Diaby v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2014) 460 F.T.R. 188 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 31, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 460 F.T.R. 188 (FC);2014 FC 742

Diaby v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2014), 460 F.T.R. 188 (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: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.005

Nafi Diaby (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-13236-12)

Nafi Diaby (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-13237-12; 2014 FC 742; 2014 CF 742)

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

Federal Court

Russell, J.

July 24, 2014.

Summary:

A Senior Immigration Officer refused the applicant's Pre-removal Risk Assessment application and her application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds because the officer was not satisfied on the issue of identity. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to a different officer for reconsideration subject to certain conditions.

Aliens - Topic 1206

Admission - Immigrants - General - Upon compassionate or humanitarian grounds - The applicant claimed to be from Sierra Leone and said she fled that country under severe circumstances and without identity documents - She had two Canadian-born children - The immigration officer was not satisfied with respect to identity and, therefore, refused the applicant's Pre-removal Risk Assessment application and her application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds - The applicant applied for judicial review, claiming that the officer erred by failing to convoke an interview before rejecting her affidavit evidence regarding her identity and nationality - The Federal Court allowed the application, holding that the officer failed to consider the hardship faced by the applicant if she was returned to Sierra Leone and failed to conduct a best interests of the child analysis - The officer also breached procedural fairness by simply failing to respond to the applicant's request for an interview, and then totally disregarding her sworn evidence about her nationality.

Aliens - Topic 1206

Admission - Immigrants - General - Upon compassionate or humanitarian grounds - The Federal Court discussed the standard of review of an immigration officer's decision on an application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds - See paragraphs 36 to 39.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - [See first Aliens - Topic 1206 ].

Aliens - Topic 1590

Exclusion and expulsion - Pre-removal risk assessment (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ss. 112-116) - Duty of fairness - [See first Aliens - Topic 1206 ].

Aliens - Topic 1594

Exclusion and expulsion - Pre-removal risk assessment (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ss. 112-116) - Judicial review - The Federal Court stated that absent an error in procedural fairness, the standard when reviewing a Pre-removal Risk Assessment decision was reasonableness - See paragraph 36.

Aliens - Topic 4062

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Powers of review court - [See second Aliens - Topic 1206 ].

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 35].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 35].

Alcin et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 608; 2013 FC 1242, refd to. [para. 36].

Daniel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 393 F.T.R. 50; 2011 FC 797, refd to. [para. 36].

Jung v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 404; 2009 FC 678, refd to. [para. 36].

Guxholli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 444 F.T.R. 309; 2013 FC 1267, refd to. [para. 36].

Ijiola Awolope v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 368 F.T.R. 165; 2010 FC 540, refd to. [para. 36].

Shaikh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 669; 2012 FC 1318, refd to. [para. 37].

Cunningham v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2010), 370 F.T.R. 157; 2010 FC 636, refd to. [para. 37].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 38].

Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 344 N.R. 257; 2005 FCA 404, refd to. [para. 38].

Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 459 N.R. 367; 2014 FCA 113, refd to. [para. 38].

Lemus et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 461 N.R. 310; 2014 FCA 114, refd to. [para. 38].

Ainab v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 457 F.T.R. 203; 2014 FC 630, refd to. [para. 38].

Blas et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 457 F.T.R. 182; 2014 FC 629, refd to. [para. 38].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 39].

Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 668; 2009 FC 379, refd to. [para. 44].

Sebbe et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 414 F.T.R. 268; 2012 FC 813, refd to. [para. 45].

Shafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 277 F.T.R. 104; 2005 FC 714, refd to. [para. 46].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 46].

Liban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. A43; 2008 FC 1252, refd to. [para. 46].

Arfaoui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 357; 2010 FC 549, refd to. [para. 46].

Zokai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 688; 2005 FC 1103, refd to. [para. 46].

Latifi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 776; 2006 FC 1388, refd to. [para. 46].

Vidal and Dadwah v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 41 F.T.R. 118 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Legault v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 288 N.R. 174; 2002 FCA 125, refd to. [para. 48].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 48].

Hawthorne v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 297 N.R. 187; 2002 FCA 475, refd to. [para. 48].

Singh et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 340 F.T.R. 29; 2009 FC 11, refd to. [para. 48].

Irimie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 597; 10 Imm. L.R.(3d) 206 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Owusu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 3 F.C. 172; 228 F.T.R. 19; 2003 FCT 94, refd to. [para. 49].

Alvarado et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 155; 2002 FCT 255, refd to. [para. 49].

Bernard v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 672; 2001 FCT 1068, refd to. [para. 54].

Patel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 24; 36 Imm. L.R.(2d) 175 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 54].

Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Satiacum (1989), 99 N.R. 171 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Duka et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 709; 2010 FC 1071, refd to. [para. 63].

Chekroun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 357; 2013 FC 738, refd to. [para. 63].

Counsel:

Andrew Brouwer, for the applicant;

Lorne McClenaghan, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

The Refugee Law Office, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 31, 2014, by Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on July 24, 2014.