Date: 20080916
Docket: IMM-5309-07
Citation: 2008
FC 1038
Toronto, Ontario, September 16,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Louis S. Tannenbaum
BETWEEN:
JAESOON YOON
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The applicant
seeks judicial review of an exclusion order issued against him on December 6,
2007.
[2]
Circumstances
leading up to the exclusion order can be summarized as follows:
[3]
The applicant,
a foreign national (a citizen of South Korea),
arrived in Canada on March 22, 2007, and was
given permission to remain as a visitor until September 21, 2007. This latter
date was inscribed on his passport.
[4]
In August
of 2007, the applicant applied to extend his visitor status until March 2008,
and to change the conditions of his stay. His original reason for his stay was
to visit a friend. The change was that he was waiting to obtain an L.M.O.
letter (Labour Market Opinion) so that he could apply for a work permit as a
truck driver.
[5]
By letter
dated November 26, 2007, the request for an extension was refused, and his
temporary visitor’s permit which had been automatically extended by the filing
of the extension application was now lapsed as of November 26, 2007, applicant
received notice of refusal on December 4, 2007.
[6]
The result
of the refusal on November 26, 2007, was that the applicant (and his family),
was now without status in Canada.
[7]
On
December 6, 2007, the applicant travelled to Fort Erie (a point of entry), to
advise Immigration Canada that he wanted to restore his visitor status.
Obviously the applicant was aware that he had lost his status and was now
without status in Canada.
[8]
The
refusal letter of November 26, 2007 clearly indicated that he must leave Canada immediately.
[9]
After interviewing
him, the officer at the border issued a section 44 report, and the same day on
December 6, an exclusion order was issued by the Minister’s Delegate. The
applicant now seeks judicial review of that order.
[10]
An
application for restoration of a lost status must be in writing, and
accompanied by the required processing fee. There was no written application,
and no fee was paid.
[11]
In his
argument the applicant states that the officer issuing the exclusion order
erred in holding that the applicant had been instructed on multiple occasions
to leave Canada. The only time in fact was
the letter of November 26, 2007. Applicant concludes that the officer was
motivated to issue the exclusion order under the belief that there had been
multiple warnings, and that since this was not true the exclusion order should
be set aside.
[12]
I do not
agree. Neither the law, the regulations or the rules require that a warning be
issued before an exclusion order is issued. There is no question that the
applicant was without status on December 6, 2007, when the order was issued,
and the applicant knew that he was without status and therefore had to leave.
He clearly failed to abide by the provisions of the law, by overstaying his
visit. While the applicant told the Border officer that he wanted to restore
his lost status, as I have stated he did not make the required application
although he had 90 days to do so. He was obliged to leave Canada at the time he travelled to
Fort Erie, and accordingly the application for judicial review will be
dismissed. There are no questions to be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that for the reasons given, the
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Louis S. Tannenbaum”
Email this Content