Lene v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 23

 

 

Date: 20080114

Docket: IMM-2217-07

Citation: 2008 FC 23

BETWEEN:

IDRISSA LENE

 

Applicant

 

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

 

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

 

Pinard J.

[1]          This is an application for judicial review of the decision of immigration officer J. Gullickson (hereinafter the officer), refusing the applicant’s permanent residence application based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations (the HC application).

 

* * * * * * * *

 

[2]          The applicant is a citizen of Burkina Faso. He arrived in Canada on March 28, 2003, and applied for refugee status in 2003. His claim was based on alleged reprisals and threats that he received from some of his family members following a dispute regarding family land. This application was refused on December 23, 2003, by the Refugee Protection Division (hereinafter the RPD), which determined that the applicant lacked credibility based on many omissions, inconsistencies and implausibilities in his story. The applicant filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review, but abandoned this application on February 12, 2004.

 

[3]          On May 25, 2004, the applicant filed an HC application based on the same facts as those alleged in his refugee claim. Further, he alleged that his integration in Canada, the financial support that he provided for his family in Burkina Faso, including his four children, as well as the impossibility of finding work in Burkina Faso, supported a decision in his favour.

 

[4]          On May 10, 2007, the officer decided that the applicant had not established that the requirement that he obtain his permanent residence visa from outside Canada would cause him or any other person undue or excessive hardship. This decision was communicated to the applicant in a letter dated May 14, 2007.

 

* * * * * * * *

 

[5]          The applicant is basically challenging the officer’s assessment of the facts. It is well established that officers who make decisions on HC applications are normally given broad discretion. It falls on the applicant to establish that his particular situation is worthy of favourable consideration. In an application for judicial review of an HC decision, the appropriate standard of review is that of reasonableness. In Davoudifar v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2006 FC 316, [2006] F.C.J. No. 431 (F.C.T.D.) (QL), this Court stated as follows:

[44]     The Decision made by the Officer is highly fact-based, and as the Officer is in a better position than this Court to assess the facts before her, the exercise of a discretion in assessing the Applicant's case is subject to a high level of deference from this Court. In this case, although the Applicant's situation attracts compassion, the Officer was not unreasonable in making her Decision and, as such, I must decline to intervene.

 

 

(See also Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; Agot v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 436, [2003] F.C.J. No. 607 (F.C.T.D.) (QL); Serda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 356, [2006] F.C.J. No. 425 (F.C.T.D.) (QL) and Lim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 956, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1250 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)).

 

[6]          Further, even if the officer has erred, the Court must not intervene if this error is not determinative (Owusu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 3 F.C. 172 (F.C.T.D.); Kaybaki v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2004 FC 32, [2004] F.C.J. No. 27 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)).

 

[7]          In this case, despite the assiduous presentation made by Mr.  Nguyen for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the officer’s assessment of the facts, even if partly improper in regard to the probative value of the letters of the applicant’s spouse regarding the injury to her arm, is, on the whole, unreasonable. It appears inter alia that the officer considered the RPD’s findings in light of the new evidence submitted by the applicant and that his analysis of this evidence led him to determine that they were not sufficient to rehabilitate his credibility.

 

[8]          My review of the evidence leads me to find that, generally speaking, the detailed analysis performed by the officer, who was not necessarily bound to refer to all of the evidence, is serious and coherent. In this context, this Court ought not to substitute its own assessment of the facts for the officer’s assessment.

 

[9]          Indeed, as there was no error established justifying the intervention of the Court, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

 

 

“Yvon Pinard”

 

Ottawa, Ontario

January 14, 2008

 

 

Certified true translation

 

Kelley A. Harvey, BCL, LLB

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                          IMM-2217-07

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          IDRISSA LENE v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Montréal, Quebec

 

DATE OF HEARING:                      December 5, 2007

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:       Pinard J.

 

DATE OF REASONS:                      January 14, 2008

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Mai Nguyen                                        FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Isabelle Brochu                                   FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Doyon & Associés                                                       FOR THE APPLICANT

Montréal, Quebec

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.                                                      FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada