
officer concluded that Mr. Singh was heavily involved in smuggling people into
other countries.
[4]
The
1996 visa refusal was not challenged. The Applicant then made visa applications
in August and October 2005, both of which were refused on the basis of the
facts in the 1996 visa refusal. In the second of the 2005 refusals, the
Applicant had been interviewed and the visa officer was not satisfied with the
explanations for trips to countries in Europe known for
human smuggling. Neither of the 2005 visa refusals were challenged.
[5]
In
the 4th visa application process conducted in 2006, the subject of
this judicial review, the visa officer simply relied on the admissions made in
1996. No interview was conducted.
III. ANALYSIS
[6]
While
the Court will show considerable deference to a visa officer’s consideration of
the facts, considerably less deference will be shown where the decision is
based on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner.
Where the decision involves the application of specific facts under the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or other issues of law, I adopt the
reasoning in Boni v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 68, and conclude that the
appropriate standard of review is reasonableness simpliciter.
[7]
There
are at least three problems with this visa refusal; (1) the consideration of
the Applicant’s alleged human smuggling, (2) the failure to consider the fact
that the Netherlands (the country where the alleged human smuggling occurred)
has issued Mr. Singh a visa, and (3) the failure to consider all the
circumstances including evidence of rehabilitation.
[8]
With
respect to the first matter, the allegation of human smuggling, s. 117 of IRPA
makes human smuggling an offence in Canada if it is done or
assisted in being done “knowingly”. Mr Singh has always admitted the fact that
smuggling occurred but has always denied that he was “knowingly” involved.
[9]
Were
Mr. Singh’s grounds exclusively the denial he made in 1996, then it could be
considered a collateral attack on the 1996 refusal – whatever the flaws may
have been in that initial decision. However, the visa issued by the Netherlands
at the very least required a consideration of whether an offence occurred in
the Netherlands. Mr Singh’s
2006 visa application was rejected because he was held to have been
inadmissible under paragraph 36(1)(c) of IRPA:
|
36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national
is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for
…
(c)
committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was
committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under
an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least
10 years.
|
36. (1)
Emportent interdiction de territoire pour grande criminalité les faits
suivants :
…
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du
Canada, une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à
une loi fédérale punissable d’un emprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix ans.
|
[10]
With
respect to the second matter, the Netherlands’ visa, the visa issued
on August 8, 2005 was contained in the Applicant’s passport. While the
Applicant had no right to an interview, an interview would have allowed him to
deal with the matter. The officer’s failure to address the significance of the
visa was due to the officer exercising his discretion not to conduct an
interview or to even inquire into its significance.
[11]
With
respect to the third matter, the officer never considered that even if the
Applicant was liable for human smuggling, it was one incident ten years ago.
There is no evidence of any subsequent offences anywhere. There is evidence of
extensive travel without incidents, a record of stable employment, available
funds and the existence of family in Canada.
[12]
Section
36 of the IRPA, the provision under which the visa application was rejected, also
contains exceptions to inadmissibility due to rehabilitation. Paragraph 36(3)
provides:
|
36. (3) The following provisions govern subsections (1) and (2):
(a) an
offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is
deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;
(b)
inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on a
conviction in respect of which a pardon has been granted and has not ceased
to have effect or been revoked under the Criminal Records Act, or in respect
of which there has been a final determination of an acquittal;
(c) the matters referred to in paragraphs
(1)(b) and (c) and (2)(b) and (c) do not constitute inadmissibility in
respect of a permanent resident or foreign national who, after the prescribed
period, satisfies the Minister that they have been rehabilitated or who is a
member of a prescribed class that is deemed to have been rehabilitated;
(d) a
determination of whether a permanent resident has committed an act described
in paragraph (1)(c) must be based on a balance of
probabilities; and
(e)
inadmissibility under subsections (1) and (2) may not be based on an offence
designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act or an
offence under the Young Offenders Act.
|
36. (3) Les dispositions suivantes régissent l’application
des paragraphes (1) et (2) :
a) l’infraction
punissable par mise en accusation ou par procédure sommaire est assimilée à
l’infraction punissable par mise en accusation, indépendamment du mode de
poursuite effectivement retenu;
b)
la déclaration de culpabilité n’emporte pas interdiction de territoire en cas
de verdict d’acquittement rendu en dernier ressort ou de réhabilitation —
sauf cas de révocation ou de nullité — au titre de la Loi sur le casier
judiciaire;
c) les
faits visés aux alinéas (1)b) ou c) et (2)b) ou c) n’emportent pas
interdiction de territoire pour le résident permanent ou l’étranger qui, à
l’expiration du délai réglementaire, convainc le ministre de sa réadaptation
ou qui appartient à une catégorie réglementaire de personnes présumées
réadaptées;
d)
la preuve du fait visé à l’alinéa (1)c) est,
s’agissant du résident permanent, fondée sur la prépondérance des
probabilités;
e)
l’interdiction de territoire ne peut être fondée sur une infraction qualifiée
de contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les contraventions ni sur une
infraction à la Loi sur les jeunes contrevenants.
|
[13]
Section
18(2)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations deems
certain persons to be rehabilitated:
|
18. (2) The following persons are members of
the class of persons deemed to have been rehabilitated:
…
(c) persons who have
committed no more than one act outside Canada that is an offence in the place
where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an
indictable offence under an Act of Parliament, if all of the following
conditions apply, namely,
(i) the offence is punishable
in Canada by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than 10 years,
(ii) at least 10 years have
elapsed since the day after the commission of the offence,
(iii) the person has not been
convicted in Canada of an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament,
(iv) the person has not been
convicted in Canada of any summary conviction offence within the last 10
years under an Act of Parliament or of more than one summary conviction
offence before the last 10 years, other than an offence designated as a
contravention under the Contraventions Act or an offence under the Youth
Criminal Justice Act,
(v) the person has not within
the last 10 years been convicted outside of Canada of an offence that, if
committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament,
other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions
Act or an offence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act,
(vi) the person has not before
the last 10 years been convicted outside Canada of more than one offence
that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a summary conviction offence
under an Act of Parliament, and
(vii) the person has not been
convicted outside of Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would
constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament.
|
18. (2) Font partie de la catégorie
des personnes présumées réadaptées les personnes suivantes :
…
c) la personne qui a commis, à
l’extérieur du Canada, au plus une infraction qui, commise au Canada,
constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en
accusation si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i)
l’infraction est punissable au Canada d’un emprisonnement maximal de moins de
dix ans,
(ii) au moins
dix ans se sont écoulés depuis le moment de la commission de l’infraction,
(iii) la
personne n’a pas été déclarée coupable au Canada d’une infraction à une loi
fédérale punissable par mise en accusation,
(iv) elle n’a
pas été déclarée coupable au Canada d’une infraction à une loi fédérale
punissable par procédure sommaire dans les dix dernières années ou de plus
d’une telle infraction avant les dix dernières années, autre qu’une
infraction qualifiée de contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les
contraventions ou une infraction à la Loi sur le système de justice pénale
pour les adolescents,
(v) elle n’a
pas, dans les dix dernières années, été déclarée coupable, à l’extérieur du
Canada, d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction
à une loi fédérale, autre qu’une infraction qualifiée de contravention en
vertu de la Loi sur les contraventions ou une infraction à la Loi sur le
système de justice pénale pour les adolescents,
(vi) elle n’a
pas, avant les dix dernières années, été déclarée coupable, à l’extérieur du
Canada, de plus d’une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une
infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par procédure sommaire,
(vii) elle n’a
pas été déclarée coupable, à l’extérieur du Canada, d’une infraction qui,
commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable
par mise en accusation.
|
[14]
The
officer never turned his mind to these provisions. It was unreasonable to
continue to rely solely on the 1996 visa refusal without considering the case
in its totality. For these reasons, the decision will be quashed.
[15]
The
Applicant suggested that the Court should direct the Respondent to issue a visa
or at least indicate what the result of a referral back should be.
[16]
While
there may be situations where justice demands such a direction, this is not one
of them. The Applicant is entitled to have his visa application reviewed fully
and fairly – to be able to address in a real manner the allegations (stated and
implied). The Court would think, however, that an interview would be the
starting point of a fair process in this case but will nevertheless leave that
matter to the new officer assigned to reconsider the application.
[17]
The
Court would also consider that the Applicant’s application should be assigned
some priority reconsideration.
IV. CONCLUSION
[18]
Therefore,
this application for judicial review is granted, the visa refusal decision
quashed and the matter remitted to another visa officer or superior for
reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
[19]
There
is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this
application for judicial review is granted, the visa refusal decision is
quashed and the matter is to be remitted to another visa officer or superior
for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Email this Content