Date: 20081110
Docket: IMM-825-08
Citation: 2008 FC 1250
Ottawa,
Ontario, November 10, 2008
Present:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Blanchard
BETWEEN:
Bruno
MUNGANZA
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review against a decision of the Immigration
Appeal Division (Appeal Division), dated January 29, 2008, dismissing
the applicant’s appeal of the refusal of the application to sponsor his wife,
his two daughters as well as his adopted son (the sponsored persons).
I. Facts
[2]
The
applicant is a Congolese citizen who allegedly left that country during the
civil conflict there. He became a permanent resident in Canada on
October 2, 2002. He was recognized as a refugee by the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) on November
6, 2001.
[3]
The
applicant married Safi Pungu on February 2, 1998. During the
interview for his application for permanent residence in Canada, held in Tanzania on June 5, 2002,
the applicant did not declare his wife, his two daughters or his adopted son as
members of his family. Following conversations that he had with several persons
he contacted in Tanzania, he allegedly believed that they were dead. The
evidence also establishes that when the interview was held the applicant claimed
that he had never been married.
[4]
The
applicant was granted permanent residence in Canada on October 2, 2002. He filed a
sponsorship application in the family class on July 31, 2006, in favour
of his wife, his two daughters as well as his adopted son. The application was
refused on October 1, 2007, on the grounds that his wife and children were
not members of the family class within the meaning of paragraph 117(9)(d)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (the Regulations) since
they had not been declared when the applicant filed his application for
permanent residence in Canada and they had not been examined.
II. Issues
[5]
The
applicant is raising the following issues:
A. Did the Appeal
Division err in determining that the applicants are excluded from the family
class under subsection 117(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations?
B. Did the Appeal
Division vitiate the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness by
failing to hold an oral hearing before making its decision?
C. Did the Appeal
Division err in refusing to use its discretionary power to examine the reasons
based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds?
III. Standard of review
[6]
Where
the issue bears on the interpretation of subsection 117(1) of the
Regulations and related provisions of the Regulations and the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act (the Act), the standard of review is that of
correctness. See Azizi v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 406, at paragraph 7. In
this case, the first issue bears rather on the application of the relevant
sections of the Regulations to the facts. The appropriate standard for such an
issue is that of reasonableness. See Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, 1 S.C.R. 190
at paragraph 51.
[7]
In
regard to the second issue, it has been consistently held in the case law that issues
bearing on a breach of the principles of natural justice are reviewable under
the standard of correctness. See Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General),
2005 FCA 404, [2005] F.C.J. No. 2056 (Lexis) at paragraph 46, and Olson v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 458, [2007]
F.C.J. No. 631 (Lexis), at paragraph 27.
[8]
The
final issue essentially raises the issue of the powers of the Appeal Division. The
standard of review is that of correctness.
IV. Analysis
[9]
The
relevant sections of the Act and Regulations are reproduced in the appendix.
[10]
The
applicant claims that he was genuinely
not aware that his wife and children were still alive when he filed his application
for permanent residence. Considering the difficult situation prevailing in Congo at that
time, we can understand why the applicant may have thought that his family had
disappeared. The evidence establishes that he was working in another city when
the rebels arrived. The family was separated and they were unaware of one
another’s fate. The evidence also establishes that the applicant learned for
the first time in 2004, from a Congolese priest, that his family members were
alive and that they were in Congo. The applicant contacted his family in
May 2004 and has provided for them financially since the reunion.
[11]
The
applicant’s counsel explained that the applicant was being followed by his
family doctor and a psychiatrist because of his experiences in Congo and the loss
of his family, a family he believed had been killed in the war. She argues that
the applicant, during his interview, was depressed and wanted to forget about
the atrocities which had led to the loss of his family. She submits that this
explains the fact that the applicant denied being married during the interview
for the application for permanent residence held in Tanzania in 2002.
[12]
With
respect to the claims relating to the applicant’s psychiatric state, there was
no psychiatric report filed dealing with the sponsorship application. The
applicant’s counsel explains that it is difficult to adduce this type of
evidence when one is in a refugee camp. The respondent objected to my receiving
a psychiatric report at the hearing of this application for judicial review. Since
this evidence was not before the decision-maker, it was not received.
[13]
The
arguments of the applicant in this case cannot be used as grounds justifying
the Court’s intervention. I am prepared to accept that the applicant was not
aware that his wife and children were still alive when his application for
permanent residence was filed. This situation has no effect on the application
of paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations. The Regulations are
clear: paragraph 117(9)(d) does not make any distinction with
regard to the reason for which there was no mention of the non-accompanying
family members in the application for permanent residence. What is
important is that result of the non-disclosure was that these members were not
examined by an immigration officer. In this case, it is true that the applicant
could not disclose what he did not know, but the wording of the Regulations is
clear and unequivocal; subjective knowledge regarding a false statement or non-disclosure
is contemplated in the Regulations (See: Azizi v. (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2005 FCA 406, Chen v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 678, and De Guzman v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1276).
[14]
The
Appeal Division therefore did not err in dismissing the appeal. The Appeal
Division correctly determined that the sponsored persons are excluded from the
family class considering the application of paragraph 117(9)(d) of
the Regulations.
[15]
Considering
the exceptional circumstances of this case, where there are reasons based on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the applicant may request a ministerial
exemption from the legislative and regulatory requirements for admission to Canada
pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Act; the applicant can still file such
an application with supporting evidence.
[16]
In
regard to the second issue, I am of the opinion that the Appeal Division did
not breach a principle of procedural fairness by failing to hold an oral
hearing before making its decision. Paragraph 175(1)(a) of the Act
provides that the Appeal Division must hold a hearing where there is an issue
involving the residence obligation under subsection 63(4) of the Act, including
when there are false statements. This is not at issue in this case (Raymond
v. M.C.I., 2005 FC 1350).
[17]
In
regard to the third issue raised by the applicant, I am of the opinion that the
Appeal Division did not err in not using its discretionary power to examine the
sufficiency of the reasons based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in
the matter. Section 65 of the Act clearly establishes that the Appeal
Division “may not consider” reasons based on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds “unless it has decided that the foreign national is a member of the
family class.” Here it was determined that the sponsored persons did not belong
to this class (Tse v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 393).
V. Conclusion
[18]
For
these reasons, I am of the opinion that the Appeal Division did not err in
deciding that the sponsored persons are excluded from the family class and in
dismissing the appeal. Intervention by this Court is not warranted. Therefore,
the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[19]
The
parties did not suggest the certification of a serious question of general
importance within the meaning of paragraph 74(d) of the Act. I am satisfied
that such a question is not raised in this case. Therefore, no question will be
certified.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT
ORDERS AND DECIDES that
1. The application for judicial
review be dismissed;
2. No serious question of general
importance is certified.
“Edmond P. Blanchard”
Certified
true translation
Kelley
A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
APPENDIX
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act /
Loi sur l’immigration et la protection
des réfugiés
|
63.(4) A
permanent resident may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a
decision made outside of Canada on the residency obligation under
section 28.
|
63.(4)
Le résident permanent peut interjeter appel de la décision rendue hors du
Canada sur l’obligation de résidence.
|
|
65. In an
appeal under subsection 63(1) or (2) respecting an application based on membership
in the family class, the Immigration Appeal Division may not consider
humanitarian and compassionate consideration unless it has decided that the
foreign national is a member of the family class and that their sponsor is a
sponsor within the meaning of the regulations
|
65.
Dans le cas de l’appel visé aux paragraphes 63(1) ou (2) d’une décision
portant sur une demande au titre du regroupement familial, les motifs d’ordre
humanitaire ne peuvent être pris en considération que s’il a été statué que l’étranger
fait bien partie de cette catégorie et que le répondant a bien la qualité
réglementaire.
|
|
175.(1) The
Immigration Appeal Division, in any proceeding before it,
(a) must, in the case of an
appeal under subsection 63(4), hold a hearing;
(b) is not bound by any
legal or technical rules of evidence; and
(c) may receive and base a
decision on evidence adduced in the proceeding that it considers credible or
trustworthy in the circumstances.
|
175.(1) Dans toute affaire
dont elle est saisie, la Section d’appel de l’immigration :
a) dispose de
l’appel formé au titre du paragraphe 63(4) par la tenue d’une audience;
b) n’est pas
liée par les règles légales ou techniques de présentation de la preuve;
c) peut recevoir les éléments
qu’elle juge crédibles ou dignes de foi en l’occurrence et fonder sur eux sa
décision.
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations /
Règlement sur l’immigration et la
protection des réfugiés
|
117.(1) A foreign national is a member of the family
class if, with respect to a sponsor, the foreign national is
(a) the sponsor's
spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner;
(b) a dependent child
of the sponsor;
(c) the sponsor's
mother or father;
(d) the mother or
father of the sponsor's mother or father;
(e) [Repealed,
SOR/2005-61, s. 3]
(f) a person whose
parents are deceased, who is under 18 years of age, who is not a spouse or
common-law partner and who is
(i) a child of the
sponsor's mother or father,
(ii) a child of a child of
the sponsor's mother or father, or
(iii) a child of the
sponsor's child;
(g) a person under 18
years of age whom the sponsor intends to adopt in Canada if
(i) the adoption is not
primarily for the purpose of acquiring any privilege or status under the Act,
(ii) where the adoption is
an international adoption and the country in which the person resides and
their province of intended destination are parties to the Hague Convention on
Adoption, the competent authority of the country and of the province have approved
the adoption in writing as conforming to that Convention, and
(iii) where the adoption
is an international adoption and either the country in which the person
resides or the person's province of intended destination is not a party to
the Hague Convention on Adoption
(A) the person has been placed
for adoption in the country in which they reside or is otherwise legally
available in that country for adoption and there is no evidence that the
intended adoption is for the purpose of child trafficking or undue gain
within the meaning of the Hague Convention on Adoption, and
(B) the competent authority of
the person's province of intended destination has stated in writing that it
does not object to the adoption; or
(h) a relative of the
sponsor, regardless of age, if the sponsor does not have a spouse, a
common-law partner, a conjugal partner, a child, a mother or father, a
relative who is a child of that mother or father, a relative who is a child
of a child of that mother or father, a mother or father of that mother or
father or a relative who is a child of the mother or father of that mother or
father
(i) who is a Canadian
citizen, Indian or permanent resident, or
(ii) whose application to
enter and remain in Canada as a permanent resident the sponsor may otherwise
sponsor.
|
117.(1)
Appartiennent à la catégorie du regroupement familial du fait de la relation
qu’ils ont avec le répondant les étrangers suivants :
a) son époux, conjoint de fait ou partenaire conjugal;
b) ses enfants à charge;
c) ses parents;
d) les parents de l’un ou l’autre de ses parents;
e) [Abrogé, DORS/2005-61, art. 3]
f) s’ils sont âgés de moins de dix-huit ans, si leurs parents sont
décédés et s’ils n’ont pas d’époux ni de conjoint de fait :
(i) les
enfants de l’un ou l’autre des parents du répondant,
(ii) les
enfants des enfants de l’un ou l’autre de ses parents,
(iii) les
enfants de ses enfants;
g) la personne âgée de moins de dix-huit ans que le répondant veut
adopter au Canada, si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i)
l’adoption ne vise pas principalement l’acquisition d’un statut ou d’un
privilège aux termes de la Loi,
(ii) s’il
s’agit d’une adoption internationale et que le pays où la personne réside et
la province de destination sont parties à la Convention sur l’adoption, les
autorités compétentes de ce pays et celles de cette province ont déclaré, par
écrit, qu’elles estimaient que l’adoption était conforme à cette convention,
(iii)
s’il s’agit d’une adoption internationale et que le pays où la personne réside
ou la province de destination n’est pas partie à la Convention sur
l’adoption :
(A) la personne
a été placée en vue de son adoption dans ce pays ou peut par ailleurs y être
légitimement adoptée et rien n’indique que l’adoption projetée a pour objet la
traite de l’enfant ou la réalisation d’un gain indu au sens de cette
convention,
(B) les
autorités compétentes de la province de destination ont déclaré, par écrit,
qu’elles ne s’opposaient pas à l’adoption;
h) tout autre membre de sa parenté, sans égard à son âge, à défaut
d’époux, de conjoint de fait, de partenaire conjugal, d’enfant, de parents,
de membre de sa famille qui est l’enfant de l’un ou l’autre de ses parents,
de membre de sa famille qui est l’enfant d’un enfant de l’un ou l’autre de
ses parents, de parents de l’un ou l’autre de ses parents ou de membre de sa
famille qui est l’enfant de l’un ou l’autre des parents de l’un ou l’autre de
ses parents, qui est :
(i) soit
un citoyen canadien, un Indien ou un résident permanent,
(ii) soit
une personne susceptible de voir sa demande d’entrée et de séjour au Canada à
titre de résident permanent par ailleurs parrainée par le répondant.
|
[…]
…
|
Excluded
relationships
117.(9) A foreign national shall not be
considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a
sponsor if
…
(d) subject to subsection (10), the sponsor previously made an
application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at
the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying
family member of the sponsor and was not examined.
|
Restrictions
117.(9) Ne sont pas considérées
comme appartenant à la catégorie du regroupement familial du fait de leur
relation avec le répondant les personnes suivantes :
[…]
d) sous réserve du paragraphe (10), dans le cas où le répondant
est devenu résident permanent à la suite d’une demande à cet effet,
l’étranger qui, à l’époque où cette demande a été faite, était un membre de
la famille du répondant n’accompagnant pas ce dernier et n’a pas fait l’objet
d’un contrôle.
|
Email this Content