Jaber v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-4908-96

Email this Content

Citations
docket IMM-4908-96

Case tabs

Text of decision

Date: 19971215

Docket: IMM-4908-96

BETWEEN:

ISAM JABER

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

TEITELBAUM J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] The applicant, Isam Jaber (the applicant) requests judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Appeal Division) wherein the Appeal Division refused to hear the appeal on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction.

FACTS

[2] On December 13, 1990, the father of the applicant filed a request for permanent residence as principal applicant for himself and his family. The application for permanent residency was for himself and his children who, he declared, were not married. On September 10, 1992, the present applicant and the other members of his family for which the application for permanent residency was made obtained a visa which would enable them to come to Canada.

[3] According to the submission of the respondent, the applicant, on November 13, 1992, while in Syria, got married to one Shahinaz Lolou, also a Syrian citizen. The applicant denies being married to Ms. Lolou, stating that she is only his fiancée. On November 23, 1992, the applicant came to enter Canada and, at the point of entry, signed a statutory declaration indicating that he is not married and that he is single.

[4] On April 13, 1993, the applicant filed an application to sponsor the immigration to Canada of Shahinaz Lolou. To questions 6 & 14 of his application form, the applicant declared that Shahinaz Lolou is his wife.

[5] As a result of this statement, a hearing took place before an Adjudicator pursuant to section 27 of the Immigration Act (the Act). The hearing took place on June 19, September 21 and December 6, 1995. On January 10, 1996, the decision of the Adjudicator was to the effect that the applicant was married upon his arrival to Canada and that he failed to disclose this fact upon arriving in Canada. As a result, the Adjudicator concluded that the applicant is a person as described in paragraph 27(1)(e) of the Act and, as a result, the applicant was issued a deportation notice pursuant to subparagraph 32(2) of the Act.

[6] The applicant appealed but this was denied on December 6, 1996 when the Appeal Division found that it did not have jurisdiction. The applicant sought judicial review of that decision.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

[7] A permanent resident is defined in section 2 as follows:

"permanent resident" means a person who

(a) has been granted landing,

(b) has not become a Canadian citizen, and

and includes a person who has become a Canadian citizen but who has subsequently ceased to be a Canadian citizen under subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, without reference to subsection 10(2) of that Act;

"résident permanent" Personne qui remplit les conditions suivantes :

a) elle a obtenu le droit d'établissement;

b) elle n'a pas acquis la citoyenneté canadienne;

c) elle n'a pas perdu son statut conformément à l'article 24 ou 25.1.

Est également visée par la définition la personne qui a acquis la citoyenneté canadienne mais l'a perdue conformément au paragraphe 10(1) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté, compte non tenu du paragraphe 10(2) de cette loi.

[8] Landing is defined in section 2:

"landing" means lawful permission to establish permanent residence in Canada;

"droit d'établissement", "établissement" ou "droit de s'établir" Autorisation d'établir sa résidence permanente au Canada.

[9] The applicant was issued a deportation order by virtue of subsection 32(2) of the Act by finding that the applicant was a person described in subsection 27(1). Those sections provide:

27. (1) An immigration officer or a peace officer shall forward a written report to the Deputy Minister setting out the details of any information in the possession of the immigration officer or peace officer indicating that a permanent resident is a person who

(a) is a member of an inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1)(c.2), (d), (e), (f), (g), (k) or (l);

(a.1) outside Canada,

(i) has been convicted of an offence that, if committed in Canada, constitutes an offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more, or

(ii) has committed, in the opinion of the immigration officer or peace officer, based on a balance of probabilities, an act or omission that would constitute an offence under the laws of the place where the act or omission occurred and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more,

except a person who has satisfied the Minister that the person has been rehabilitated and that at least five years have elapsed since the expiration of any sentence imposed for the offence or since the commission of the act or omission, as the case may be;

(a.2) before being granted landing, was convicted in Canada of

(i) an indictable offence, or

(ii) an offence for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment or for which the offender is punishable on summary conviction,

that may be punishable by way of indictment under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years;

(a.3) before being granted landing,

(i) was convicted outside Canada of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence referred to in paragraph (a.2), or

(ii) committed outside Canada, in the opinion of the immigration officer or peace officer, based on a balance of probabilities, an act or omission that constitutes an offence under the laws of the place where the act or omission occurred and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence referred to in paragraph (a.2),

(b) if that person was granted landing subject to terms and conditions, has knowingly contravened any of those terms or conditions;

(d) has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament, other than an offence designated as a contravention under the Contraventions Act, for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been, or five years or more may be, imposed;

(e) was granted landing by reason of possession of a false or improperly obtained passport, visa or other document pertaining to his admission or by reason of any fraudulent or improper means or misrepresentation of any material fact, whether exercised or made by himself or by any other person;

(f) wilfully fails to support himself or any dependent member of his family in Canada;

(g) is a member of the inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1)(j) who was granted landing subsequent to the coming into force of that paragraph; or

(h) became a member of the inadmissible class described in paragraph 19(1)(j) subsequent to the coming into force of that paragraph.

32.(2) Where an adjudicator decides that a person who is the subject of an inquiry is a permanent resident described in subsection 27(1), the adjudicator shall, subject to subsections (2.1) and 32.1(2), make a deportation order against that person.

Appeals by permanent residents and persons in possession of returning resident permits

27. (1) L'agent d'immigration ou l'agent de la paix doit faire part au sous-ministre, dans un rapport écrit et circonstancié, de renseignements concernant un résident permanent et indiquant que celui-ci, selon le cas :

a) appartient à l'une des catégories non admissibles visées aux alinéas 19(1)c.2), d), e), f), g), k) ou l);

a.1) est une personne qui a, à l'étranger :

(i) soit été déclarée coupable d'une infraction qui, si elle était commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction qui pourrait être punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, par mise en accusation, d'un emprisonnement maximal égal ou supérieur à dix ans, sauf si la personne peut justifier auprès du ministre de sa réadaptation et du fait qu'au moins cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis l'expiration de toute peine lui ayant été infligée pour l'infraction,

(ii) soit commis, de l'avis, fondé sur la prépondérance des probabilités, de l'agent d'immigration ou de l'agent de la paix, un fait " acte ou omission " qui constitue une infraction dans le pays où il a été commis et qui, s'il était commis au Canada, constituerait une infraction qui pourrait être punissable, aux termes d'une loi fédérale, par mise en accusation, d'un emprisonnement maximal égal ou supérieur à dix ans, sauf si la personne peut justifier auprès du ministre de sa réadaptation et du fait qu'au moins cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis la commission du fait;

a.2) avant que le droit d'établissement ne lui ait été accordé, a été déclaré coupable au Canada d'une infraction punissable par mise en accusation d'un emprisonnement maximal de moins de dix ans et qui est :

(i) soit un acte criminel,

(ii) soit une infraction dont l'auteur peut être poursuivi par mise en accusation ou par procédure sommaire;

a.3) avant que le droit d'établissement ne lui ait été accordé, a, à l'étranger :

(i) soit été déclaré coupable d'une infraction qui, si elle était commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction visée à l'alinéa a.2), sauf s'il peut justifier auprès du ministre de sa réadaptation et du fait qu'au moins cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis l'expiration de la peine lui ayant été infligée pour l'infraction,

(ii) soit commis, de l'avis, fondé sur la prépondérance des probabilités, de l'agent d'immigration ou de l'agent de la paix, un fait " acte ou omission " qui constitue une infraction dans le pays où il a été commis et qui, s'il était commis au Canada, constituerait une infraction visée à l'alinéa a .2), sauf s'il peut justifier auprès du ministre de sa réadaptation et du fait qu'au moins cinq ans se sont écoulés depuis la commission du fait;

b) a sciemment contrevenu aux conditions dont était assorti son droit d'établissement;

c) [Abrogé, 1992, ch. 49, art. 16]

d) a été déclaré coupable d'une infraction prévue par une loi fédérale, autre qu'une infraction qualifiée de contravention en vertu de la Loi sur les contraventions:

(i) soit pour laquelle une peine d'emprisonnement de plus de six mois a été imposée,

(ii) soit qui peut être punissable d'un emprisonnement maximal égal ou supérieur à cinq ans;

e) a obtenu le droit d'établissement soit sur la foi d'un passeport, visa " ou autre document relatif à son admission " faux ou obtenu irrégulièrement, soit par des moyens frauduleux ou irréguliers ou encore par suite d'une fausse indication sur un fait important, même si ces moyens ou déclarations sont le fait d'un tiers;

f) manque délibérément à son obligation de subvenir à ses besoins ou à ceux d'une personne à charge " membre de sa famille " au Canada;

g) appartient à la catégorie non admissible visée à l'alinéa 19(1)j) et a obtenu le droit d'établissement après l'entrée en vigueur de cet alinéa;

h) est devenu membre de la catégorie non admissible visée à l'alinéa 19(1)j) après l'entrée en vigueur de cet alinéa.

32.(2) S'il conclut que l'intéressé est un résident permanent se trouvant dans l'une des situations visées au paragraphe 27(1), l'arbitre, sous réserve des paragraphes (2.1) et 32.1(2), prend une mesure d'expulsion contre lui.

[10] Subsections 70(1) and 70(2) designate who may appeal a deportation order:

70. (1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), where a removal order or conditional removal order is made against a permanent resident or against a person lawfully in possession of a valid returning resident permit issued to that person pursuant to the regulations, that person may appeal to the Appeal Division on either or both of the following grounds, namely,

(a) on any ground of appeal that involves a question of law or fact, or mixed law and fact; and

(b) on the ground that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the person should not be removed from Canada.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5), an appeal lies to the Appeal Division from a removal order or conditional removal order made against a person who

(a) has been determined under this Act or the regulations to be a Convention refugee but is not a permanent resident; or

(b) seeks landing or entry and, at the time that a report with respect to the person was made by an immigration officer pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(a), was in possession of a valid immigrant visa, in the case of a person seeking landing, or a valid visitor's visa, in the case of a person seeking entry.

Appel des résidents permanents et des titulaires de permis de retour

70. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (4) et (5), les résidents permanents et les titulaires de permis de retour en cours de validité et conformes aux règlements peuvent faire appel devant la section d'appel d'une mesure de renvoi ou de renvoi conditionnel en invoquant les moyens suivants :

a) question de droit, de fait ou mixte;

b) le fait que, eu égard aux circonstances particulières de l'espèce, ils ne devraient pas être renvoyés du Canada.

(2) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3) à (5), peuvent faire appel devant la section d'appel d'une mesure de renvoi ou de renvoi conditionnel :

a) les non-résidents permanents qui se sont vu reconnaître le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention aux termes de la présente loi ou de ses règlements;

b) les personnes qui, ayant demandé l'admission, étaient titulaires d'un visa de visiteur ou d'immigrant, selon le cas, en cours de validité lorsqu'elles ont fait l'objet du rapport visé à l'alinéa 20(1)a).

[11] Finally, section 12 of the Regulations provides the requirements which an immigrant must satisfy upon presenting oneself at a point of entry into Canada:

12. An immigrant who has been issued a visa and who appears before an immigration officer at a port of entry for examination pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the Act is required

(a) if his marital status has changed since the visa was issued to him, or

(b) if any other facts relevant to the issuance of the visa have changed since the visa was issued to him or were not disclosed at the time of issue thereof,

to establish that at the time of the examination

(c) the immigrant and the immigrant's dependants, whether accompanying dependants or not, where a visa was issued to the immigrant pursuant to subsection 6(1), section 9 or subsection 10(1) or (1.1) or 11(3) or (4), or

(d) the immigrant and the immigrant's accompanying dependants, in any other case,

meet the requirements of the Act, these Regulations, the Indochinese Designated Class Regulations, the Self-Exiled Persons Class Regulations or the Political Prisoners and Oppressed Persons Designated Class Regulations, including the requirements for the issuance of the visa.

12. Un immigrant à qui un visa a été délivré et qui se présente pour examen devant un agent d'immigration à un point d'entrée, conformément au paragraphe 12(1) de la Loi, doit

a) si son état matrimonial a changé depuis la délivrance du visa, ou

b) si des faits influant sur la délivrance du visa ont changé depuis que le visa a été délivré ou n'ont pas été révélés au moment où le visa a été délivré,

établir

c) que lui-même et les personnes à sa charge, qu'elles l'accompagnent ou non, dans le cas où un visa a été délivré à l'immigrant conformément au paragraphe 6(1), à l'article 9 ou aux paragraphes 10(1) ou (1.1) ou 11(3) ou (4),

d) que lui-même et les personnes à sa charge qui l'accompagnent, dans tout autre cas,

satisfont, au moment de l'examen, aux exigences de la Loi, du présent règlement, du Règlement sur la catégorie désignée d'Indochinois, du Règlement sur la catégorie désignée d'exilés volontaires ou du Règlement sur la catégorie désignée de prisonniers politiques et de personnes opprimées, y compris les exigences relatives à la délivrance du visa.

SUBMISSIONS

1. Submissions by the Applicant

[12] The applicant states that, before finding whether it has jurisdiction, the Appeal Division must first examine the facts upon which the Adjudicator concluded that the applicant obtained permanent residency by fraudulent means or a false statement on an important fact, in order to verify if the Adjudicator's conclusion was well-founded in fact and law. If the proof shows that the Adjudicator erred in law or fact, then the Appeal Division has jurisdiction because the applicant would be legally admitted to Canada and therefore has a right of appeal.

[13] In addition, the applicant states that the Appeal Division erred in fact and law because it did not consider all the elements of proof before it. Even if the Appeal Division did not have to cite all the proof, the applicant submits that it has to mention certain elements of proof that contradict its conclusions. The applicant submits that he provided several documents to show that he was single when he arrived in Canada and therefore he did not make any false representations.

2. Submissions by the Respondent

[14] The respondent submits that to obtain the right of landing, the applicant must meet the conditions under which his visa was issued at the time he presented himself at a point of entry into Canada. In this case, the respondent submits that the applicant must still be single at the date he presented himself at a point of entry into Canada.

[15] The respondent submits that the applicant did not meet the conditions of his visa at that time because he was married since the date the visa was issued and he did not inform the Immigration Officer upon examination at the point of entry. Given the definitions of "landing" and "permanent resident" in section 2 of the Act, the respondent contends that the applicant did not have lawful permission to enter Canada and therefore was not a permanent resident. In essence, the respondent submits that even if the applicant received a record of landing signed by an immigration officer, he was never a permanent resident because he did not have lawful permission to enter Canada.

[16] Since subsection 70(1) provides that only permanent residents and those lawfully in possession of a valid returning resident permit have a right of appeal to the Appeal Division, the respondent submits that the Appeal Division has no jurisdiction. The respondent submits that the proper route is for the applicant to seek judicial review of the Adjudicator's decision.

[17] As for the applicant's argument that the Appeal Division ignored the proof before it, the respondent submits that the Appeal Division considered all the evidence including that presented at the hearing, the submissions to the Adjudicator, the Adjudicator's decision and the written submissions of the parties to the Appeal Division. In addition, the respondent submits that the Appeal Division mentioned the facts in its reasons upon which it concluded that the applicant was not a permanent resident. The respondent also cites case law to the effect that even if the Appeal Division did not mention all the facts before it, that does not mean that the Appeal Division ignored the evidence. Finally, the respondent submits that whether the Appeal Division ignored the evidence or not is irrelevant since the Appeal Division did not have the jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first place.

ISSUE

[18] The sole issue to be determined is whether the Appeal Division has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the applicant. Pursuant to that question, it must also be determined whether, where the Adjudicator has found that the applicant misrepresented the fact that he was married and the applicant disputes that fact, the Appeal Division is obligated to determine whether this finding is correct before deciding it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

DISCUSSION

[19] The Adjudicator held that the applicant was neither a permanent resident nor a person lawfully in possession of a valid returning resident permit nor in possession of a valid immigrant visa. Therefore, I am satisfied that the applicant ceased to have a right of appeal to the Appeal Division under section 70 of the Act.

[20] The respondent is correct to submit that the proper route for the applicant was to seek judicial review of the Adjudicator's decision and not to appeal to the Appeal Division and then seek judicial review of its finding that it did not have jurisdiction.

[21] I have considered the cases in Canada (M.E.I.) v. DeCaro, [1993] 2 F.C. 408 (F.C.A.), Canada (M.E.I.) v. Wong (1993), 153 N.R. 237 (F.C.A.), Canada (M.E.I.) v. Hundal, [1995] 3 F.C. 32 (F.C.T.D.), aff'd (1996), 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 153 (F.C.A.) and Bruan v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1995] 3 F.C. 231 (F.C.T.D.). Those cases are relevant for a consideration of the merits of the Adjudicator's decision but they do not apply to the case at bar where the Appeal Division did not consider the facts because it found that it did not have jurisdiction.

[22] At this point, the applicant's main concern is with the facts upon which the Adjudicator ruled that the applicant was not a permanent resident. Given that the applicant has no recourse to the Appeal Division, the applicant's only option is to seek judicial review. Therefore, I affirm the decision of the Appeal Division that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

QUESTIONS FOR CERTIFICATION

[23] The parties request that the following questions be certified pursuant to subsection 83(1) of the Act:

(1) Where an adjudicator finds that a person was granted landing by means of a misrepresentation of his or her marital status and the person appeals the adjudicator"s removal order pursuant to subsection 70(1) of the Immigration Act , may the Appeal Division dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction based on the adjudication record and the parties" arguments concerning its jurisdiction without hearing the merits of the appeal?

(2) Does the Appeal Division have jurisdiction under subsection 70(1) to entertain the appeal of a person who was landed on the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation made by that person?

(3) In particular, has a person who has been landed on the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation been given "lawful permission to establish permanent residence in Canada" so as to be a "permanent resident" who can appeal under subsection 70(1) of the Immigration Act?

(4) Does the Appeal Division have jurisdiction under subsection 70(1) to entertain the appeal of a person, whether or not the report on that person was made under paragraph 27(1)(e) or paragraph 27(2)(g) of the Act?

[24] I agree to the request to have those questions certified although the final three questions have already been certified by Dubé J. in Canada (M.C.I.) v. Yu, [1997] F.C.J. No. 782 (QL) (F.C.T.D.) which will soon be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal.

"Max M. Teitelbaum"

J.F.C.C.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

December 15, 1997

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD

COURT FILE NO.: IMM-4908-96

STYLE OF CAUSE: Isam Jaber - and -

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING: October 27, 1997

REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM DATED: December 15, 1997

APPEARANCES:

Me Jacques Beauchemin Me Michelle Joubert

FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:

Alarie, Legault, Beauchemin, Paquin Jobin & Brisson

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada

You are here

Jaber v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-4908-96

Citationsdocket IMM-4908-96

Case tabs

Citations
docket IMM-4908-96