Docket: IMM-4346-15
Citation:
2016 FC 500
Ottawa, Ontario, May 4, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Diner
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MS. ANNE EKANGA
EUGÉNIE LILALA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Nature of the Matter
[1]
This is a judicial review of a decision by a
Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] enforcement officer [Officer] to refuse to
defer the Applicant’s removal from Canada. The Officer’s decision is dated
September 25, 2015. It is brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act].
II.
Background
[2]
The Applicant is a citizen of the Democratic
Republic of Congo [DRC]. She arrived in Canada and made a claim for refugee
protection in December 1996. The claim was rejected in 1997 but, since the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] imposed a temporary stay of removals
[TSR] on the DRC in 1997, she was not removed from Canada. That TSR remains in
place to this day, along with TSRs on only two other countries – Afghanistan (since
1994) and Iraq (since 2003).
[3]
The Minister’s power to issue a TSR is outlined
in section 230 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227 [the Regulations]:
230(1) The Minister may impose a stay on
removal orders with respect to a country or a place if the circumstances in
that country or place pose a generalized risk to the entire civilian population
as a result of
(a) an armed conflict within the country or
place;
(b) an environmental disaster resulting in a
substantial temporary disruption of living conditions; or
(c) any situation that is temporary and
generalized.
[4]
Subsection 230(3) of the Regulations, however,
lays out exceptions to the protection offered by a TSR:
230(3) The stay does not apply to a person
who:
(a) is inadmissible under subsection 34(1)
of the Act on security grounds;
(b) is inadmissible under subsection 35(1)
of the Act on grounds of violating human or international rights;
(c) is inadmissible under subsection 36(1)
of the Act on grounds of serious criminality or under subsection 36(2) of the
Act on grounds of criminality;
(d) is inadmissible under subsection 37(1)
of the Act on grounds of organized criminality;
(e) is a person referred to in section F of
Article 1 of the Refugee Convention; or
(f) informs the Minister in writing that
they consent to their removal to a country or place to which a stay of removal
applies.
[5]
On March 23, 2006, the Applicant was charged
with four counts of assault under the Criminal Code, SRC 1985, c C-46,
all stemming from an incident in which she beat her daughter with a boot, a
pair of metal tongs, and a cord from an iron. She was convicted of three
offences – two counts under subsection 267(a) and one count under subsection
267(b) – on June 29, 2007. She then received a four month conditional sentence
and one year of probation for each count, to be served concurrently.
[6]
The Applicant’s sentence ended on or about
October 29th, 2008 and she became eligible to apply for a criminal
record suspension (previously known as a pardon) in October 2013. The
Children’s Aid Society took custody of the Applicant’s daughter shortly after
she was charged; a subsequent investigation demonstrated that the Applicant had
been abusing her daughter for years. The Applicant lost all custodial and
visitation rights in 2010.
[7]
After the 2007 conviction, the Applicant was
arrested by CBSA and released under conditions. An inadmissibility report was
prepared under subsection 44(1) of the Act and, on May 7, 2012, a deportation
order was issued.
[8]
On February 25, 2013, the Applicant applied for
a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA]. This application was denied on May 7,
2014.
[9]
On April 16, 2015, the Applicant was sent a
letter requesting she present herself to CBSA. She failed to appear as
directed. As a result, on May 4, 2015, the Applicant was arrested and put in
detention on the basis that she was considered a flight risk. When she was
released on July 16, 2015, she was informed that her deportation was scheduled
for August 2015.
[10]
The Applicant submitted a request to defer
removal on August 20, 2015. She was told, however, that the request could not
be considered until a removal date was scheduled.
[11]
On September 8, 2015, the Applicant received
directions to report for a removal, scheduled for October 3, 2015. The
Applicant’s counsel contacted the CBSA about her request to defer and, when an
answer was not forthcoming from the CBSA, commenced an application for judicial
review and a motion for a judicial stay of removal.
[12]
The Officer denied the deferral request on
September 25, 2015. He found, among other things, that there was insufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the Applicant would be in danger were she returned
to the DRC; that the Applicant had the opportunity to apply for a record
suspension since 2013 but had not done so; that her eligibility to seek a
record suspension was not an appropriate basis to exercise his jurisdiction to
defer; and that CBSA has an obligation to carry out removals as soon as possible.
As such, the Officer was not satisfied that a deferral of the removal was
appropriate in the circumstances.
[13]
On October 1, 2015, this Court granted a stay
of removal pending the outcome of a judicial review of the Officer’s decision. Leave
was then granted on January 20, 2016.
[14]
Since the stay of removal and leave were
granted, the Applicant has received a second negative PRRA and has, according
to her counsel, submitted the paperwork to begin the processing of her
application for a record suspension.
III.
Issues
[15]
The Applicant argues that the Officer erred by
giving inadequate reasons in refusing her request to defer removal, in
particular relating to her eligibility for a record suspension and the risk she
would face in the DRC.
[16]
The Applicant also argues that, in light of the
application for a record suspension, she should be allowed to have that process
completed. The Officer found that, since the Applicant was eligible for the
suspension in 2013, she had had almost 2 years to apply but had failed to do so.
The Applicant notes, however, that the CBSA had the authority to initiate the
removal as early as 2008 and waited 7 years to do so. To hold her to a
different standard in terms of timeliness, she submits, would be unreasonable.
She also notes that she already filed for a record suspension once before but
it was rejected for being submitted too early. According to the Applicant, when
the record suspension which she has now filed, is granted, the removal will
then be stayed by the operation of the ongoing TSR, and this should have been
considered.
[17]
Finally, the Applicant argues that the Officer
erred in failing to take into consideration both the Government of Canada’s
2015 travel advisory for the DRC and the presence of the TSR. She relies on Cepeda-Gutierrez
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] FCJ No 1425 for
the principle that the more important a piece of evidence is that is not
discussed in the reasons given for a decision, the more willing this Court may
be to find the decision was made without reasonable consideration of that
evidence. The Applicant argues that the travel advisory clearly demonstrates
that the security situation in the DRC is poor, and the Officer should have
taken this into consideration. The Applicant also argues that the TSR is
sufficient proof that the DRC is an extremely dangerous place, and this should
not have been ignored. As such, the Officer failed to conduct a full assessment
of the risk that awaits the Applicant in the DRC.
IV.
Analysis
[18]
The standard of review applicable to an enforcement
officer’s refusal to defer removal is reasonableness (Baron v Canada
(Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81 at para
25). In a reasonableness review, this
Court must take a deferential approach and resist imposing its own analysis. If
the decision is a rational solution that is justifiable, transparent and
intelligible, it should not be disturbed (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9 at para 47).
[19]
In Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [2001] 3 FCR 682 (FCTD) at para 48 [Wang], this Court
made it clear that enforcement officers have only a narrow jurisdiction in
which to consider deferrals when it found that “deferral
should be reserved for those applications or processes where the failure to
defer will expose the applicant to the risk of death, extreme sanction or
inhumane treatment in circumstances and where deferral might result in the
order becoming inoperative”. As further described in Canada (Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v Shpati, 2011 FCA 286 at para 40 [Shpati],
an enforcement officer’s “functions are limited, and
deferrals are intended to be temporary… [they] are not intended to make, or to
re-make, PRRAs or H&C decisions.”
[20]
In light of Wang and Shpati, as
well as Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81, I do not find that the Officer’s decision was
in any way unreasonable.
[21]
First off, I do not find the reasons to be
insufficient on their face. Even if I had, as the Supreme Court stated in Newfoundland
and Labrador Nurses' Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board),
2011 SCC 62 at para 14, inadequacy of reasons is not a stand-alone basis for
judicial review – the inadequate reasons must be connected to an unreasonable
result.
[22]
Second, I do not find that the Officer
unreasonably failed to consider the evidence before him. He noted that the
Government’s travel advisory was among the submissions he had to consider, and
there is nothing to suggest that, in declining to explicitly mention the TSR or
discuss the travel advisory at length, he ignored these factors. This is
especially true where, as with paragraph 230(3)(c), Parliament has provided
explicit direction that the TSR not apply where findings of serious criminality
are present. The Applicant’s argument on this point amounts to a request that
this Court reweigh the evidence, something it is not, under a reasonableness
review, permitted to do.
[23]
Finally, as the Respondent noted in the hearing,
a record suspension is discretionary. There is no guarantee that her
application, if submitted, will be approved. Considering she had not even
applied for a record suspension at the time of the Officer’s decision, there
was little evidence to suggest a deferral was reasonably forthcoming.
[24]
As an aside, counsel for Applicant provided no
authority for the proposition that “when” the
record suspension is granted, the removal would not proceed. There are two
weaknesses in this argument. First, the mere application for a record suspension
in no way guarantees its subsequent receipt. Second, the Applicant provided no
authority to show that if and when such suspension was received, the serious criminality
bar to the TSR under paragraph 230(3)(c) would be removed. The Officer, therefore,
did not err in his consideration of the Applicant’s submissions on her
eligibility for a suspension.
V.
Conclusion
[25]
This application for judicial review is dismissed.
There are no questions for certification or costs awarded.
Email this Content