Date: 20050404
Docket: IMM-9277-04
Ottawa, Ontario, April 4, 2005
Present: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE LAYDEN-STEVENSON
BETWEEN:
IKEMFUMA AYALOGU
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Ayalogu applies for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (ID) dated October 29, 2004, wherein the ID determined that Mr. Ayalogu was inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 37(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) and issued a deportation order. The provisions of paragraph 37(1)(a) are reproduced here.
| Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
37. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality for
(a) being a member of an organization that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of an offence punishable under an Act of Parliament by way of indictment, or in furtherance of the commission of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence, or engaging in activity that is part of such a pattern; or [...]
|
|
Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, L.C. 2001, ch. 27
37. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour criminalité organisée les faits suivants_:
a) être membre d'une organisation dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elle se livre ou s'est livrée à des activités faisant partie d'un plan d'activités criminelles organisées par plusieurs personnes agissant de concert en vue de la perpétration d'une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable par mise en accusation ou de la perpétration, hors du Canada, d'une infraction qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une telle infraction, ou se livrer à des activités faisant partie d'un tel plan; [...]
|
|
|
|
|
[2] The ID determined that there is "reasonable ground to believe that the Ledbury Banff Cripps [a street gang] is an organization that have [sic] been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activities planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of an office punishable under any Act of Parliament by way of indictment". The ID found that the organization "has been active and is still active in the Ottawa area". Finally, the ID determined that "there is credible, trustworthy evidence that a reasonable person can rely on to come to the conclusion that there is reasonable ground to believe that Mr. Ayalogu is a member of such an organization".
[3] In arriving at its determination, the ID considered evidence received pursuant to section 86 of IRPA. That section provides:
| Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 86. (1) The Minister may, during an admissibility hearing, a detention review or an appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division, make an application for non-disclosure of information.
(2) Section 78 applies to the determination of the application, with any modifications that the circumstances require, including that a reference to "judge" be read as a reference to the applicable Division of the Board.
|
|
Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés. L.C. 2001, ch. 27 86. (1) Le ministre peut, dans le cadre de l'appel devant la Section d'appel de l'immigration, du contrôle de la détention ou de l'enquête demander l'interdiction de la divulgation des renseignements.
(2) L'article 78 s'applique à l'examen de la demande, avec les adaptations nécessaires, la mention de juge valant mention de la section compétente de la Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
[4] Prior to the hearing of the judicial review, the respondent Minister applied under section 87 of IRPA for the continued non-disclosure of the section 86 information. Section 87 states:
| Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
87.(1) The Minister may, in the course of a judicial review, make an application to the judge for the non-disclosure of any information with respect to information protected under subsection 86(1) or information considered under section 11, 112 or 115.
(2) Section 78, except for the provisions relating to the obligation to provide a summary and the time limit referred to in paragraph 78(d), applies to the determination of the application, with any modifications that the circumstances require. |
|
Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, L.C. 2001, ch. 27
87. (1) Le ministre peut, dans le cadre d'un contrôle judiciaire, demander au juge d'interdire la divulgation de tout renseignement protégé au titre du paragraphe 86(1) ou pris en compte dans le cadre des articles 11, 112 ou 115.
(2) L'article 78 s'applique à l'examen de la demande, avec les adaptations nécessaires, sauf quant à l'obligation de fournir un résumé et au délai.
|
|
|
|
|
[5] The hearing of the section 87 application, on March 30, 2005, included both public and in camera sessions. I determined that some, but not all of the section 86 information should be subject to a non-disclosure order. See: Ayalogu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 2005 FC 436. The respondent Minister elected to withdraw rather than disclose the information that I determined would not be subject to a non-disclosure order under section 87.
[6] Prior to the outset of the judicial review hearing this morning, on my direction, the registry officer provided counsel for both parties with a copy of Sogi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 171 (C.A.). The Federal Court of Appeal, at paragraph 52 of Sogi, states as follows:
The confidential portion of the IRPA procedure was conducted ex parte. Accordingly, the onus is on the Minister to satisfy the judge that the member's decision not to disclose was correct. If the judge is not satisfied because he or she finds the witness' explanations inadequate for any material reason, the judicial review will be allowed and the decision on inadmissibility will be remitted to the Immigration Division for redetermination
[7] Counsel agree that Sogi is binding on me and that the above-noted statement is dispositive. Consequently, the application for judicial review will be allowed.
[8] Neither counsel suggested a question for certification and none arises in this matter which turns on its particular facts.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT the application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted for redetermination before a differently constituted Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
"Carolyn A. Layden-Stevenson"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9277-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: IKEMFUMA AYALOGU v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 4, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
APPEARANCES:
Chantal Tie FOR APPLICANT
Sonia Barrette FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
South Ottawa Community FOR APPLICANT
Legal Services
Ottawa, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada