Docket: IMM-3140-16
Citation:
2017 FC 60
Toronto, Ontario, January 18, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
RAMNARINE
NARAIN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Overview
[1]
The poet, Homer, recognized the paradox of
marriage in the Odyssey. What is it that rings true or credible, depends
on the marriage, the couple and circumstances, external and internal, to define
what the relationship is, in its essence; and, then does it ring true, or
credible?
[2]
The paradox stems from the fragility of the
human condition, its vulnerability, desires, suffering, happiness and the
passage of time. Its logic is based on the river of circumstances that winds
through it.
II.
Decision
[3]
The Applicant, who had left Guyana in 2008,
received refugee status in Canada and became a landed permanent resident in
2011. He is a Canadian citizen who sought to sponsor his wife now with whom he
had had a son who had passed away.
[4]
The Applicant submitted a late application for
judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division, dismissing
the Applicant’s refusal to the sponsorship of his spouse, subsequent to a Visa
Officer’s refusal.
[5]
Due to the tardiness of the application to the
Federal Court, the Applicant sought an extension of time which was granted by
this Court.
[6]
The background narrative is one of marriage in
1978. The Applicant’s marriage broke down with contradictory accounts between
that of the Applicant and his spouse. Much evidence centered on the loss of
their child, and a continuous thread of evidence is the financial support which
the Applicant transmits to his wife in Guyana continuously.
[7]
A key contradiction remains paramount, in that a
difficult relationship ensued subsequent to the Applicant’s departure from
Guyana. The wife, herself, is not clear as to why her husband wants to sponsor
her; perhaps, it is to fulfill his hearth and home needs. She is not sure.
[8]
Yet, nevertheless, it appears that as no
relationship is a clear-cut proposition after tragic turmoil in its midst, due
to the loss of a child for which partners blame each other, with a sense of
knowing pain that reverberates clearly in the evidence. The couple is
attempting to find logical reasons to reconcile after a long period of relative
estrangement for what unites them.
[9]
It is a case on its own specific merits (cas
d’espèce), bred of a tragic loss, that appears, in and of itself, to be drawing
the unhappy couple together to make amends and to heal their lives together.
[10]
It is this, that must be analyzed by the
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [IRB] due to 1) the continuous
financial support which the Applicant maintained; and, 2) the desire to
unite due and despite their tragic loss.
[11]
The contradictions appear to be based on
estrangement, whereas the loss of the child and tragedy are, after years of
growth and greater maturity, bringing the couple together.
[12]
The paradox, in and of itself, has been seen
often in marriages, even in that of a former Prime Minister and his wife after
the tragic loss of their son in Canada, that served as a shining model to
others; therefore, this case deserves to be returned to the IRB for analysis
anew by a different panel.
[13]
The decision, as it stands, is not reasonable
due to the extensive evidence regarding continuous financial assistance to the
wife and the pain of the loss of the child.
[14]
Therefore, the case is to be sent back to the
IRB, as the decision, as it stands is without an analysis of these two points;
and, thus, it is not reasonable.
Email this Content