2016 FC, 2016 FC 1232

Date: 20161103 Docket: IMM-1831-16 Citation: 2016 FC 1232 Toronto, Ontario, November 3, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:DAWN ANDREA FARLEYApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Ms.

Dawn Andrea Farley (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision made by a Senior Immigration Officer (the“Officer”) on April 13, 2016, dismissing her application for permanent residence made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds(“H&C”), pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Guyana. She entered Canada in 1999 and was removed in August, 2013. During her sojourn inCanada, the Applicant gave birth to two children, a son born in 1999 and a daughter born in 2003.

The children remained in Canadafollowing the removal of the Applicant and, with the written consent of the Applicant, reside with their maternal grandparents in Canada. [3] The Applicant applied for recognition in Canada as a Convention refugee, in 2001. Her application was unsuccessful. A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application was denied in 2011.

The decision now under review was the third H&C application submitted bythe Applicant. [4] In her most recent application for permanent residence on H&C grounds, the Applicant presented submissions based on thebest interests of her children, family relationships and country conditions in Guyana. [5] In her decision, the Officer acknowledged the inherent difficulties for the children arising from their separation from theApplicant. However, she noted that the children are lovingly supported by their grandparents in Canada.

The Officer ultimatelyconcluded that she was not satisfied that the children’s “best interest will be negatively affected by the outcome” of the Applicant’s H&Capplication. [6] The Officer also considered the situation of the Applicant.

She noted that the Applicant has two adult sons living in Guyana.She observed that there was insufficient evidence submitted by the Applicant to address the “ability and willingness” of these adultchildren to provide support to the Applicant in Guyana. [7] The Applicant now submits that the Officer erred in applying the hardship test when assessing the best interests of herchildren.

She also argues that the Officer erred by failing to adequately consider the evidence submitted. [8] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the Officer applied the right test andcommitted no reviewable error in her assessment of the evidence before her. [9] An H&C decision involves the exercise of discretion, as informed by the statutory language. An H&C decision is reviewableon the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Kanthasamy v.

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 ,[2015] 3 S.C.R. 909 at paragraph 44. [10] The standard of reasonableness, as discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 47, requires that a decision be justifiable, transparent and intelligible and fall within a rangeof possible, acceptable outcomes.

A decision meets that standard when the reasons are clear, precise and intelligible, and illustrate howthe decision was reached; see the decision in Dunsmuir, supra. [11] I agree with the submissions of the Respondent that the Officer committed no error in her assessment of the best interests ofthe children. The Officer was not obliged to use formulaic words. It is sufficient that she identified factors specific to each of the twochildren and assessed them.

She was not satisfied that the best interests of the children depended upon reunification with their mother inCanada. [12] I see no error in the manner in which the Officer dealt with the personal circumstances of the Applicant. She noted an absenceof evidence.

The burden lay upon the Applicant to adduce whatever evidence was necessary in order to support her claim for the positiveexercise of discretion pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Act. [13] While the circumstances of the Applicant invite sympathy, I am not satisfied that she has shown any reviewable error by theOfficer in the process leading to the negative decision now under review. [14] In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising.

JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1831-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: DAWN ANDREA FARLEY v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: toronto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: november 1, 2016 JUDGMENT AND reasons: HENEGHAN J. DATED: november 3, 2016 APPEARANCES : Matthiew S. Malaga Reano For The Applicant Melissa Mathieu For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Matthiew S.

Malaga Reano MM Immigration Law Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent