Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 2004007

Docket: IMM-3650-03

Citation: 2004 FC 538

Ottawa, Ontario, this 7th day of April 2004

Present:           The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan                                    

BETWEEN:

KUNAR PERSAUD

MOHINI DEVI PERSAUD

                                                                                                                                           Applicants

                                                                           and

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                Mr. Kunar Persaud and his minor daughter Mohini Devi Persaud (the "Applicants") seek judicial review of the decision of Immigration Officer John Battista (the "Immigration Officer"), dated May 2, 2003. In his decision, the Immigration Officer refused the Applicants' application for admission into Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds ("H & C application").


[2]                The Applicants are citizen of Guyana and entered Canada in 1999. They sought Convention refugee status but were unsuccessful. In 2001, the adult Applicant applied for entry into Canada pursuant to the exercise of discretion vested in the Respondent by the former Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, I-2, as amended, section 114(2). In that application, the Applicants raised issues of risks, particularly risk to the minor Applicant in relation to a kidnapping attempt in 1997. Continuing Submissions were made by the Applicants following their initial application.

[3]                The record shows that the Immigration Officer sought and obtained risk opinions in relation to the Applicants, that is a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") and a risk assessment conducted specifically in relation to the "H & C" application. Neither the PRRA report nor the risk opinion identified a risk to either of the Applicants, although the occurrence of the kidnapping attempt was acknowledged by the officer dealing with the latter assessment.

[4]                The Immigration Officer filed an affidavit in this proceeding in which he said the following:

13. I also considered the best interests of the minor applicant and Mr. Persaud's other daughter who was living with her mother in Canada as a refugee claimant. Considering the age and circumstances of the children, including their bests [sic] interests, I determined that it would not be unusual and undeserved if the minor applicant returned to Guyana with her father and apply for permanent residence in the normal manner.

14. As I set out in my refusal, having considered all of the evidence, I was not satisfied that Mr. Persaud and his daughter would suffer unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship should they be required to apply for permanent residence from outside Canada. I was not satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to waive subsection 11(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and therefore refused their application.

[5]                The Immigration Officer was cross-examined, specifically as to how he considered the best interests of the minor Applicant.    However, a review of the entirety of this cross-examination leads to the impression that the Immigration Officer engaged in only a cursory examination of the best interests of the minor Applicant and addressed his mind to irrelevant factors, such as the status of the parents, as well as failing to consider relevant factors. In the circumstances of this case, that is a reviewable error.

[6]                Accordingly, this application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different Immigration Officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising.

                                               ORDER

The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter remitted to another Immigration Officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising.

                                                                                      "E. Heneghan"

                                                                                                   J.F.C.                        


                                     FEDERAL COURT

             Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                           IMM-3650-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:               KUNAR PERSAUD, ET AL

Applicants

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:           MARCH 25, 2004   

REASONS FOR ORDER AND

ORDER BY:                  HENEGHAN, J.

DATED:                         APRIL 7, 2004

APPEARANCES BY:             Mr. Lorne Waldman

For the Applicant             

Mr. Martin Anderson

For the Respondent

                                                                                                           

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:        Mr. Lorne Waldman

Waldman & Associates

281 Eglinton Ave, East

                                         Toronto, Ontario

M4P 1L3

For the Applicants           

Mr. Martin Anderson

For the Respondent

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada


FEDERAL COURT

                               Date: 20040407

            Docket: IMM-3650-03

BETWEEN:

KUNAR PERSAUD

MOHINI DEVI PERSAUD

Applicants

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                       Respondent

                                                 

REASONS FOR 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.