IMM-3064-95
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDER AMOFA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JEROME, A.C.J.:
This is an application for an order setting aside the decision of an Immigration Officer that the applicant did not have sufficiently compelling humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant an exemption under subsection 114(2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2. At the hearing of this matter in Toronto, Ontario, on October 29, 1996, I dismissed the application indicating these written reasons would follow.
Mr. Amofa, a citizen of Ghana, arrived in Canada in May of 1987 and claimed Convention refugee status. On July 8, 1992, his claim was determined not to have a credible basis. The applicant subsequently made an application for landing based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds pursuant to subsection 114(2) of the Act. On October 20, 1995, he was interviewed by an immigration officer. By decision dated October 24, 1995, the officer determined that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to warrant approval of the application. Mr. Amofa was notified of the decision by letter dated October 24, 1995.
The applicant now seeks to have the decision set aside on the grounds that the immigration officer erred by failing to consider relevant evidence and by basing her decision on perverse findings of fact.
As I stated at the hearing of this matter, the decision of an immigration officer to grant an exemption pursuant to subsection 114(2) of the Act is a highly discretionary one which attracts a minimal duty of fairness. In Shah v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 170 N.R. 238, the Court of Appeal made the following comments at pp. 239-40:
| In a case such as this one the applicant does not have a "case to meet" of which he must be given notice; rather it is for him to persuade the decision-maker that he should be given exceptional treatment and exempted from the general requirements of the law. No hearing need be held and no reasons need be given. The officer is not required to put before the applicant any tentative conclusions she may be drawing from the material before her, not even as to apparent contradictions which concern her. . . |
|
| To succeed in his attack here the applicant must show that the decision-maker erred in law, proceeded on some wrong or improper principle or acted in bad faith. It is a heavy burden and the applicant has not met it. |
|
In the present case, I am satisfied that Mr. Amofa received a full and fair review of his humanitarian and compassionate application. There is no indication that the immigration officer failed to consider the relevant evidence or that she based her decision on erroneous findings of fact. A review of the two page text of the officer's determination shows that she addressed all the relevant considerations including personal and family relationships both here and in Ghana, his degree of establishment in Canada, employment history, community involvement, economic self-sufficiency and upgrading. Furthermore, there is no indication that the applicant was in any way denied the opportunity to address these concerns or to have a hearing appropriate to the nature of the relief which he was seeking.
After reviewing the material before me and having given careful consideration to the oral and written arguments of the parties, I am satisfied that the immigration officer did not err in law or in fact nor did she breach any duty of fairness.
For these reasons, on October 29, 1996, I dismissed the application.
O T T A W A
January 17, 1997 "James A. Jerome"
A.C.J.
STYLE OF CAUSE: Alexander Amofa v. M.C.I.
Mr. Neil Cohen for the Applicant
Mr. Brian Frimeth for the Respondent
Mr. Neil Cohen
Mr. George Thomson
Email this Content