Figueroa et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), 2001 FCA 112

• Judge: Desjardins, Décary and Noël, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: April 06, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2001 FCA 112;(2001), 278 N.R. 27 (FCA)

Figueroa v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2001), 278 N.R. 27 (FCA)

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: [2001] N.R. TBEd. MY.045

Rony Danilo Figueroa, Maritza Judith Morales de Figueroa, Heidy Figueroa- Morales, Elsa Maritza Figueroa-Morales (appelants) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration (intimé)

(A-138-00; 2001 FCA 112)

Indexed As: Figueroa et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration)

Federal Court of Appeal

Desjardins, Décary and Noël, JJ.A.

April 6, 2001.

Summary:

An immigration officer denied landing to Figueroa and his family because Figueroa had committed crimes against humanity (Immigration Act, s. 19(1)(j)). Figueroa and the family applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 181 F.T.R. 242, dismissed the application. The court certified the following question for determi­nation: "Under the power of decision granted to him in paragraph 46.04(3) of the Immi­gration Act, may an immigration officer, without the intervention of an adjudicator, refuse to grant landing to the applicant and to any dependant for whom landing is sought, on the ground that he is not satisfied that neither the applicant nor any of those dependants is a person described in para­graph 19(1)(j) of that Act?"

The Federal Court of Appeal answered the question in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal.

Aliens - Topic 1321.1

Admission - Refugees - Jurisdiction - The following question was certified for determination: "Under the power of deci­sion granted to him in paragraph 46.04(3) of the Immigration Act, may an immigra­tion officer, without the intervention of an adjudicator, refuse to grant landing to the applicant and to any dependant for whom landing is sought, on the ground that he is not satisfied that neither the applicant nor any of those dependants is a person described in paragraph 19(1)(j) of that Act [i.e. a person who has committed crimes against humanity]" - The Federal Court of Appeal answered in the affirmative - See paragraphs 1 to 8.

Aliens - Topic 1701.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Jurisdiction - [See Aliens - Topic 1321.1 ].

Aliens - Topic 1744.2

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Persons who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity - [See Aliens - Topic 1321.1 ].

Aliens - Topic 1744.2

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Persons who have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity - An immigration officer denied landing to the applicant, a citizen of Guatemala, because he had committed crimes against humanity (Immigration Act, s. 19(1)(j)) - The applicant appealed, asserting that the officer had not, as required by s. 19(1)(j), determined whether the facts alleged "constituted an offence against the laws of Canada in force at the time of the act or omission" - The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the assertion - The officer had "reasonable grounds" to exclude the applicant - From 1982 to 1986, the applicant had worked in a de­partment for the Guatemalan secret police which was known for human rights abuses, interrogations and torture - He participated in "missions in the mountains" and in interrogations at a military base where the interrogations were extremely harsh - He arrested a number of people, knowing that they would be interrogated and tortured and attended at interrogations during the course of which torture was being carried out - The applicant was not an outside witness to the things that were done in his presence - See paragraphs 9 to 13.

Cases Noticed:

Gwala v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 242 N.R. 173 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 5].

Raman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 246 N.R. 370 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 46.04(3) [para. 3].

Counsel:

William Sloan, for the appellants;

Normand Lemyre, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William Sloan, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicants;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Que­bec, on April 6, 2001, by Desjardins, Décary and Noël, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Desjardins, J.A., delivered the fol­lowing oral reasons for judgment of the court on the same date.