Mansur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2014) 466 F.T.R. 237 (FC)

• Judge: Locke, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 04, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 466 F.T.R. 237 (FC);2014 FC 1035

Mansur v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2014), 466 F.T.R. 237 (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. NO.004

Muhamad Miri Mansur (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(T-2088-13; 2014 FC 1035; 2014 CF 1035)

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

Federal Court

Locke, J.

November 3, 2014.

Summary:

A Citizenship Judge rejected an application for citizenship by Mansur, a U.S. citizen and a resident of Lebanon, on the basis that a removal order was issued against him, and that he did not satisfy the residency requirement. Mansur applied for judicial review. He argued that the impropriety of a removal order was a valid consideration of "special and unusual hardship" under s. 5(4) of the Citizenship Act, and that the Citizenship Judge had refused even to consider whether the removal was proper. The removal order was the subject of a separate pending application for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 2527

Naturalization - Qualifications - Recommendation on grounds of special and unusual hardship - A Citizenship Judge denied the applicant's citizenship application under both s. 5(1)(c) (insufficient time resident in Canada) and s. 5(1)(f) (removal order) of the Citizenship Act - The judicial review application dealt with whether the Citizenship Judge erred in refusing to make a favourable recommendation under s. 5(4) of the Act - The applicant argued that the impropriety of a removal order was a valid consideration of "special and unusual hardship" under s. 5(4), and that the Citizenship Judge had refused even to consider whether the removal was proper - The removal order was the subject of a separate pending application for judicial review - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that he would suffer a special and unusual hardship should he have to wait for the final decision regarding the removal order - The mere fact of not having citizenship was not of itself a special and unusual hardship - In any event, "any use of subsection 5(4) to overcome a special and unusual hardship resulting from denial of citizenship due to a removal order would have to be reserved for cases in which the invalidity of the removal order is obvious. This is not such a case."

Words and Phrases

Special and unusual hardship - The Federal Court considered the scope and the meaning of "a special and unusual hardship" under s. 5(4) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 - See paragraphs 24 to 26.

Cases Noticed:

Zahra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 516; 2009 FC 444, refd to. [para. 20].

Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 411 F.T.R. 319; 2012 FC 593, refd to. [para. 20].

Uluk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 70; 2009 FC 122, refd to. [para. 21].

El-Kashef v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 698; 2012 FC 1151, refd to. [para. 21].

Ayaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 459 F.T.R. 191; 2014 FC 701, refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, sect. 5(4) [para. 19].

Counsel:

Dan Bohbot, for the applicant;

Guillaume Bigaouette, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Dan M. Bohbot, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on September 4, 2014, before Locke, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated November 3, 2014.