Date: 19980501
Docket: IMM-3005-97
Between :
SURJIT SINGH, currently residing at 22 Willowridge,
apartment 605, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9R 3Y9,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION, c/o Justice Department,
Guy Favreau Complex, 200 West René-Lévesque,
East Tower, 5th Floor, Montreal, Quebec, H2Z 1X4,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] This is an application for judicial review whereby the applicant is seeking an order of mandamus ordering the respondent to provide an answer to the applicant's application for permanent residence filed on June 3, 1995.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of India born on October 13, 1967. He came to Canada on December 19, 1992, and was granted refugee status on April 25, 1995. He says that he then applied for landing pursuant to subsection 46.04(1) of the Immigration Act (the "Act") on June 3, 1995. He states that he had one interview with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service ("CSIS") on May 30, 1996, and a second interview on April 15, 1997.1 No decision has yet been made.
[3] The applicant's last CSIS meeting was held in mid-April, 1997. Sheila Bleiwas Oakes, Security Analyst at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, recites the chronology in the applicant's file in her affidavit, filed herein on March 9, 1998, and then explains that:
| 12. On July 31, 1997, Security Review received a report from CSIS with respect to the security interviews carried out on the Applicant. |
| 13. The Applicant's file now forms part of the backlog of cases at Security Review and it is estimated that Security Review will be in a position to make a recommendation to the local CIC on the Applicant's application for permanent residence in approximately eight to ten months. |
| 14. Depending on the nature of the recommendation made by Security Review, the local CIC may or may not conduct a further interview with the Applicant before rendering its decision on the latter's application for permanent residence in Canada. |
[4] It would appear to me that the applicant's application is being duly processed, given that although his application for permanent residence was filed in June, 1995, it has only been eight months since Security Review received the CSIS report. In my opinion, this does not place the Minister's actions outside of the timeframe in subsection 46.04(6) of the Act, which imposes a duty to decide on the application "as soon as possible". It seems to me that the delay in this instance is merely a systemic one, and there is no evidence of unreasonable delay. I would thus follow Justice Muldoon's reasoning in Carrion v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1989] 2 F.C. 584 (F.C.T.D.), wherein he held that systemic delays cannot be attributed to the respondent Minister. Again, as Justice Muldoon states at page 589:
| The Court cannot find, as the applicant's counsel urges, that the Minister is delaying or declining to perform any legal duty. It is trite law that such a finding is a prerequisite for mandamus. [. . .] |
[5] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed. However, the applicant may re-apply for leave to commence an application for judicial review seeking similar relief after February 6, 1999, which is one month after the expiration of the ten-month delay referred to by Sheila Bleiwas Oakes in paragraph 13 of her affidavit.
[6] This matter raises no question of general importance for the purpose of certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 1, 1998
__________________
1 Sheila Bleiwas Oakes, Security Analyst at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, states in her affidavit filed herein on March 9, 1998, that the applicant submitted his application on June 27, 1995, and that the two CSIS meetings were held on May 5, 1996 and April 16, 1997.