Docket: IMM-1831-16
Citation:
2016 FC 1232
Toronto, Ontario, November 3, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DAWN ANDREA
FARLEY
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Ms. Dawn Andrea Farley (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision
made by a Senior Immigration Officer (the “Officer”)
on April 13, 2016, dismissing her application for permanent residence made on
humanitarian and compassionate grounds (“H&C”),
pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).
[2]
The Applicant is a citizen of Guyana. She
entered Canada in 1999 and was removed in August, 2013. During her
sojourn in Canada, the Applicant gave birth to two children, a son born in 1999
and a daughter born in 2003. The children remained in Canada following the
removal of the Applicant and, with the written consent of the Applicant, reside
with their maternal grandparents in Canada.
[3]
The Applicant applied for recognition in Canada
as a Convention refugee, in 2001. Her application was unsuccessful. A Pre-Removal
Risk Assessment application was denied in 2011. The decision now under review
was the third H&C application submitted by the Applicant.
[4]
In her most recent application for permanent
residence on H&C grounds, the Applicant presented submissions based on the
best interests of her children, family relationships and country conditions in
Guyana.
[5]
In her decision, the Officer acknowledged the inherent
difficulties for the children arising from their separation from the Applicant.
However, she noted that the children are lovingly supported by their
grandparents in Canada. The Officer ultimately concluded that she was not satisfied
that the children’s “best interest will be negatively
affected by the outcome” of the Applicant’s H&C application.
[6]
The Officer also considered the situation of the
Applicant. She noted that the Applicant has two adult sons living in Guyana.
She observed that there was insufficient evidence submitted by the Applicant to
address the “ability and willingness” of these
adult children to provide support to the Applicant in Guyana.
[7]
The Applicant now submits that the Officer erred
in applying the hardship test when assessing the best interests of her children.
She also argues that the Officer erred by failing to adequately consider the
evidence submitted.
[8]
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the
“Respondent”) submits that the Officer applied
the right test and committed no reviewable error in her assessment of the
evidence before her.
[9]
An H&C decision involves the exercise of
discretion, as informed by the statutory language. An H&C decision is
reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Kanthasamy
v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] 3 S.C.R. 909 at paragraph
44.
[10]
The standard of reasonableness, as discussed by
the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1
S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 47, requires that a decision be justifiable,
transparent and intelligible and fall within a range of possible, acceptable
outcomes. A decision meets that standard when the reasons are clear, precise
and intelligible, and illustrate how the decision was reached; see the decision
in Dunsmuir, supra.
[11]
I agree with the submissions of the Respondent
that the Officer committed no error in her assessment of the best interests of
the children. The Officer was not obliged to use formulaic words. It is
sufficient that she identified factors specific to each of the two children and
assessed them. She was not satisfied that the best interests of the children
depended upon reunification with their mother in Canada.
[12]
I see no error in the manner in which the Officer
dealt with the personal circumstances of the Applicant. She noted an absence of
evidence. The burden lay upon the Applicant to adduce whatever evidence was
necessary in order to support her claim for the positive exercise of discretion
pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Act.
[13]
While the circumstances of the Applicant invite
sympathy, I am not satisfied that she has shown any reviewable error by the Officer
in the process leading to the negative decision now under review.
[14]
In the result, this application for judicial
review is dismissed, no question for certification arising.
Email this Content