El‑Khatib v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 160

Date: 20170209

Docket: IMM-3388-16

Citation: 2017 FC 160

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Montréal, Québec, February 9, 2017

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Locke

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1]               Given the applicants’ application for judicial review of an immigration officer’s refusal of their application for permanent residence for humanitarian and compassionate considerations [H&C application];

[2]               Having read the parties’ records, and having considered the written and oral submissions by counsel;

[3]               Whereas the parties agree, and the Court concurs, that the standard of review that applies to an immigration officer’s decision regarding an H&C application is that of reasonableness for questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law (Kisana v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 189 at para 18; Caesar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 215 at para 11);

[4]               Whereas (i) the decisions made on the H&C applications are discretionary, (ii) it is up to the applicants to provide sufficient evidence to the administrative decision-maker to demonstrate that an exceptional measure is justified, and (iii) it is not up to the court to re-weigh the relevant factors when reviewing the exercise of ministerial discretion: Abdirisaq v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 300 at para 3, citing Suresh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at paras 4, 46;

[5]               Whereas, with respect to the issue of the applicant’s establishment in Canada, the Court notes that they did not submit their factum, and in any case, the Court is not satisfied that the officer’s analysis was unreasonable;

[6]               Whereas, with respect to the best interests of the children, even though the applicants would have wished for a different outcome, the Court finds that the officer’s analysis was not unreasonable because:

• the evidence submitted to the officer was limited;
• the officer considered all the children involved;
• the officer's finding that his decision would not have any negative and significant effect on the well-being of the applicants’ children was reasonably justified;
• the Court is not satisfied that the officer’s decision was affected by non-relevant factors, nor that the officer failed to consider relevant factors;

[7]               Whereas the applicants do not object to the respondent’s request for the style of cause to be amended to indicate the “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration” as the respondent;

JUDGMENT

THE COURT ORDERS that:

1.      This application is dismissed.

2.      No serious question of general importance is certified.

3.      The style of cause is amended to indicate the “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration” as the respondent.

“George R. Locke”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: