Docket: IMM-373-14
Citation:
2015 FC 655
Ottawa, Ontario, May 20, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Locke
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MIREILLE AZIZ
ABDO SALEM,
ALI HASSAN
ABBAS and SAHRAA ABBAS
by their
litigation guardian MIREILLE AZIZ ABDO SALEM
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicants, a mother (the principal
applicant) and her two minor daughters, seek judicial review of a decision of a
senior immigration officer refusing to grant them permanent residence in Canada
on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. The applicants are
citizens of Lebanon and Brazil.
[2]
The applicants’ H&C application was
necessary because the children’s father, who is a permanent resident in Canada,
failed to declare his spouse when he landed. The principal applicant is
therefore not considered a member of the family class pursuant to paragraph
117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227 (IRPR).
[3]
The applicants attack the officer’s decision on
two fronts: (i) the consideration of the best interests of the children (BIOC)
was inadequate; and (ii) the consideration of the applicants’ establishment in
Canada was inadequate. On both fronts, I am of the view that the officer’s analysis
was adequate and reasonable.
[4]
With regard to the BIOC, the applicants assert
that the officer failed to (i) properly consider the evidence; (ii) consider
country conditions awaiting the children in Lebanon; and (iii) weigh paragraph
117(9)(d) of the IRPR against the assessment of the BIOC.
[5]
In my view, the officer adequately considered
the evidence. The fact that the officer’s analysis of the BIOC began with the
conclusion that the children’s interests are best met if they remain with their
mother does not change that. I disagree with the applicants’ assertion that the
officer assumed that the absence of one parent in the lives of the children
would have no impact.
[6]
Though the officer’s assessment of country
conditions in Lebanon is not in the BIOC section of the impugned decision, the
assessment was done, and reasonably in my view. I see no reason to require that
this assessment be dealt with under any particular heading of the decision.
[7]
Likewise, though the officer’s consideration of
paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR is found outside the BIOC section of the
impugned decision, that consideration is present and reasonable.
[8]
With regard to the principal applicant's
establishment in Canada, the officer concluded that it was no more than what
would be expected in the time she resided there. I am satisfied that this
conclusion was reasonable, in that it falls within a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes, and that it was justified, transparent and intelligible. I
am also of the view that it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that the
principal applicant's establishment in Canada is not as a result of
circumstances beyond her control.
Email this Content