Docket: T-1251-15
Citation:
2016 FC 715
Ottawa, Ontario, June 27, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MANSOUR ZEINALI
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
In 2011, Mr Mansour Zeinali applied for Canadian
citizenship. Three years later, he took the citizenship test to demonstrate
that he had an adequate knowledge of Canada, as required by s 5(1) of the Citizenship
Act, RSC 1985, c C-29. He failed the test. He says that he felt stress at
the time and had difficulty with his memory. He also felt that his underlying
heart condition played a role. He tried writing the test again in 2015. Once
again, however, he felt stressed and experienced high blood pressure. He failed
the second test, and a citizenship officer subsequently refused Mr Zeinali’s
application.
[2]
Mr Zeinali argues that the officer treated him
unfairly by failing to exercise his discretion to waive the knowledge
requirement on compassionate grounds (under s 5(3)(a) of the Act), and by
failing to give reasons for not doing so. He suggests that the officer should
have invited him to submit medical evidence and provided him an opportunity to
explain why he scored poorly on the test. Mr Zeinali also maintains that the
officer’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to take account of the
best interests of his children. He asks me to quash the officer’s decision and
order another officer to consider the issue of compassionate grounds.
[3]
I can find no basis for overturning the
officer’s decision. Mr Zeinali never brought to the officer’s attention the
issues he raises here. Therefore, the officer cannot be said to have treated Mr
Zeinali unfairly or to have overlooked evidence. Accordingly, I must dismiss
this application for judicial review.
[4]
There are two issues:
1.
Was Mr Zeinali treated unfairly?
2.
Was the officer’s decision unreasonable?
II.
Issue One – Was Mr Zeinali treated unfairly?
[5]
Mr Zeinali submits that the officer should have
informed him of the opportunity to request a waiver of the knowledge
requirement and, in any case, should have considered his personal circumstances
before denying him citizenship. Mr Zeinali contends that his physical
appearance, especially after his daughter left him alone in the examination
room, should have alerted the officer to the need to consider waiver. He was
unaware of the need to bring his medical issues to the officer’s attention.
[6]
I disagree with Mr Zeinali’s submissions. The
onus fell on him to persuade the officer that he met the requirements for
citizenship, including adequate knowledge of Canada. If he wished to be
exempted from the knowledge requirement on compassionate grounds, he had a duty
to bring relevant evidence to the officer’s attention (Huynh v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1431). He failed to do so, and I
am not satisfied that his nervous appearance was sufficient to meet that onus.
Further, the officer did not have an obligation to inform Mr Zeinali of the
possibility of seeking an exemption (Maharatnam v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] FCJ No 405).
[7]
I cannot conclude that Mr Zeinali was treated
unfairly in the circumstances.
III.
Issue Two – Was the officer’s decision
unreasonable?
[8]
Mr Zeinali argues that the officer, in
considering whether to waive the knowledge requirement, should have taken
account of the best interests of his children.
[9]
I have already concluded that the officer had no
obligation to consider exempting Mr Zeinali from the knowledge requirement. It
follows that he had no duty to consider the best interests of Mr Zeinali’s
children in the circumstances. In any case, Mr Zeinali did not provide the
officer with any such evidence.
[10]
I cannot find any basis for concluding that the
officer’s decision was unreasonable.
IV.
Conclusion and Disposition
[11]
The officer treated Mr Zeinali fairly and
arrived at a reasonable decision. I must, therefore, dismiss this application
for judicial review.
Email this Content