Date: 20120528
Docket: IMM-7285-11
Citation: 2012 FC 647
Toronto, Ontario, May 28,
2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
|
|
VALARIE VALCINA ARCHIBALD
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 72(1) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] of a
decision of an Immigration Officer [the Officer] dated July 13, 2011 in
which the Officer refused the applicant’s request for permanent residence from
within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds.
[2]
The
applicant Valarie Valcina Archibald is a citizen of Saint Vincent born on
September 27, 1975. She came to Canada on a visitor’s visa,
arriving on August 11, 2002 and remained here without status after the visa
expired.
[3]
On
June 2, 2006, she gave birth to a son. The child’s father is not involved in
his life. She and her son live with her cousin and her cousin’s family, with
all three adults in the household contributing to the care of all of the
children.
[4]
On
November 29, 2010, she made an H&C application based on her establishment
in Canada, the hardship if she returns to Saint Vincent, her relationship with
her cousin’s family in Canada, and the best interest of her son. That
application was refused on July 13, 2011.
[5]
The
Officer found insufficient evidence of hardship to warrant H&C relief.
[6]
The
Officer considered the interests of the applicant’s son, but found insufficient
evidence that relocating to Saint Vincent would cause hardship given the
child’s young age and the presence of several of the applicant’s family members
in Saint Vincent. The Officer also considered the evidence of the applicant’s
establishment in Canada but gave it little weight because the
applicant’s lengthy stay in Canada was within her control and because she
waited more than eight years before making any attempt to obtain status to
remain here.
[7]
The
Officer rejected her argument that she had nowhere to live in Saint Vincent, as
the applicant did not provide any evidence to show that she could not find a
residence there for her and her son.
[8]
Finally,
the Officer considered the applicant’s relationship with her cousin’s family.
The Officer acknowledged that some hardship will result from the applicant’s
departure, but found that it was no more than the hardship that normally
results when family members relocate to another country. The Officer further
noted that the applicant’s parents and five siblings live in Saint
Vincent.
The Officer therefore refused the H&C application.
[9]
I
am unable to accept the applicant’s argument that the Officer applied the wrong
guidelines and failed to consider her de facto family members who are in
Canada. Although
the Officer may not have included a separate heading titled “De facto family
members” in the decision, it is clear from the reasons for the decision that
she considered the applicant’s family members in Canada. Further,
the applicant’s H&C application states that her cousin’s home is “chaotic
and loud” and that, although she does not complain, “she is being used by her
own family members” and is being forced to pay an unreasonable share of the
household expenses and is “expected” to babysit her cousin’s children in her
spare time. Given that these allegations are found in the H&C application,
it is difficult to fault the Officer for not putting more emphasis on the
applicant’s Canadian family members.
[10]
The
application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed.
“Danièle
Tremblay-Lamer”
Email this Content