IMM-144-96
B E T W E E N:
INTHUKIRI PARAMALINGAM
BAVEEN PARAMALINGAM
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.:
This is an application for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Area Manager, Canada Immigration Centre, Scarborough, dated December 13, 1995. By that decision, the Area Manager determined that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to allow the applicants to submit an inland application for permanent residence in Canada pursuant to subsection 114(2) of the Immigration Act1. No reasons were provided in support of this decision letter.
FACTS
Inthukiri Paramalingam, the principal applicant, is a citizen of Sri Lanka. She arrived in Canada on August 20, 1993 at which time she made a claim to Convention refugee status. On March 30, 1994, the principal applicant and her minor son, Baveen, the dependant applicant, were advised that their claims for Convention refugee status had been denied. Her application for leave to commence an application for judicial review in this Court was also denied. The applicants then applied for consideration under the Post-Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada Class (PDRCC). This application was also refused.
In support of the subject application, it was noted that the principal applicant's parents, six siblings, niece and two nephews were all either permanent residents in Canada or citizens of Canada. It was observed that the principal applicant appears to be the "only family member in Canada without permanent resident status." There was also evidence to establish that the family of the applicants was financially successful here. Furthermore, it was evident that the family had formed social, cultural and spiritual ties in Canada. The husband of the principal applicant, presently in Moscow, is seeking sponsored immigration to Canada.
On December 12th, 1995, the principal applicant was interviewed by Veronica Huang an Immigration Counsellor at the Scarborough Canada Immigration Centre ("C.I.C.") in the presence of the principal applicant's lawyer. On December 14th, 1995 additional written submissions were forwarded to Counsellor Huang. On January 3, 1996, the applicants received the negative decision letter which forms the subject matter of this application.
ISSUES
1. By her conduct at the interview, did Immigration Counsellor Huang breach the duty of fairness to the applicants?
2. By her decision consequent upon that interview, did Immigration Counsellor Huang commit reviewable error by failing to give due consideration to all of the relevant evidence adduced at the interview?
ANALYSIS
| 1. Fairness |
I am not persuaded on this record that a breach of the duty of fairness has been shown. My perusal of the evidence satisfies me that Officer Huang did not refuse to receive evidence, nor was the principal applicant precluded from responding to any concerns expressed by Officer Huang. The affidavit evidence clearly shows that the applicants were given a full opportunity to present their case and to answer Officer Huang's questions concerning the risks to be faced in Sri Lanka.
2. Consideration of all of the relevant evidence
Officer Huang made her recommendations to dismiss the application herein in the following terms2: "Subject has only been in Canada for 2 years. She has family members in Sri Lanka. She had relied on social welfare for most of her time in Canada since entry. She has not shown evidence of establishment or financial stability. Economic dependency does not appear to exist between subject and a permanent resident or a citizen of Canada. Her family ties alone do not warrant recommendation otherwise. The basis of her fear to return to Sri Lanka has already been addressed by the Refugee Board and the PCDO unit." In my view the above findings of fact are supported by the record herein. I think also that the inference drawn from those facts by Officer Huang, namely that the principal applicant has not adduced "evidence of establishment or financial stability" was reasonably open to her on this record. I also agree with the further inference which she drew from the evidence adduced - ie - "Economic dependency does not appear to exist between subject and a permanent resident or a citizen of Canada". On this basis, I have concluded that Officer Huang duly considered all of the evidence adduced and, in so doing, did not commit reviewable error.3
For all of the above reasons, I would dismiss the within application.
CERTIFICATION
Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to Section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree with counsel. Accordingly no question is certified.
"Darrel V. Heald"
D.J.
Toronto, Ontario
June 12, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-144-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: INTHUKIRI PARAMALINGAM
BAVEEN PARAMALINGAM
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 10, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D.J.
DATED: JUNE 12, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Jegan Mohan
For the Applicants
Sally Thomas
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jegan Mohan
Mohan & Mohan
Barristers & Solicitors
3300 McNicoll Avenue
Suite 225
Scarborough, Ontario
M1V 5J6
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-144-96
Between:
INTHUKIRI PARAMALINGAM
BAVEEN PARAMALINGAM
For the Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
For the Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 That subsection reads as follows: "The Governor in Council may, by regulation, authorize the Minister to exempt any person from any regulation made under subsection (1) or otherwise facilitate the admission of any person where the Minister is satisfied that the person should be exempted from that regulation or that the person's admission should be facilitated owing to the existence of compassionate or humanitarian considerations."
2 See exhibit "F" to affidavit of Veronica Huang sworn February 22, 1996
3 Compare Aguebor v. M.E.I. (1993) 160 N.R. 315 See also Ahmed v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration IMM-3912-96 - May 8, 1997, per Richard, J.