Date: 19980610
Docket: IMM-3151-97
Ottawa, Ontario, the 10th day of June 1998
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
JACQUES TAMRAZO
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated July 10, 1997, dismissing the applicant"s appeal from a visa officer"s decision refusing the applicant"s parents" sponsored application for landing for failure to obtain the ministerial consent required by subsection 55(1) of the Immigration Act , is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19980610
Docket: IMM-3151-97
Between:
JACQUES TAMRAZO
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the IAD) dated July 10, 1997, dismissing the applicant"s appeal from a visa officer"s decision refusing the sponsored application for landing made by the applicant"s parents, Boutros Tamrazo and Hayat Barghous, for failure to obtain the ministerial consent required by subsection 55(1) of the Immigration Act (the Act).
[2] Subsection 55(1) of the Act reads as follows:
55. (1) Subject to section 56, where a deportation order is made against a person, the person shall not, after he is removed from or otherwise leaves Canada, come into Canada without the written consent of the Minister unless an appeal from the order has been allowed.
55. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 56, quiconque fait l'objet d'une mesure d'expulsion ne peut plus revenir au Canada sans l'autorisation écrite du ministre, sauf si la mesure est annulée en appel.
[3] On January 2, 1996, the visa officer refused the applicant"s parents" sponsored application for permanent residence because of the deportation order made against his mother on April 15, 19921 and because of the fact that his mother had not obtained the ministerial consent required by subsection 55(1), supra. The applicant and his mother did not apply for ministerial consent until February 3 and 12, 1996.
[4] The IAD dismissed the applicant"s appeal on the ground that no steps had been taken under subsection 55(1) of the Act until the visa officer refused the application for permanent residence.
[5] Between the application for visas and the visa officer"s letter of refusal, that is, between March 20, 1994 and January 2, 1996, the applicant and his mother made no attempt to obtain the required ministerial consent. Given this lengthy period of time, in which they could certainly have complied with subsection 55(1) of the Act, I agree with the IAD that, in the circumstances, their ignorance of the law could not be considered to be a valid excuse. Malik v. Canada (M.E.I.) , 4 Imm.L.R. (2d) 241, and Bridgemohan v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1996), 109 F.T.R. 32, on which the applicant relies, are not applicable in the case at bar, since they deal with situations where the person making the application for permanent residence had taken steps to request ministerial consent before the visa officer"s decision was rendered. I am also of the view, like my colleague Mr. Justice Gibson in Bridgemohan v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1995), 103 F.T.R. 62, that here, by analogy, the visa officer was in no way obliged to seek the ministerial consent in question on behalf of the applicant and his mother.
[6] In the result, although I feel great sympathy for the applicant and his mother, the application for judicial review must be dismissed, without certification under subsection 83(1) of the Act.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 10, 1998
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-3151-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: JACQUES TAMRAZO v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 2, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER BY Pinard J.
DATED June 10, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Jacques Tamrazo FOR THE APPLICANT
Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jacques Tamrazo FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________
1 That deportation order was not challenged and the applicant"s mother was in fact deported on April 29, 1992.
Email this Content