Docket: IMM-2089-17
Citation:
2017 FC 1080
Toronto, Ontario, November 30, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ABDULKADER
WASEL
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The Applicant is a 46 year-old citizen of Syria
who moved to Greece in 1998, resided there until May 2014, entered Canada in
May 2014 and made a refugee claim against return to Syria. On December 18,
2014, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the Applicant to be excluded
for refugee protection on the basis of Article 1E of the Refugee Convention
because he was found to be admissible to Greece. An appeal of the RPD decision
to the Refugee Appeal Division was dismissed in April 2015. As a result the
Applicant applied for humanitarian and compassionate relief to be landed in
Canada.
[2]
The present Application challenges a negative
humanitarian and compassionate decision rendered by a delegate of the Minister
(Officer) dated April 10, 2017. The issue before the Officer was whether the
Applicant was presently admissible to Greece. Counsel for the Applicant argued
that, on the basis of a lawyer’s opinion produced to the Officer, a change in
the law had placed the Applicant’s admissibility to Greece in doubt (see the
letter in the Appendix to these reasons). Essentially as the argument goes, the
Applicant has lost any status he might have had prior to the change in the law
because he has been away from Greece for more than two years.
[3]
The issue for determination in the present
Application is whether the Officer reasonably considered the Applicant’s
humanitarian and compassionate relief concerns. The following are the Officer’s
views about the opinion letter:
While I acknowledge that counsel has adduced
an Opinion Letter from a lawyer in Greece supporting the applicant's view that
he would be unable to renew his PR status in Greece, I find that this document
is not equivalent to official documentation from the Greek government and/or
Greek immigration authorities. Moreover, I find the document to represent that
of which it [sic] has been named ("Opinion Letter") - an opinion
written by a lawyer in Greece. This document, while it has been prepared by an
attorney, expresses the legal implications that may arise taking into account
the applicant's status, but does not confirm that the Greek government and/or
Greek immigration authorities have rejected the applicant's bid to renew his PR
status in Greece, nor does it confirm that the applicant has lost his PR status
or has had it revoked. Thus, I find that the inclusion of this document to
not bear much weight in regards to the applicant not being able to continue
residing in Greece as a permanent resident. A more
compelling piece of evidence, in my view,
would be an official refusal letter from Greek authorities in regards to the
applicant's renewal of his "Residence Permit", or official government
documentation confirming that the applicant has lost his PR status in Greece or
has had it revoked by Greek immigration officials.
[Emphasis added]
(Decision, p. 5)
[4]
The Applicant submitted the opinion letter to
make a serious point about his future. In my view, the contents of the opinion
letter should have been given humanitarian and compassionate consideration. By
the use of the Officer’s words “this document to not
bear much weight”, I find that the needed consideration was not given.
[5]
As a result, I find that the decision under
review is unreasonable.
Email this Content