Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1995) 93 F.T.R. 297 (TD)

• Judge: Richard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 18, 1995
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1995), 93 F.T.R. 297 (TD)

Ali v. Can. (M.C.I.) (1995), 93 F.T.R. 297 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Nezamoodeen Ali (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-2359-94)

Indexed As: Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Richard, J.

February 8, 1995.

Summary:

Ali applied for judicial review of negative decisions rendered by immigration officers. The principal issue raised on the application was the applicability of the admissibility provisions contained in s. 19 of the Immigration Act to individuals governed by the Refugee Claimants Designated Class Regulations (Backlog Regulations).

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed Ali's application. The court held that the immigration officers properly found Ali to be inadmissible, properly refused to grant landing and properly referred Ali to the Refugee Division for a determination of his Convention refugee claim.

Aliens - Topic 1338

Admission - Refugees - Refugee claims backlog regulations - General - [See Aliens - Topic 1339 ].

Aliens - Topic 1339

Admission - Refugees - Member of refugee claims backlog - Ali, a member of the refugee claims backlog, argued that s. 4 of Refugee Claimants Designated Class Regulations (Backlog Regulations) established a right to apply for landing and that s. 6 imposed a corresponding duty upon immigration officers to grant landing - He argued that the only exception to that duty was provided in s. 3(2) of the Backlog Regulations, which did not include inadmissibility for reasons set out under s. 19(2) of the Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the argument - Immigration officers were authorized to determine not only whether an applicant was in the designated class, but also whether the applicant might be inadmissible.

Cases Noticed:

Shah v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 170 N.R. 238 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Muliadi v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1986] 2 F.C. 205; 66 N.R. 8 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

Basco v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 43 F.T.R. 233; 14 Imm. L.R.(2d) 21 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

Bitumar Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) (1986), 4 F.T.R. 98 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Mayers (1992), 150 N.R. 60 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Kaisersingh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 89 F.T.R. 276 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Gonzales v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 87 F.T.R. 150 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 9].

Mungeni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 83 F.T.R. 274 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 9].

Huseyinov et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 174 N.R. 233 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Liyanagamage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 176 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, generally [para. 3].

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 19(1)(b) [para. 12]; sect. 19(2)(b) [para. 3]; sect. 20(1) [para. 11, footnote 7]; sect. 32(5) [para. 11, footnote 8]; sect. 46.01(6) [para. 3]; sect. 46.03(5) [para. 11]; sect. 69.1(1) [para. 13]; sect. 114(2) [para. 1].

Immigration Act Regulations (Can.), Refugee Claimants Designated Class Regulations, SOR/90-40, sect. 3(1) [para. 3]; sect. 3(2), sect. 4, sect. 6 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Rocco Galati, for the applicant;

Bonnie Boucher, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Rocco Galati, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 18, 1995, at Toronto, Ontario, before Richard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 8, 1995.