Date: 19980421
Docket: IMM-978-97
BETWEEN:
AMARJIT KAUR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
CULLEN J.:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of A. Pereira, an Immigration Officer, dated February 28, 1997, not to recommend to the Governor in Council that an exemption from subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act be granted to the applicant concerning her request for permanent residence being processed from within Canada, as provided under subsection 114(2) of the Act.
[2] At issue is whether the Immigration Officer failed to consider the totality of the evidence before her, and in so doing, made her decision in breach of a duty of fairness owed by her to the applicant.
[3] The applicant contends that the Immigration Officer failed to take into consideration her evidence concerning the effects of the social stigma attached to a widow living alone in Indian society, given the grandparents with whom she has heretofore lived, in India, are increasing in age and infirmity. This argument is based on an excerpt from the Immigration Officer's interview notes, in which she states that "there does not appear to be any hardship in returning to India and applying from abroad."
[4] I have reviewed the remainder of the notes prepared by the Immigration Officer during the interview and am satisfied that she did not fail to take into consideration the evidence and arguments of the applicant concerning the potential for social stigma to be attached to her if she were to be returned to India. It is clear that she indeed considered and rejected the applicant's submissions in this regard.
[5] The duty of fairness owed by the Immigration Officer to the applicant is minimal, when making a recommendation to the Governor in Council concerning its authority to exercise discretion under subjection 114(2): Shah v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 81 F.T.R. 320n; 170 N.R. 238 (C.A.). The duty of fairness does not provide a substantively fair result. It only provides that the Immigration Officer's decision be made in a manner which is procedurally fair. In this case, the Immigration Officer gave the applicant an opportunity to make submissions concerning her request, and appears to have had regard to the entirety of these submissions in arriving at her decision not to recommend that the Governor in Council accede to her request under subsection 114(2).
[6] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[7] The parties did not propose a question for certification.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO B. Cullen
April 21, 1998. J.F.C.C.