Date:
20130423
Docket:
IMM-7619-12
Citation:
2013 FC 415
Ottawa, Ontario,
April 23, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
BETWEEN:
|
|
GABRIELA GONZALEZ VILLAGRANA
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The
Applicant seeks judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] of a decision of a
Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] Officer [the Officer], dated July 30,
2012, wherein the Officer denied the Applicant’s request to defer her removal
from Canada which was scheduled to take place on August 1, 2012 [the Decision].
[2]
For
the reasons which follow, the application will be allowed with a direction that
removal be deferred pending a decision on the Applicant’s application for
permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds [the H&C
Application].
Background
[3]
The
Applicant is a 25 year-old woman who fled Mexico, her country of citizenship,
because she feared her former partner. She arrived in Canada while pregnant and gave birth to her daughter Paloma on March 21, 2008. Paloma was
diagnosed at birth with a congenital condition known as Pierre-Robin
Sequence Syndrome [PRSS] and was born with a cleft palate.
PRSS involves facial abnormalities which cause other developmental
malformations, affecting speech, hearing, and breathing. PRSS has
required Paloma to undergo medical treatments since birth. In September 2009,
Paloma had surgery for her cleft palate. She has also been receiving speech
therapy and has had a number of other procedures to address the myriad of
problems associated with the underlying condition.
[4]
The
Applicant’s claim, based on domestic abuse in Mexico, was refused in June 2009
on the grounds of state protection. Two subsequent pre-removal risk assessment
[PRRA] applications were also dismissed. However, none of these proceedings
addressed Paloma’s circumstances and, to date, no assessment of her long-term
best interests has been undertaken by Canadian immigration authorities.
[5]
The
Applicant’s removal from Canada was initiated after the refusal of her first
PRRA application in May 2010, however, removal arrangements were suspended to
allow Paloma to attend medical appointments.
[6]
Removal
of the Applicant became a priority again after the refusal of the second PRRA
application in June 2012. In response, the Applicant requested more time to
allow Paloma to attend an appointment for a nasendoscopy. This diagnostic surgical
procedure was scheduled for October 2012. A letter from Dr. Zuker of Sick
Children’s Hospital in Toronto, dated June 14, 2012, attested to this
appointment and indicated that Paloma would be assessed in August 2013 to
determine her further surgical needs. The letter also made it clear that
Paloma’s medical condition is ongoing and that she will need to be followed by
an interdisciplinary team throughout her developmental years. Nevertheless, the
Applicant was told on July 17, 2012 to report for removal on August 1, 2012.
Her counsel submitted the request to defer removal the following day.
[7]
The
request to defer was based on three grounds. The first two grounds, the
Applicant’s pending judicial review of the negative PRRA decision and the
nasendoscopy became moot in October 2012 when the application for leave to
judicially review the PRRA decision was dismissed and Paloma had the procedure.
However, the third ground is an outstanding H&C Application, filed on June
15 2012, and based largely on Paloma’s long-term health needs.
The H&C
Application
[8]
An
H&C application filed when an individual is deemed removal ready is
generally viewed as an untimely application which is brought to try to
frustrate removal from Canada. The Applicant’s H&C Application appears to
fit that description. However, the evidence before the Officer, which he
addressed in the Decision, indicated that the Applicant had been working
towards submitting her H&C Application well before June 2012 but had not
been able to do so because of her former counsel’s negligence. The pertinent
evidence included receipts which showed that the Applicant had paid $1,500 to
her former counsel in June 2010 for an application for judicial review of the
first negative PRRA decision. The Applicant could not reach her counsel and did
not learn until September 2011 that the application was never filed.
Communications between the Applicant and her former counsel indicate that it
was agreed in September 2011 that the money for which the Applicant had never
received any services would be used towards an H&C application as well as a
new PRRA application. However, her counsel failed her again because the H&C
application was never filed and the money, which was a combination of the
Applicant’s own savings and donations from a church group, was never returned
to her. Without this money, the Applicant could not pay the $500.00 filing fee
which must accompany an H&C application. The Applicant’s current counsel
filed an official complaint against former counsel to the Law Society of Upper
Canada in March 2012 but the matter remains under investigation. Is it
reasonable to assume that, but for her lawyer’s negligence, the H&C
Application would have been filed in September 2011.
The Decision
[9]
The
Officer’s reasons for refusing the request to defer acknowledge that Paloma has
not had her best interests fully assessed, but note correctly that a CBSA
officer does not have the jurisdiction to defer removal because of long-term
medical conditions. With respect to the pending H&C Application, the
Officer considered that the application was not submitted until the Applicant
was deemed removal ready and noted that there is no statutory stay of removal
in relation to an outstanding H&C application. The Officer referenced the
circumstances which led to the late filing of the H&C Application and
stated that he was sympathetic to the Applicant’s situation, but then noted
that Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s [CIC] processing times for H&C
applications ran anywhere from 30 to 42 months. The Officer also took into
account medical opinions provided by CIC medical officers to address Paloma’s
readiness to fly and the availability of treatment for PRSS in Mexico. The first medical opinion stated the treatment in Mexico was “likely available” while
the second indicated that medical services for her nose and throat disorder
were “listed as available in Mexico”.
Analysis
[10]
In
my view, this case falls squarely under the heading “exceptional
circumstances”. Counsel for both parties acknowledged that there are no cases
dealing with a situation involving:
•
A
five year-old Canadian child;
•
Evidence
of a need for ongoing treatment during her developmental years;
•
A
young single mother who is removal ready;
•
An
outstanding H&C application; and
•
No
assessment of the child’s long term needs.
[11]
In
my view it is unreasonable to remove the single mother of a special needs
Canadian child with an outstanding H&C application when the child’s long
term needs have never been assessed. Accordingly, the Decision will be set
aside and the matter is referred back to a removal officer who will be directed
to defer removal until the H&C Application had been decided.
[12]
I
note in closing that it is open to CIC to expedite the H&C Application once
it has given the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to make further
submissions.
[13]
The
Respondent has asked me to amend the style of cause to remove the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration as a responding party because responsibility for
the CBSA was transferred to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness by the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
Act, SC 2005, c 10. I accept that the proper respondent is in fact the
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and will order that the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be removed from the style of cause.
[14]
No
question was posed for certification pursuant to section 74(d) of the Act.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that
1. The application for
judicial review of the Decision is allowed.
2. The request
to defer the Applicant’s removal is sent back to a CBSA officer who is hereby
directed to defer her removal until a decision is made on the H&C
Application.
3. The Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration is hereby deleted from the style of cause.
“Sandra J. Simpson”
Email this Content