Date: 20171206

Docket: IMM-1761-17

Citation: 2017 FC 1079

[ENGLISH TRANSLATION]

Ottawa, Ontario, December 6, 2017

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bell

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Judgment delivered orally from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, November 7, 2017)

BELL J.

1.                  Background

[1]               This is an application for judicial review from the applicant, Ms. Shango Mame Biomo [Ms. Biomo], regarding an exclusion order that was made on April 4, 2017, by a delegate of the Minister [delegate]. In a decision regarding the exclusion order [decision], the delegate determined that Ms. Biomo was a foreign national under section 41 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA], that is, a foreign national who is inadmissible for contravening a provision of subsection 29(2) of the IRPA. Therefore, an exclusion order was issued against her.

[2]               I note that Ms. Biomo is an American citizen and a citizen of the Republic of the Congo. I also note that Ms. Biomo crossed the Canada-U.S. border nine times between December 29, 2011 and November 15, 2015. On November 11, 2015, Ms. Biomo was denied entry to the country at a border crossing. She therefore entered the country at another border crossing on November 15, 2015.

2.                  Applicable legislation

[3]               Section 41 of the IRPA reads as follows:

[4]               Subsection 29(2) states the following:

3.                  Analysis

[5]               Ms. Biomo claims that the delegate should have considered the best interests of her children before making his decision. She also claims that she did not know certain facts or certain aspects of the law—specifically, that she had to leave the country after six months. Lastly, she tries to argue that the border officer who was responsible for her file when she crossed the Canada-U.S. border on April 3, 2017 [officer], allegedly did not comply with procedural fairness during his meeting with her by not conveying all relevant information to her regarding a meeting with the delegate the following day, April 4, 2017.

[6]               I feel that the delegate considered all the relevant elements in deciding as he did. The officer and the delegate considered all the personal factors that had been presented to them by Ms. Biomo. I note that no information regarding any particular circumstances for her children was before the delegate during the decision-making process. In any event, I feel that an in-depth analysis of the best interests of the children was not required in this case (Varga v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 394, [2006] FCJ no. 1828 at para 13; de Guzman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 436, [2005] FCJ no. 2119 at para 105; see in general Mworosha v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 983, [2017] FCJ no. 1086).

[7]               With respect to the claim that Ms. Biomo did not know that she had to leave the country after six months, I have no difficulty concluding that Ms. Biomo knew or should have known that she had to leave the country at the end of the six-month period authorized for her stay, given that she had already been admitted to Canada at least nine times in the past. Whatever the case may be, it does not fall to the decision-makers in this case to consider this factor.

[8]               As for Ms. Biomo’s argument that there was a violation of the principles of procedural fairness, in that the officer allegedly did not sufficiently inform her of the facts that led him to send a Report on Inadmissibility to the delegate, the record clearly shows that Ms. Biomo was well-informed of all the facts that triggered the inadmissibility process at the appropriate time. In addition, she had the opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions. Moreover, I note that she also had the opportunity to ask for the assistance of counsel and that counsel was present during her meeting with the delegate on April 4. In light of the foregoing, I cannot identify any element in the facts indicating that there was a violation of the principles of procedural fairness in the management of Ms. Biomo’s case.

[9]               For all these reasons, I am satisfied that the delegate’s decision is reasonable. In addition, there is no question regarding a violation of the principles of procedural fairness that may justify the decision being dismissed. The application for judicial review should be dismissed.

[10]           At the start of the hearing, both parties challenged the admissibility of certain documents, to which neither the officer nor the delegate had access during the decision-making process. In this case, I do not believe it is necessary for me to consider this issue. Whether those documents were admitted or not, my decision would remain the same.

[11]           In his factum, the respondent requests that the style of cause on the record be amended to list the respondent as being the “Minister of Public Safety” instead of the “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration”. The applicant is not challenging this application. It is therefore allowed.

[12]           Lastly, neither of the parties applied to have a question certified for consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal. Thus, there are no serious questions of general importance to be certified.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1761-17

THE COURT ORDERS that:

1.      This application for judicial review is dismissed, with costs;

2.      No questions are certified;

3.      The style of cause is amended to list the respondent as being the “Minister of Public Safety” instead of the “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration”.

“B. Richard Bell”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: