Date: 20050317
Docket: IMM-7627-04
Citation: 2005 FC 377
Ottawa, Ontario, March 17, 2005
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
CYNTHIA PIERRE-LOUIS
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2004, c. 27 (the Act), for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (the Panel), dated August 13, 2004. In that decision, the Board dismissed the applicant's appeal from the decision refusing her sponsorship of her husband on the ground that he is an inadmissible person under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Act.
ISSUE
[2] Did the Panel err in applying paragraph 40(1)(a) and subsection 11(1) of the Act?
[3] For the following reasons, I must answer this question in the negative. The application for judicial review will be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
[4] On May 30, 2001, the applicant, who is a permanent resident, married Mr. Mathurin Joseph in Haiti. On November 8, 2001, he applied for a visitor's visa at the Canadian embassy in Haiti. He was turned down. On the application, he said he had a child, Edlyne, born in February 1996.
[5] On June 19, 2002, sponsored by the applicant, he applied for permanent residence in Canada. He said he had no dependent children. The visa officer rejected this application because of misrepresentations made during the interview. An appeal was made to the Panel. When it failed, the applicant filed this application for judicial review.
IMPUGNED DECISION
[6] The Panel held that Mr. Joseph had indeed made misrepresentations during his interview for permanent residence and found him inadmissible under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Act.
ANALYSIS
[7] Subsection 40(1) of the Act provides:
| Misrepresentation
40. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible for misrepresentation |
|
Fausses déclarations
40. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour fausses déclarations les faits suivants : |
|
|
|
|
| (a) for directly or indirectly misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act; |
|
a) directement ou indirectement, faire une présentation erronée sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou une réticence sur ce fait, ce qui entraîne ou risque d'entraîner une erreur dans l'application de la présente loi; |
|
|
|
|
| (b) for being or having been sponsored by a person who is determined to be inadmissible for misrepresentation; |
|
b) être ou avoir été parrainé par un répondant dont il a été statué qu'il est interdit de territoire pour fausses déclarations; |
|
|
|
|
| (c) on a final determination to vacate a decision to allow the claim for refugee protection by the permanent resident or the foreign national; or |
|
c) l'annulation en dernier ressort de la décision ayant accueilli la demande d'asile; |
|
|
|
|
| (d) on ceasing to be a citizen under paragraph 10(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act, in the circumstances set out in subsection 10(2) of that Act. |
|
d) la perte de la citoyenneté au titre de l'alinéa 10(1)a) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté dans le cas visé au paragraphe 10(2) de cette loi.
|
|
|
|
|
[8] Paragraph 40(1)(a) states that the misrepresentation must be about material facts that could induce an error in the administration of the Act.
Applicant's submissions
[9] The applicant argues that the misrepresentation on the visitor's visa application should not have been considered on the application for permanent residence. She contends that no misrepresentation was made during the interview with the visa officer concerning her husband's application for permanent residence. She says her husband may have been confused by the officer's questions, but he still ultimately repeated that he had no dependent children.
[10] Relying on one of the objectives of the Act - to see that families are reunited in Canada (paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Act) - the applicant submits that Parliament certainly had no intention of preventing a couple from reuniting solely because one of the spouses had in the past made a misrepresentation that has no direct bearing on the application. In fact, the applicant claims that the application for permanent residence was denied because of misrepresentations made on his visitor's visa application. She adds that the issue here is the interpretation of the Act.
Respondent's submissions
[11] The respondent argues that the issue is a question of fact and that the record clearly shows that the applicant's husband intended to mislead the officer during the interview for permanent residence.
[12] I share the respondent's opinion that the applicant essentially bases her argument on the false premise that her husband was inadmissible because of the misrepresentation he made on his visitor's visa application. One need only read paragraph 18 of the Panel's decision:
I find that the applicant made misrepresentations during his interview in the context of his application for permanent residence. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no need to determine whether his making misrepresentations previously in the context of an earlier application for a visitor's visa results in an inadmissibility set out in paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Act. On the contrary, I find that the evidence clearly establishes that he made misrepresentations within the context of his application for permanent residence. I also find that these misrepresentations relate to a material fact that could induce an error in the administration of the Act. By the applicant's own admission, the goal of the initial misrepresentation was to obtain an immigrant visa for the child in question. There is no reason to believe that the applicant was not pursuing the same goal when he continued to hide the fact that she was his sister-in-law at the beginning of the interview. [Emphasis added]
[13] This finding is supported by the evidence, on a reading of the officer's interview notes (pages 53 and 54 of the Panel's notes). There is no patently unreasonable error. Findings of fact made by the Appeal Division are entitled to a high standard of review by this Court (Coutinho v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1137 (T.D.) (QL)).
[14] Consequently, the only thing left to be determined is whether these misrepresentations relate to a material fact that could induce an error in the administration of the Act. The misrepresentations in this case had to do with the relationship between Mr. Joseph and the young girl named Edlyne. Family reunification is one of the most important factors in the Act (subsection 117(1) of the Regulations). There is no doubt, therefore, that the misrepresentations could induce an error in the administration of the Act since the government could deal with this third party's case differently than it otherwise should.
[15] The parties declined to submit a question for certification. This case does not involve one.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be dismissed. No question shall be certified.
"Michel Beaudry"
Judge
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7627-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: CYNTHIA PIERRE-LOUIS
v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: March 10, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY
DATED: March 17, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Joseph Dullin Jean FOR THE APPLICANT
Marie-Nicole Moreau FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Joseph Dullin Jean FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
Montréal, Quebec