MANVEER SINGH Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2021 FC 931

Date: 20210909 Docket: IMM-2129-20 Citation: 2021 FC 931 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, September 9, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:MANVEER SINGHApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent AMENDED JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Manveer Singh (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of the decision made by the Minister’s Delegate, pursuant to paragraph40(1)(

a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "“Act”"), refusing his application for a study permit. TheMinister’s Delegate determined that the Applicant had misrepresented facts in his application. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of India. The Reviewing Officer determined that an income tax return submitted by the Applicant wasfraudulent. Neither the Reviewing Officer nor the Minister’s Delegate were satisfied with the Applicant’s response to the ProceduralFairness Letter sent to him about the income tax return. [3] The Applicant now argues that the Minister’s Delegate is unreasonable.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the"“Respondent”") submits that it is not. [4] The decision is subject to review upon the standard of reasonableness. [5] According to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Vavilov(2019), 2019 SCC 65 , 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.), the standard of reasonableness presumptively applies to administrativedecisions, including decisions made under the Act, except where legislative intent or the rule of law suggests otherwise; see Vavilov,supra at paragraph 23. [6] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review "“bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification,transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on thatdecision”"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [7] Considering the evidence in the Certified Tribunal Record, including the Global Case Management System, GCMS, I am not satisfiedthat the decision meets the applicable standard of review. [8] The Minister Delegate’s reasons do not clearly explain why the Applicant’s explanation to the procedural fairness letter wasunacceptable.

The reasons of the decision maker do not meet the standard of transparency. [9] In the result, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to a different decisionmaker for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT in IMM-2129-20 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Minister’ Delegate is set asideand the matter is remitted to a different decision maker for redetermination, there is no question for certification arising. “E.

Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2129-20

STYLE OF CAUSE: MANVEER SINGH v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 AMENDED SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 APPEARANCES : Wennie Lee FOR THE APPLICANT David Cranton FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Lee & Company Immigration Advocacy, Counsel and Litigation Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT