John v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1422

 

 

 

 

Date: 20061124

Docket: IMM-509-06

Citation: 2006 FC 1422

Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2006

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly

 

 

BETWEEN:

NICOLE JOHN

Applicant

and

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

 

[1]               Ms. Nicole John is a citizen of Trinidad. She came to Canada in 1986, but was deported in 1998 after her application for humanitarian and compassionate consideration was denied. In 2002, she was allowed to return to Canada after her application was re-opened. Ultimately, an immigration officer denied her request for permanent residence on the ground that she was receiving social assistance.

[2]               Ms. John argues that the officer failed to take into account her personal circumstances and the best interests of her four Canadian-born children. She also argues that she had a legitimate expectation, based on the re-opening of her file and return to Canada, that she would be granted permanent residence. However, I can find no basis for overturning the officer’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.

I.        Issues

1.  Did the officer fail to consider relevant circumstances when denying Ms. John’s application for permanent residence?

2.  Did Ms. John have a legitimate expectation that her application would be granted?

II.     Analysis

1.  Did the officer fail to consider relevant circumstances when denying Ms. John’s application for permanent residence?

 

[3]               Usually, applicants for permanent residence must apply from outside Canada (s. 11, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA); relevant enactments are set out in an Annex). However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can exempt an applicant from this requirement on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (s. 25).

 

[4]               In 1998, Ms. John was denied permission to apply for permanent residence from within Canada. However, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] S.C.J. No. 39 (QL), the Minister re-opened her file and allowed her to return to Canada to make her permanent residence application from here.   On her return, Ms. John was permitted to work while she waited for her application to be assessed. She was employed in 2002 and 2003, but then was injured in a fall. As a result, she has been on social assistance ever since. According to s. 39 of IRPA, persons who are dependent on social assistance are inadmissible to Canada.

[5]               The officer reviewed Ms. John’s circumstances and the medical information she provided. The officer concluded that Ms. John was inadmissible to Canada, given that she had been on social assistance since 2003 and the situation was unlikely to change. In 2005, her physician advised her not to seek employment.

 

[6]               Ms. John argues that the officer should have considered her capacity to return to work in the future, the psychological impact that removal would have on her, the best interests of her children, and the hardship she would suffer if returned to Trinidad. Ms. John’s submissions appear to me to be misdirected. First, I note that many of her criticisms of the officer’s grounds for refusing her application are directed to the decision that was taken not to grant her humanitarian and compassion relief in 1998. Second, her arguments fail to take account of the fact that she was actually granted permission to apply for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in 2000. The factors she suggests the officer should have considered were already taken into account in making that decision. Subsequently, the officer had to decide whether Ms. John complied with other requirements of IRPA – specifically, the requirements for admission to Canada.

 

[7]               Since 2000, Ms. John has been repeatedly informed that the process of applying for permanent residence involves two steps. The first involves being granted permission to apply from within Canada. She passed that step in 2000. The second step involves a determination whether the other requirements of IRPA were met. Again, since 2000, Ms. John has been informed that persons who are dependent on social assistance are not admissible to Canada. The decision under review here is the officer’s determination that Ms. John did not pass the second step. The factors relevant to the first step are no longer pertinent.

 

[8]               Ms. John also argues that the officer failed to follow guidelines applicable to applications based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (IP5 – Immigrant Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or Compassionate Grounds). The only guideline that is relevant to the decision under review states that applications should not be automatically rejected on the ground that the applicant is receiving social assistance (Guideline 16.14 – see Annex). Applicants may be dependent on social assistance temporarily and may be self-sufficient by the time the application is processed. However, the guideline states that officers must reject applications where the applicant is still on social assistance after the other steps in the process have been completed. In my view, the officer complied with the guidelines applicable to Ms. John’s application. I cannot conclude that her decision was unreasonable.

2.  Did Ms. John have a legitimate expectation that her application would be granted?

[9]               Ms. John argues that she had a legitimate expectation that her application would be granted in light of the way the Minister handled her file – she was allowed to return to Canada after waiting two years in Trinidad; she was allowed to make further submissions; and, her application was successful at the first step.

 

[10]           I cannot conclude that the Minister lead Ms. John to believe that she would succeed on her application at the second step. Again, she was informed all along that she would have to meet the other requirements of the IRPA, including non-dependence on social assistance. I see nothing in the record that would have caused Ms. John to believe that that requirement would be waived in her case.

 

[11]           Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. The respondent requested that I certify a question of general importance only if I found that the officer was required to make a full assessment of humanitarian and compassionate factors at the second stage of Ms. John’s application. In light of my conclusion on that issue, I will not state a question.

 

JUDGMENT

            THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS that:

 

1.                  The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.                  No question of general importance is stated.

“James W. O’Reilly”

 

Annex

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27   Application before entering Canada   11. (1) A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.   If sponsor does not meet requirements (2) The officer may not issue a visa or other document to a foreign national whose sponsor does not meet the sponsorship requirements of this Act.   Humanitarian and compassionate consideration 25. (1) The Minister shall, upon request of a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, and may, on the Minister’s own initiative, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligation of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to them, taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected, or by public policy considerations. Provincial criteria (2) The Minister may not grant permanent resident status to a foreign national referred to in subsection 9(1) if the foreign national does not meet the province’s selection criteria applicable to that foreign national.   Financial reasons 39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made.     IP 5 Immigrant Applications in Canada made on Humanitarian or Compassionate Grounds   16.14 Inadmissibility for A39 – Social assistance There may be occasions when an applicant receives a positive H&C decision notwithstanding reliance on social assistance or becomes dependent upon social assistance after the H&C decision. Unlike other grounds of inadmissibility, officers should not refuse the application immediately. The dependency on social assistance could be a temporary situation or a result of not having been authorized to work in Canada. By the time the application is processed and otherwise ready for examination, the applicant may have become self-sufficient and, therefore, eligible for examination. Sample letters at the end of this chapter advise applicants at every opportunity that receipt of social assistance will result in refusal of the application for permanent residence. When all other admissibility criteria are met, officers should verify A39 inadmissibility either by scheduling an examination interview and making a final determination in person or by asking the applicant to provide evidence that they are no longer in receipt of social assistance. (See Appendix C - Annex 11- Appears permanent residence will be refused for A39). If the applicant is still in receipt of social assistance after all other processing has been concluded, the application for permanent residence must be refused. (See Appendix C - Annex 3 Submissions on new information regarding inadmissibility reviewed and application to remain in Canada as permanent residence refused.)

Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, L.C. 2001, ch. 27   Visa et documents   11. (1) L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les visa et autres documents requis par règlement, lesquels sont délivrés sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, qu’il n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi.     Cas de la demande parrainée (2) Ils ne peuvent être délivrés à l’étranger dont le répondant ne se conforme pas aux exigences applicables au parrainage.         Séjour pour motif d’ordre humanitaire   25. (1) Le ministre doit, sur demande d’un étranger interdit de territoire ou qui ne se conforme pas à la présente loi, et peut, de sa propre initiative, étudier le cas de cet étranger et peut lui octroyer le statut de résident permanent ou lever tout ou partie des critères et obligations applicables, s’il estime que des circonstances d’ordre humanitaire relatives à l’étranger — compte tenu de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché — ou l’intérêt public le justifient       Critères provinciaux   (2) Le statut ne peut toutefois être octroyé à l’étranger visé au paragraphe 9(1) qui ne répond pas aux critères de sélection de la province en cause qui lui sont applicables.     Motifs financiers   39. Emporte interdiction de territoire pour motifs financiers l’incapacité de l’étranger ou son absence de volonté de subvenir, tant actuellement que pour l’avenir, à ses propres besoins et à ceux des personnes à sa charge, ainsi que son défaut de convaincre l’agent que les dispositions nécessaires — autres que le recours à l’aide sociale — ont été prises pour couvrir leurs besoins et les siens.     IP 5 Demande présentée par des immigrants au Canada pour des motifs d’ordre humanitaire   16.14 Interdiction de territoire sous L39 – Aide sociale Il se peut qu’un demandeur bénéficie d’une décision CH favorable malgré qu’il dépende de l’aide sociale ou en devienne dépendant après la décision CH. Contrairement à d’autres motifs d’interdiction de territoire, l’agent ne doit pas refuser immédiatement la demande. La dépendance de l’aide sociale pourrait être une situation temporaire ou résulter de ce que la personne n’a pas reçu de permis de travail au Canada. Au moment où la demande est traitée ou est prête par ailleurs pour le contrôle, il est possible que le demandeur devienne autonome et, par conséquent, admissible au contrôle. Dans les lettres types à la fin du présent chapitre, on informe le client à tout moment approprié que, s’il bénéficie de l’aide sociale, sa demande de résidence permanente sera rejetée. Si tous les autres critères d’admissibilité sont satisfaits, l’agent doit vérifier s’il y a interdiction de territoire en application du L39, soit en fixant un rendez-vous pour une entrevue et en prenant une décision finale en personne ou en priant le demandeur de fournir la preuve qu’il n’est plus bénéficiaire de l’aide sociale. (Voir l’Appendice C, Annexe 11, S’il semble que le statut de résident permanent sera refusé en raison de l’article L39.) Si le demandeur demeure bénéficiaire de l’aide sociale à la fin de toutes les autres étapes de traitement, on doit refuser la demande de résidence permanente. (Voir l’Appendice C, Annexe 3, Observations concernant de nouveaux renseignements au sujet de l’interdiction de territoire étudiées : Demande de séjour au Canada à titre de résident permanent refusée.)

 

 

FEDERAL COURT

 

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                          IMM-509-06

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          NICOLE JOHN v. MCI

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:                      November 16, 2006

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

 AND JUDGMENT:                         O’REILLY J.

 

DATED:                                             November 24, 2006

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Donna Habsha	FOR THE APPLICANT
David Tyndale	FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

LAW OFFICES OF ROGER ROWE North York, ON	FOR THE APPLICANT
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, ON	FOR THE RESPONDENT