Azadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2012) 419 F.T.R. 208 (FC)

• Judge: Rennie, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 20, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 419 F.T.R. 208 (FC);2012 FC 1163

Azadi v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2012), 419 F.T.R. 208 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.042

Ismael Azadi (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-567-12; 2012 FC 1163; 2012 CF 1163)

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

Federal Court

Rennie, J.

October 2, 2012.

Summary:

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sought to deport Azadi, a permanent resident, after it was determined that he had become a danger to the safety of the Canadian public. Azadi applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 608

The hearing and decision - Disclosure by tribunal - [See both Aliens - Topic 1616 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2617

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Disclosure (incl. reliance on evidence not disclosed to party) - [See both Aliens - Topic 1616 ].

Aliens - Topic 1616

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Deportation inquiry - Procedure (incl. procedural fairness) - A deportation order was issued against Azadi, a permanent resident, when it was determined that he had become a danger to the Canadian public - Azadi applied for judicial review, arguing that the Minister's delegate breached the duty of fairness by failing to disclose and not providing an opportunity to respond to the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes from the visa officer in 2001 when he came to Canada as a refugee - The Federal Court dismissed the application - As a practical matter, Azadi had notice that the delegate would consider his refugee file - In any event, the CAIPS notes did not constitute extrinsic evidence requiring a response in these circumstances - See paragraphs 14 to 21.

Aliens - Topic 1616

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Deportation inquiry - Procedure (incl. procedural fairness) - A deportation order was issued against Azadi, a permanent resident, when it was determined that he had become a danger to the Canadian public - Azadi applied for judicial review, arguing that the Minister's delegate breached the duty of fairness by the non-disclosure and possible reliance on a prior admissibility report, and in particular the "highlights" or summary report - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The highlights report was not in the Certified Tribunal Record and affidavit evidence was tendered that it was not in the file - The Crown also confirmed that the document was not before the Minister's delegate - Since the highlights report was not ultimately before the decision-maker, there could be no resulting breach of procedural fairness - See paragraphs 22 to 25.

Aliens - Topic 1645

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Grounds for - Danger to the public - A deportation order was issued against Azadi, a permanent resident, when it was determined that he had become a danger to the Canadian public because of criminal convictions for robbery and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking - Azadi applied for judicial review, arguing that the Minister's conclusion that Azadi represented a danger to the public was unreasonable - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court saw no reason to overturn the factual determinations by the Minister's delegate - See paragraphs 26 to 33.

Aliens - Topic 1645

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Grounds for - Danger to the public - A deportation order was issued against Azadi, a permanent resident, when it was determined that he had become a danger to the Canadian public because of criminal convictions - Azadi applied for judicial review, arguing that the Minister's delegate erred in not specifically considering the risk facing Azadi if sent to Iran among humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) factors - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The analytical approach adopted by the Minister's delegate conformed to the relevant jurisprudence - There was no basis in the jurisprudence for Azadi's assertion that the Minister's delegate was required to consider a wider range of risk factors directly in its determination regarding H&C factors in the context of the danger opinion - See paragraphs 34 to 37.

Aliens - Topic 1645

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Deportation - Grounds for - Danger to the public - Azadi applied for judicial review of a danger opinion - Azadi argued that the Minister's delegate erred in failing to consider broader humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) considerations, including general country conditions, or factors that might not have reached the threshold of a s. 7 Charter violation, as part of the H&C considerations of the danger opinion - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court stated that "... the 'grafting on' of the section 7 analysis to the danger opinion is not to be an expansion, through the back-door, of the broader, general considerations to which the Minister may have regard in the exercise of discretion under section 25, many of which would not be of the same nature or gravity of those that fall within the ambit of section 7 interests" - See paragraphs 38 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 6].

Nagalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 405 F.T.R. 62; 2012 FC 176, refd to. [para. 6].

Nagalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2009] 2 F.C.R. 52; 377 N.R. 151; 2008 FCA 153, refd to. [para. 7].

Bhagwandass v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 268 N.R. 337; 2001 FCA 49, refd to. [para. 15].

Dasent v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 87 F.T.R. 282 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Azali et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 368; 2008 FC 517, refd to. [para. 18].

Hasan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 339 F.T.R. 21; 2008 FC 1069, refd to. [para. 34].

Ragupathy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 F.C.R. 490; 350 N.R. 137; 2006 FCA 151, refd to. [para. 34].

Jama v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 600; 2009 FC 781, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 115 [para. 12].

Counsel:

David Matas, for the applicant;

Sharlene Telles-Langdon, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

David Matas, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on August 20, 2012, before Rennie, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on October 2, 2012.