Docket: IMM-1971-15
Citation:
2016 FC 512
Toronto, Ontario, May 6, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ABLA CHAAR
AND RACHELE
AYOUB
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP, IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURALISM
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
Ms Abla Chaar, a citizen of Lebanon, became a
permanent resident of Canada in 2006. After just two months here, she returned
to Lebanon with her children to settle her affairs there. While in Lebanon, Ms
Chaar’s daughter, Rachele, began university studies. In 2009, the family
returned to Canada so that Ms Chaar’s mother could receive medical treatment
here. Unfortunately, she died during surgery.
[2]
While in Canada, Rachele inquired about having
her Lebanese university credits transferred to a Canadian school. She was told
that she would have to start her university studies over again in Canada,
losing two years of credits. She returned to Lebanon to resume her studies
there. Ms Chaar returned with her. They had spent only ten days in Canada.
[3]
The applicants returned to Canada again in 2011,
but only for a few weeks. When she returned to Lebanon, Ms Chaar married a man
she describes as abusive. She fled to Canada in 2013 to escape him. Rachele
returned to Canada in 2012.
[4]
After the applicants were ordered out of Canada
for failing to meet the residency requirements for permanent residents, they
appealed that order to the Immigration Appeal Division on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds (H&C). The IAD ruled against them, finding insufficient
evidence in their favour. The applicants argue that the IAD’s decision was
unreasonable because it overlooked important evidence supporting their appeal.
They ask me to quash the IAD’s decision and order another panel to reconsider
their appeal.
[5]
I can find no basis for overturning the IAD’s
decision. It was supported by the evidence before it. Therefore, I must dismiss
this application for judicial review.
[6]
The sole issue is whether the IAD’s decision was
unreasonable.
II.
The IAD’s Decision
[7]
The IAD considered seven factors that were
relevant to the applicants’ H&C application:
1. Extent of Non-Compliance: The applicants were required to spend 730
days in Canada over a five-year period. Ms Chaar had spent only 163 days in
Canada, and Rachele 122 days.
2. Establishment in Canada: The applicants did not establish themselves
in Canada until 2012, six years after obtaining permanent residency.
3. Reasons for Absence: Ms Chaar remained in Lebanon to settle family
affairs, participate in a legal proceeding, and care for her ailing mother.
However, these activities did not require her to be in Lebanon full-time.
Rachele stayed in Lebanon to pursue her university studies, even though she had
been told that her credits would not be recognized in Canada.
4. Ties to Canada: All of the applicants’ immediate family members live
in Canada.
5. Hardship to the applicants: The applicants would experience hardship
if required to return to Lebanon, but they are accustomed to the unstable
conditions there.
6. Hardship to family in Canada: The applicants are close to their
family members in Canada, but have also lived apart from them for lengthy
periods.
7. Best interests of a child: Ms Chaar’s youngest child is an adult who
lives independently from the applicants.
[8]
Balancing these factors, the IAD concluded that
the applicants had failed to show compelling factors justifying their lengthy
absences from Canada. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence supporting
their request for H&C relief.
III.
Was the IAD’s decision unreasonable?
[9]
The applicants contend that the IAD’s decision
was unreasonable because it failed to consider a number of important factors.
In particular, they argue that the IAD ignored the fact that a removal order
would result in a separation of Rachele from her husband, discounted the
evidence relating to the poor conditions in Lebanon, especially for women, and
overlooked the danger posed to Ms Chaar by her estranged husband in Lebanon. Rachele
also argues that the IAD appeared to misunderstand her reasons for completing
her studies in Lebanon rather than in Canada.
[10]
I disagree with the applicants’ submissions.
Overall, the IAD’s analysis of the evidence was adequate and its conclusion was
not unreasonable.
[11]
The IAD was clearly aware of Rachele’s husband
as he is mentioned twice in its reasons. However, the IAD did not mention him
specifically in its discussion of hardship to the family members in Canada. On
the other hand, though, there was no evidence before the IAD of any particular hardship
that the separation might cause.
[12]
Regarding the circumstances in Lebanon, the
applicants filed little information on that subject with the IAD. Their
evidence was outdated and general.
[13]
With respect to Ms Chaar’s estranged husband,
she testified that he had not been physically abusive towards her but she
feared that he might threaten her if she returned. In my view, the evidence did
not identify a serious risk. Ms Chaar supplied additional evidence on this
application for judicial review, but that evidence was not before the IAD.
[14]
Rachele testified before the IAD that she
believed that her degree in Lebanon might be recognized in Canada even though
her individual credits would not be. The IAD might not have appreciated the
distinction, but this was a very minor issue before it.
[15]
The applicants’ submissions do not persuade me
that IAD’s analysis of the evidence was inadequate, or that its conclusion was
unreasonable on that evidence.
IV.
Conclusion and Disposition
[16]
The IAD’s conclusion represented a defensible
outcome based on the facts and the law. I must, therefore, dismiss this
application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general
importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
Email this Content