2016 FC, 2016 FC 1327

Date: 20161130 Dockets: IMM-1723-16 IMM-1724-16 Citation: 2016 FC 1327 Ottawa, Ontario, November 30, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore Docket: IMM-1723-16 BETWEEN: KHERAD, FATEMEH JAVDAN Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Docket: IMM-1724-16 AND BETWEEN: SHAKERI, HASSAN Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Nature of the Matter [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review by the Applicants pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], of a decision rendered by an officer of the Visa

Section [Officer] of the Embassy of Canada in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates [UAE] dated March 21, 2016, wherein the Officer, pursuant to paragraph 179 (

b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], refused the Applicants’ application for temporary visa on the basis that he was not satisfied they would leave Canada at the end of an authorized stay. II. Facts [ 2 ] The Applicants, a husband (IMM-1724-16, aged 54) and his wife (IMM-1723-16, aged 50), are citizens of Iran and currently reside in Dubai, UAE.

They are parents of four children, aged 19, 15, 12 and 9, who are Iranian citizens and enrolled in school in Dubai. [ 3 ] On August 14, 2009, the male Applicant’s first application for permanent residence in the investor class was denied because he had failed to provide required documents. [ 4 ] On May 7, 2014, the male Applicant’s second application for permanent residence in the Immigrant Investor Program was terminated when the program closed following the federal Economic Action Plan of 2014. [ 5 ] On March 16, 2015, the male Applicant applied to the Quebec Investor Program. [ 6 ] On February 15, 2016, the male Applicant was summoned to an interview scheduled to take place in Montréal on April 13, 2016. [ 7 ] On or about March 6, 2016, the Applicants submitted an application to the Embassy of Canada in Abu Dhabi for a temporary resident visa, in order to attend an interview in Montréal.

III. Decision [ 8 ] On March 21, 2016, the Officer denied the Applicants’ temporary resident visa application on the grounds that he was not satisfied that they would leave Canada at the end of the allowed stay, considering their travel history and the purpose of their visit. Regarding the male Applicant, the Global Case Management System [GCMS] further states the Officer’s following reasons: Refused. PA was refused previously in 2010 in the NV category. He is not a resident of the UAE but is here on a tourist visa to apply to TR to visit Quebec. No ties to UAE. Not satisfied he is a BF visitor. IV. Issues

[ 9 ] This matter raises the following issues; all of which will be considered below: 1. Is the application for judicial review moot? 2. Did the Officer’s decision breach the Canada-Quebec Accord? 3. Did the Officer err in failing to consider all the evidence provided by the Applicants? [ 10 ] The applicable standard of review for a visa officer’s decision in this case is reasonableness. Given the expertise of the visa officers and the discretionary nature of the decisions, the Court should show deference in reviewing such decisions. V. Relevant Provisions [ 11 ] Sections 11(1) and 22 of the IRPA , and

section 179 of the IRPR find application in the case before the Court: Application before entering Canada Visa et documents 11

(1) A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. 11

(1) L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les visa et autres documents requis par règlement. L’agent peut les délivrer sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, que l’étranger n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi. Temporary resident Résident temporaire 22

(1) A foreign national becomes a temporary resident if an officer is satisfied that the foreign national has applied for that status, has met the obligations set out in paragraph 20(1)(b), is not inadmissible and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1). 22

(1) Devient résident temporaire l’étranger dont l’agent constate qu’il a demandé ce statut, s’est déchargé des obligations prévues à l’alinéa 20(1)b), n’est pas interdit de territoire et ne fait pas l’objet d’une déclaration visée au paragraphe 22.1(1). Dual intent Double intention

(2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.

(2) L’intention qu’il a de s’établir au Canada n’empêche pas l’étranger de devenir résident temporaire sur preuve qu’il aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée. Temporary Resident Visa Visa de résident temporaire Issuance Délivrance 179 An officer shall issue a temporary resident visa to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that the foreign national 179 L’agent délivre un visa de résident temporaire à l’étranger si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis : (

a) has applied in accordance with these Regulations for a temporary resident visa as a member of the visitor, worker or student class;

a) l’étranger en a fait, conformément au présent règlement, la demande au

titre de la catégorie des visiteurs, des travailleurs ou des étudiants; (

b) will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2;

b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée qui lui est applicable au

titre de la

section 2; (

c) holds a passport or other document that they may use to enter the country that issued it or another country;

c) il est titulaire d’un passeport ou autre document qui lui permet d’entrer dans le pays qui l’a délivré ou dans un autre pays; (

d) meets the requirements applicable to that class;

d) il se conforme aux exigences applicables à cette catégorie; (

e) is not inadmissible;

e) il n’est pas interdit de territoire; (

f) meets the requirements of subsections 30(2) and (3), if they must submit to a medical examination under paragraph 16(2) (

b) of the Act; and

f) s’il est tenu de se soumettre à une visite médicale en application du paragraphe 16(2) de la Loi, il satisfait aux exigences prévues aux paragraphes 30(2) et (3); (

g) is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Act.

g) il ne fait pas l’objet d’une déclaration visée au paragraphe 22.1(1) de la Loi. VI. Submissions of the Parties A. Submissions of the Applicants

[12] The Applicants submit that the decision rendered by the Officer does not meet the standard of reasonableness. They argue thatthe Officer failed to take into consideration all the evidence provided before refusing the visa and; thus, his decision lacked adequatereasons. He concluded that they had no ties in the UAE, although the principal Applicant has been working for the same company inDubai for 20 years; and, had provided detailed evidence from his employer. He also ignored the fact that their four children wouldremain in Dubai.

He failed to address the purpose of the visa application, namely to attend an interview scheduled in Montréal in thecontext of the Quebec Investor Program. [13] The Applicants further submit that the Officer’s decision is in breach of the Canada-Quebec Accord. The Officer refused toissue a temporary resident visa notwithstanding the Applicants’ fulfillment of Quebec’s selection requirements, although there was noevidence of his inadmissibility. B.

Submissions of the Respondent [14] First, the Respondent submits the application is moot, considering that the purpose for the temporary resident visa was toattend an interview on April 13, 2016, and that, since there was no evidence that the interview was postponed, at the time of submissionof the files to the Federal Court. [15] Second, the Respondent argues there was no breach of the Canada-Quebec Accord.

The federal government has thejurisdiction to admit or reject immigrants after they have met the Quebec selection criteria. [16] Third, the Respondent claims that the Officer’s findings and decision were reasonable. The Officer’s inference that theApplicants could decide to stay in Canada after their visa expire was justified by the Applicants’ only travel outside UAE and Iran, theirlack of ties to UAE, and their past attempts at obtaining permanent residence in Canada. VII. Analysis A.

Is the application for judicial review moot? [17] As per Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342, the Court must determine if thecase raises a live issue, and if not, if it should exercise its discretion to hear the case. [18] The Court is satisfied that there is still a live controversy and that the application is therefore not moot. The Applicants’intention of seeking a temporary resident visa to set another interview and to visit Canada has not been set aside. As pointed out by theApplicants, the Officer’s decision could affect further visa requests negatively. B.

Did the Officer’s decision breach the Canada-Quebec Accord? [19] The Canada-Quebec Accord reflects the provincial jurisdiction to select the immigrants whom the federal government wouldadmit on its territory. The federal visa officer is not bound by the Quebec Investor Program in order to authorize visitors to Canada uponsummon to an interview (Biao v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCA 43; Qing v Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1224). [20] Immigration is a shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments.

It is within its jurisdiction for Quebec toselect immigrants on its territory; and, thus, to reach its immigration objectives; however, the federal government has exclusivejurisdiction regarding admissibility determination pursuant to Canadian legislation. It is of great importance that each level ofgovernment fulfills its constitutional role. C. Did the Officer err in failing to consider all the evidence provided by theApplicants? [21] The Court finds the Officer erred by ignoring evidence contradictory to his conclusion.

As recorded to the GCMS, theOfficer’s findings do not fulfill the standard of reasonableness. [22] The Officer is not satisfied that the Applicants would leave Canada at the end of a stay because they lack ties to the UAE, butfails to address the fact that they would be leaving behind them four children of school age and to specify the implication of the maleApplicant which he has with the company, where he has been employed for 20 years. [23] In light of the reasons provided by the Officer, the Court cannot conclude that the decision rendered is reasonable. VIII.

Conclusion [24] The application for judicial review is granted. The decision is set aside, and the matter is returned to a different officer forredetermination. JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review be granted. The decision is set aside, and the matter is returned to a different officer for consideration anew. There is no serious question of general importance to be certified. "Michel M.J. Shore" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1723-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: KHERAD, FATEMEH JAVDAN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND DOCKET: IMM-1724-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: SHAKERI, HASSAN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: November 21, 2016 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J.

DATED: November 30, 2016 APPEARANCES : Isabelle Sauriol-Nadeau For The ApplicantS Alain Langlois For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Bertrand, Deslauriers Avocats Inc. Montréal, Quebec For The ApplicantS William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec For The Respondent