IMM-833-96
BETWEEN:
JOSE MANUEL RESENDES ARAUJO,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J:
This application is for the judicial review of the opinion of the Minister to the effect that the applicant constitutes a danger to the public in Canada, pursuant to subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act ("the Act").
The applicant is a twenty-five year old citizen of Portugal who landed in Canada, on December 11, 1974. He was charged and found guilty of six different offences from February 1992 to June 1994 including the offence of importing a narcotic. However, he was merely sentenced to ten months for that offence and only served seven days for the offence of mischief under $1,000 and his sentences were suspended for the other offences.
The applicant claims that the Minister erred in law by failing to consider the lightness of the sentences to be an insufficient evidentiary foundation to base an opinion that the applicant would constitute a danger to the public in Canada. In his application record, the applicant raised several Charter arguments which were rendered moot following the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Jeffrey Hugh Williams (A-855-96 - April 11, 1997).
That decision makes it quite clear that the test is not whether the permanent resident is a danger to the public, but whether the Minister is of the opinion that he is such a danger. In other words, the Court's opinion matters not: the Minister's opinion is a subjective decision which cannot be judicially reviewed unless it is established that the Minister acted in bad faith or erred in law or acted upon the basis of irrelevant considerations.
In my view, the mere fact that the Minister does not appear to have given the same weight to the lightness of the sentences that others think he ought to have done does not show that he acted in bad faith or erred in law or acted upon the basis of irrelevant considerations. It is common ground that the applicant, a non-citizen committed offences carrying possible sentences of ten years or more and that an order for his deportation was issued in accordance with the law and due process. There is no indication that the requirements of fairness were not met.
Consequently, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
O T T A W A
June 6, 1997
Judge