Docket: IMM-1075-16
Citation:
2017 FC 145
Ottawa, Ontario, February 7, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HELEN TORIBIO
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Ms. Helen Toribio (the “Applicant”) seeks
judicial review of the decision, dated February 25, 2016, of an Officer (the
“Officer”) refusing her application for permanent residence, pursuant to the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”), on the grounds
that she had made a misrepresentation pertaining to her family situation and
relationships.
[2]
The Applicant is a citizen of the Philippines.
She came to Canada in August 2007 as a Foreign Worker and went to Lloydminster,
Alberta. On April 15, 2013, she submitted an application for permanent
residence as a member of the Provincial Nominee Class. She listed Joselito
Toribio her husband, and Angelo Toribio, her son, as accompanying dependents.
[3]
In May, 2013, the Applicant began a romance with
a man. At that time, she was still married but separated from her husband.
[4]
By a “fairness letter” dated September 3, 2015,
from an employee of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”), the Applicant
was informed that there was a concern that she had misrepresented her marital
status. Specifically, questions were raised about the fact that the Applicant
allowed her permanent residence application to continue, notwithstanding that
she had begun a romantic relationship with another man in May, 2013. The
Applicant did not request the removal of her spouse from her application until
February, 2014.
[5]
By letter dated October 2, 2015, the Applicant
replied and advised that she considered her extra-marital relationship to be temporary
and always intended to resume cohabitation with her husband and son.
[6]
In the decision, the Officer found that the
Applicant had misrepresented information about her marriage, in light of the
submissions that her marriage had broken down in January 2013, prior to her
application for permanent residence.
[7]
In this application for judicial review, the
Applicant argues that at the time of her permanent residence application, she did
not consider her extra-marital affair to be permanent. She submits that she
kept CIC informed about the change in her personal relationships, including her
marriage, and did not misrepresent the facts.
[8]
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the
“Respondent”) submits that the Officer’s decision is reasonable on the basis of
the information submitted by the Applicant.
[9]
A decision about misrepresentation is reviewable
on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Seraj v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2016), 38 Imm. L.R. (4th) 242
(F.C.) at paragraph 11. According to the decision in Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 47, a decision is reasonable
when it is justifiable, intelligible and transparent, and “falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which
are defensible in respect of the facts and law.”
[10]
In my opinion, the Officer’s decision here does
not meet that standard.
[11]
The Applicant set out her personal
circumstances, including the beginning of a romance while she was separated
from her husband. That separation led to an application for divorce, that is a
formal and legal end of her marriage.
[12]
I agree with the Applicant’s submissions that
she kept the Respondent informed about the changes in her personal life.
[13]
The Officer’s conclusion, about a
misrepresentation in the face of the evidence submitted, is not reasonable.
[14]
The decision is set aside and the matter
remitted to another Officer for determination, there is no question for
certification arising.
Email this Content