Docket: IMM-3472-13
Citation:
2015 FC 24
Ottawa, Ontario, January 8, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ABENA MANSA MONLOUIS
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
In 2012, Ms Abena Mansa Monlouis, a citizen of St Lucia, arrived in Canada and applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate
grounds (H&C) when she was 17 years old. She hoped to live with her father
who is a permanent resident of Canada.
[2]
An immigration officer reviewed Ms Monlouis’
application and concluded that she had had little opportunity to become
established in Canada, having lived here for less than a year. Further, she
would soon reach the age of 18 and would no longer be considered a minor.
Finally, Ms Monlouis had provided insufficient evidence relating to her
relationship with her father. Accordingly, the officer found that Ms Monlouis
had not shown she would experience unusual, undeserved or disproportionate
hardship if she had to apply for permanent residence from outside Canada.
[3]
Ms Monlouis argues that the officer’s decision
was unreasonable as it failed to take adequate account of her status as a minor.
She was enrolled in school in Canada and wished to be raised and reunited with
her father, a natural desire for someone in her circumstances. She maintains
that the officer failed to weigh these factors. She asks me to overturn the
decision and order another officer to reconsider her application.
[4]
I cannot agree. The officer’s decision was
responsive to the evidence and submissions before him. In the circumstances,
the outcome was defensible based on the facts and the law. Therefore, I must
dismiss this application for judicial review.
[5]
The sole issue is whether the officer’s decision
was unreasonable.
II.
Was the Officer’s decision unreasonable?
[6]
Ms Monlouis contends that the officer failed to
give appropriate consideration to the fact that she was a minor when she
applied for permanent residence.
[7]
I disagree. The officer was clearly aware that
Ms Monlouis was 17 years old when she applied for her H&C. Moreover, there
was simply no evidence before the officer that pointed to any particular
hardship that Ms Monlouis would endure if she had to apply for permanent
residence from St Lucia.
[8]
There was no evidence relating to her life in St Lucia. She did not mention any family there, or describe where or with whom she had been
living. She states that she would like to foster a relationship with her father,
but there is no evidence emanating from him on the subject, other than a
completed sponsorship form. She attends school in Canada and has apparently
begun to make friends here but, again, there was no evidence before the officer
relating to any significant attachments she has made.
[9]
Based on the paucity of evidence before the
officer, I cannot conclude that his decision was unreasonable.
III.
Conclusion and Disposition
[10]
The officer’s rejection of Ms Monlouis’ H&C
application represented a defensible outcome based on the law and the evidence
before him. Therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and
none is stated.
Email this Content