Farenas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Near, J.
• Citation: 2011 FC 660,(2011), 391 F.T.R. 60 (FC)
• Date: 02 February 2011
• Subject Matter: IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE

Farenas v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2011), 391 F.T.R. 60 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.036

Linda Escanilla Farenas (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-2490-10; 2011 FC 660)

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

Federal Court

Near, J.

June 9, 2011.

Summary:

Farenas, a citizen of the Philippines, was denied permanent residence status in Canada under the live-in caregiver class. The visa officer found that Farenas had submitted insufficient evidence to show that she and her family members were not inadmissible pursuant to s. 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Farenas applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter for redetermination.

Aliens - Topic 1239

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Reasons for decision - Farenas, a citizen of the Philippines, was denied permanent residence status in Canada under the live-in caregiver class - The visa officer found that Farenas had submitted insufficient evidence to show that she and her family members were not inadmissible (Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. s. 72(1)) - Farenas applied for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter for redetermination - There was no evidence to suggest that the officer conducted an adequate, critical, equivalency analysis - Consequently, he failed to provide sufficient reasons to support his finding.

Aliens - Topic 1744.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Persons committing acts constituting an offence in Canada - [See Aliens - Topic 1239 ].

Cases Noticed:

Amin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 322 F.T.R. 293; 2008 FC 168, refd to. [para. 21].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 360 N.R. 183; 2007 FCA 24, refd to. [para. 21].

Zeon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. A91; 2005 FC 1338, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Pappajohn, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 120; 32 N.R. 104, refd to. [para. 25].

R v. Kairouz, [2010] R.J.Q. 1279; 2010 QCCQ 2649 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

Rogers v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 339 F.T.R. 191; 2009 FC 26, refd to. [para. 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.), Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, sect. 72(1) [para. 1].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations - see Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Krassina Kostadinov, for the applicant;

Ian Hicks, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Lorne Waldman, Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on February 2, 2011, by Near, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 9, 2011.