Glushanytsya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 725

 

Date: 20080610

Docket: IMM-4008-07

Citation: 2008 FC 725

Ottawa, Ontario, June 10, 2008

PRESENT:     THE CHIEF JUSTICE

 

 

BETWEEN:

ARTEM GLUSHANYTSYA

Applicant

and

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

 

[1]        The applicant is a 16-year old citizen of Ukraine where he lives with his mother in Kiev. His parents divorced in 1996. He now wants to join his father in Canada. His father became a permanent resident here in 2000. However, for reasons related to his marriage breakdown, the father breached the requirement to disclose his son as a non-accompanying dependent when he applied for permanent residence. Consequently, pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the applicant cannot be sponsored as a family class member.

 

[2]        This proceeding is the application for judicial review of the visa officer’s refusal to grant humanitarian and compassionate consideration concerning the applicant’s request for permanent residence.

 

[3]        The tribunal record discloses limited information to explain why the best interests of the child dictated an exemption from paragraph 117(9)(d), as to facilitate his admission to Canada. I agree with the respondent’s counsel that the CAIPS notes demonstrate an analysis consistent with the factors Justice Campbell suggested were relevant in Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 613 at paragraph 17, a judgment issued after the visa officer’s decision in this case. I am satisfied that it was open to the visa officer, on the information then available to him, to exercise his discretion as he did.

 

[4]        The visa officer in Kiev could have interviewed the applicant. No interview was requested and none was legally required in the circumstances of this case. However, if the applicant chooses to reapply for permanent residence under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it is my sense that an interview would be helpful to understand better why the applicant wants to join his father and why his best interests dictate the positive exercise of the visa officer’s discretion.

 

[5]        I agree with counsel that this proceeding raises no serious question for certification.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this application for judicial review is dismissed.

 

 

“Allan Lutfy”

FEDERAL COURT

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                          IMM-4008-07

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:               ARTEM GLUSHANYTSYA

 

                                                            and

 

                                                MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

PLACE OF HEARING:       Toronto, Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:          June 2, 2008

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AND JUDGMENT:              THE CHIEF JUSTICE

 

DATED:                                             June 10, 2008

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Paul VanderVennen                                                      for the Applicant

                                                                                   

Modupe Oluyomi                                                         for the Respondent

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

 

VanderVennen Lehrer                                                  for the Applicant

Barristers & Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.                                                      for the Respondent                  

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Department of Justice

Ottawa, Ontario