Docket: IMM-2624-14
Citation:
2015 FC 620
Ottawa, Ontario, May 11, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SANOBARKHON
OBIDOVA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Ms. Obidova is a grandmother from Uzbekistan. Her only son, his wife and their son are permanent residents of Canada. She arrived in Canada in September 2012, on a visitor visa. Her in-Canada
application for permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds was refused. That is the decision under review.
[2]
The officer considered the applicant’s degree of
establishment, her family relationships in Uzbekistan and Canada, best interests of the grandchild, and whether she would face hardship or discrimination in
returning to Uzbekistan. The applicant submits that the officer’s assessment
was unreasonable and, in particular, was selective in assessing the country
condition evidence regarding Uzbekistan for elderly single women with no family
support.
[3]
The applicant also notes that the officer failed
to address her submission that there was a moratorium on parental sponsorships
at the time the application was made – a fact contained in the submissions
accompanying the application. That moratorium was lifted on January 2, 2014,
almost three months before the decision under review was rendered. I agree
with the respondent that in those circumstances there was no need for the
officer to address the moratorium or even mention it in the decision.
[4]
The applicant filed evidence that was not before
the officer that within one month after the moratorium was lifted, the quota of
parental applications was met and other evidence that the current processing
times for such applications from Uzbekistan is 109 months. None of this evidence
was before the officer and it was incumbent on the applicant, in my view, to
file supplementary submissions after the moratorium was lifted if she wished to
have these additional or new facts considered. The decision under review must
be assessed based on the record before the officer.
[5]
The only evidence the officer had regarding
processing delays was a single sentence in the initial application was that “processing times for parental sponsorships were exceedingly
lengthy prior to implementation of the temporary pause.” The officer’s
finding that the applicant had to potential to apply for status from Uzbekistan can hardly be said to be unreasonable based on what was before the officer.
[6]
The applicant submits that the documentary evidence
shows that “women in Uzbekistan are more at risk of
poverty than men, particularly if women are divorced, widowed, unmarried
mothers or have large families. The unemployment rate for women is higher than
that of men (with women accounting for 63 percent of unemployed persons).”
It is argued that the applicant meets that description and also she is a “Person without Citizenship” and this also makes her
more vulnerable. She points out that the norm in Uzbekistan is that elderly
women are cared for by their children – and most usually by their sons.
Accordingly, she argues that the officer’s conclusion that because she was “entitled to work and live legally in Uzbekistan” she
would not face hardship if she were to return and apply for residency from
there was unreasonable.
[7]
I agree with the respondent’s submission that
the officer did not examine the hardship element only with that statement in
mind. The officer examined her continuous employment history which only ended with
her retirement after she obtained her visa to visit her son in Canada, the fact
that she had family members (although not children) living in Uzbekistan, that
she undoubtedly had acquaintances and a social network there, that there was no
evidence that she required physical care, and that there was no evidence that
country conditions had changed since she left. In my view, the country
conditions analysis, while relatively short, was reasonable because it examined
the applicant’s personal circumstances as evidenced by her past history there
rather than look only at the general country condition evidence of similarly
situated persons.
[8]
The applicant further submits that the officer
erred in the analysis of the best interests of the child. The officer
acknowledged that the applicant cares for her grandson and that there is a
strong bond between the two. The officer also recognizes the sadness the
applicant’s grandson will experience if his grandmother has to leave Canada. However, the officer concluded that they could continue their relationship over
long-distance and the separation was not detrimental to the grandson’s best
interests. In addition to the possibility of the Canadian family visiting her,
the officer considers that she “may” be able to
visit Canada again. I agree with the respondent that although, as is submitted
by the applicant such a visit is very unlikely, the officer did not raise the
possibility higher than a possibility. The officer also noted electronic means
of communication would permit all parties to remain in contact and for her to
see her grandson grow up. The officer’s conclusion that separation would not
be detrimental to the child’s best interests based on the record, is a
reasonable conclusion.
[9]
Lastly, the applicant argues that the officer
considered each factor in isolation and not a global assessment. I disagree.
The conclusion of the officer’s decision clearly states that he reviewed all of
the applicant’s submissions before making a final conclusion, which is evidence
that the officer did consider all of the relevant factors.
[10]
The respondent correctly points out that
permanent resident applications based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds
are exceptional and are not to be used as an alternative to the regular process
for obtaining residency in Canada. Notwithstanding the able submissions of
counsel for the applicant, the officer’s finding that there was nothing
exceptional in the applicant’s circumstances is a reasonable conclusion based
on the particular circumstances of the applicant.
[11]
For these reasons, this application is
dismissed.
[12]
Neither party proposed a question for
certification.
Email this Content