Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20040427

Docket: IMM-2603-03

Citation: 2004 FC 621

Toronto, Ontario, April 27th, 2004

Present:           The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson          

BETWEEN:

                                                         MOHAMMADU FAZAL

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                When the applicant's wife sponsored him to come to Canada, the applicant was twice interviewed at the Canadian High Commission in Columbo. In denying the application, the visa officer made two findings: the applicant did not meet the requirements for permanent residence because he was inadmissible under paragraph 36(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA); no appeal of the decision could be made to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD).

[2]                Despite the articulate submissions of counsel and my sympathy for the applicant who finds himself in a Catch 22 situation, in the face of his admissions I can find no basis in law for concluding that the officer erred in arriving at the determination with respect to inadmissibility. A visa officer does not possess the equitable jurisdiction of the IAD.

[3]                The respondent concedes that the second determination, that no appeal could be made to the IAD, is an error of law. On that basis, the application for judicial review will be allowed and the matter will be remitted for redetermination before a different visa officer.

[4]                In the circumstances and in view of the delay between the date upon which the determination was made and the date upon which the notification issued, I would hope that the respondent would make every effort to expedite the redetermination. This matter raises no question for certification.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted for redetermination before a different visa officer.

       "Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"

                                                                                                                                                   J.F.C.                     


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-2603-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MOHAMMADU FAZAL

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                    TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                      APRIL 27, 2004

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                           LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.

DATED:                                             APRIL 27, 2004

APPEARANCES:

DAVID P.YERZY                               FOR THE APPLICANT

DAVID TYNDALE                            FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

DAVID P.YERZY

BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR

TORONTO, ONTARIO                     FOR THE APPLICANT

MORRIS ROSENBERG

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF CANADA

TORONTO, ONTARIO                     FOR THE RESPONDENT


                                               

                               FEDERAL COURT

                                TRIAL DIVISION

Date: 20040427

Docket: IMM-2603-03

BETWEEN:                                                                           

MOHAMMADU FAZAL

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

                                                                      

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

                                                                      


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.