Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Seneca, docket A-261-98

Date: 19990929

Docket: A-261-98

CORAM:      ISAAC, J.A.,

         MCDONALD, J.A.,

         SEXTON, J.A.

BETWEEN:

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION,

     Appellant,

     - and -

     DANILO RAMOS SENECA,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     (Delivered orally from the Bench at

     Vancouver, BC on September 28, 1999)

MCDONALD, J.A.

1. [1]      This is an appeal from the Trial Division which dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
   

[2]      The Respondent is a male citizen of the Philippines. He was granted an immigration visa on June 30, 1987 with the condition that he marry his Canadian fiancee within ninety days of arriving in Canada. In 1989, an RCMP investigation found out that the Respondent was still married to Leticia Torres. He was convicted of bigamy on September 10, 1990 and given a twelve month suspended sentence.

[3]      As a result of this conviction, an immigration officer began an Immigration Inquiry. On January 28, 1994 an adjudicator determined that the Respondent was a person described in paragraphs 27(1)(d)(ii) and 27(1)(e) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2. Those paragraphs read as follows:

27.(1) An immigration officer or a peace officer shall forward a written report to the Deputy Minister setting out the details of any information in the possession of the immigration officer or peace officer indicating that a permanent resident is a person who . . .

(d) has been convicted of an offence under any Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of

i) more than six months has been imposed, or

ii) five years or more may be imposed;

(e) was granted landing by reason of possession of a false or improperly obtained passport, visa or other document pertaining to his admission or by reason of any fraudulent or improper means or misrepresentation of any material fact, whether exercised or made by himself or by any other person;

A conditional removal order was issued against the Respondent on that day.

[4]      The appellant filed a preliminary motion with the Appeal Division requesting that they deny the respondent"s appeal on the basis that they lacked jurisdiction. That motion was dismissed.

[5]      The appellant then applied to the Trial Division of this Court for judicial review . That application was also dismissed, and it is from that decision that this appeal is brought.

[6]      The Motion"s Judge reviewed in some detail the case law and the relevant legislation. We are in substantial agreement with his analysis of the law and the legislative intent behind the relevant sections of the Immigration Act , and the conclusions he reached.

[7]      We would answer the question propounded by the Motion"s Judge in the affirmative and would dismiss the appeal with costs.

                             (Sgd.) "Joseph McDonald"

                                 J.A.

September 29, 1999

Vancouver, British Columbia

[8]

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     APPEAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:      A-261-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:      MCI

     v.

     DANILO RAMOS SENECA

PLACE OF HEARING:      VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA

DATE OF HEARING:      SEPTEMBER 28, 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF MCDONALD, J.A.

DATED:      SEPTEMBER 29, 1999

APPEARANCES:

MR. GARTH N. SMITH      FOR THE APPELLANT

MR. CHARLES R.

DARWENT      FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MORRIS ROSENBERG

DEPUTY ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF CANADA      FOR THE APPELLANT

DARWENT LAW OFFICE

CALGARY, ALBERTA      FOR THE RESPONDENT