LUCKY UBINI ITSEKOR Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2020 FC 294

Date: 20200224 Docket: IMM-2461-19 Citation: 2020 FC 294 Ottawa, Ontario, February 24, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed BETWEEN: LUCKY UBINI ITSEKORApplicantand THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I.

Overview [1] This case concerns the decision of a visa officer (the "“Officer”") of the High Commission of Canada in the United Kingdom("“U.K.”"), dated March 25, 2019, to deny the Applicant’s temporary resident visa ("“TRV”") application, pursuant to subsection 179(b)of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 ("“IRPR”"). [2] The Applicant is a 46-year-old citizen of Nigeria. At the beginning of March 2019, the Applicant submitted a TRV application tovisit his estranged wife and four children in Canada for two weeks from June 4 to June 17, 2019.

However, the Officer was not satisfiedthat the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay, and refused the TRV application. [3] The Applicant submits that the Officer failed to properly consider the evidence and made findings in an arbitrary and capriciousmanner. [4] For the reasons that follow, the Officer’s decision was reasonable. This application for judicial review is dismissed. II. Facts [5] Mr. Lucky Ubini Itsekor (the "“Applicant”") is a 46-year-old citizen of Nigeria. The Applicant is estranged from his wife, Mrs.Mary Itsekor, who lives in Canada with four of their children. Mrs.

Itsekor, along with two of her children, Angel and Annabel (ages 9and 7), are Convention refugees, and they have submitted an application for permanent residence. The other two children, Anthonetteand Isabella (ages 8 and 3), respectively hold U.S. and Canadian citizenship. A fifth child, Precious (age 13), lives in Nigeria. [6] On or about March 2, 2019, the Applicant submitted a TRV application to visit his children and estranged spouse in Canada. TheApplicant stated that the purpose of the trip was to visit his family, and included a letter of invitation from Mrs.

Itsekor among othersupporting documentation, such as bank statements and registration documents for his company. [7] By decision dated March 25, 2019, the Officer denied the Applicant’s TRV application. The Officer was not satisfied that theApplicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay based on his "“family ties in Canada and in [his] country of residence.”" TheOfficer’s brief reasons in the Global Case Management System ("“GCMS”") state: To visit estranged spouse and children who are making refugee claim in Cda.

While noting the importance of familyrelationships and the best interests of the child, I note that the children have access to the mother and that they are able tocommunicate through telephone or the internet. I also note that the strong family ties in Canada for the applicant means thatI am not satisfied he will be a BF visitor to Canada. [8] This is the underlying decision on this application for judicial review. III. Preliminary Issue: Extrinsic Evidence [9] The Respondent submits that the Applicant has attempted to place extrinsic evidence before the Court.

For example, Exhibit "“B”"of the Applicant’s affidavit was not before the Officer. The Respondent submits such evidence should not be admissible, as the judicialreview of a decision must be based only on the evidence before the decision-maker (Lalonde v Canada (Canada Revenue Agency), 2008FC 183 at para 66; Canada (Attorney General) v McKenna, (FCA), [1999] 1 F.C. 401 (C.A.)). [10] I agree with the Respondent’s position. Pages 12, 13, 17, 19-24, and 32-35 of the Application Record are inadmissible as evidenceand any submissions relying on these pages will not be considered. IV. Issue and Standard of Review

[11] The issue on this application for judicial review is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable. [12] It is well-established that a reasonableness standard applies for a visa officer’s refusal to issue a TRV application: Doret v Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 447 at para 19; Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 465 at para 8. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] sets out a revised framework for standard of review.

However, I see no need to depart from the standard of reviewfollowed in previous case law, as the application of the Vavilov framework results in the same standard of review: reasonableness. [13] As noted by the majority in Vavilov, "“a reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain ofanalysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker,”" (Vavilov at para 85).

Furthermore, "“thereviewing court must be satisfied that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit therequisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency,”" (Vavilov at para 100). V. Analysis [14] I note that the Applicant was self-represented on the record, and did not make an appearance at the hearing to present oralarguments. [15] In his written submissions, the Applicant submits that the Officer erred by making a crucial factual error in considering theevidence.

The Applicant had provided supporting documentation to indicate that his estranged spouse and children were Conventionrefugees in Canada. However, the Officer erroneously noted that Mrs. Itsekor and the children were "“making refugee claims”",indicating that they were refugee claimants, not Convention refugees. The Applicant submits that the Officer may have concluded thatthe Applicant was making a trip to Canada in order to join his family’s refugee claim. [16] The Applicant further submits that the best interests of the children ("“BIOC”") were not properly considered by the Officer.

TheApplicant incorrectly submits an issue concerning the Officer’s fettering of discretion, which in my view, is not applicable to the case atbar. As such, it will not be discussed. [17] The Respondent submits that the onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Officer that he will return to Nigeria at the end of theauthorized period, and that the Officer is presumed to have considered all the evidence presented (Khosa v Canada (Citizenship andImmigration), 2010 FC 83 at para 36; Florea v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598(F.C.A.) (Q.L.)).

The Respondent submits that the Officer need not have specifically mentioned the Applicant’s employment or travelhistory. The Respondent also argues that the Officer noted the Applicant had a very strong connection to Canada, since his estrangedspouse and children were living in Canada.

In response to the Applicant’s submission that the Officer suggested that the Applicant maytry to join the family’s refugee claim, the Respondent submits that this is inaccurate because it is not reflected in the Officer’s reasons. [18] With respect to the BIOC, the Respondent submits that the Officer is not required to assess humanitarian and compassionate("“H&C”") factors in a TRV application (Fakhri Adhari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 854 at para 33;Farhat v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1275 at para 36; Afridi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC193 at para 21). [19] I agree with the Respondent that the Officer was not required to consider the best interests of the child as part of assessing the TRVapplication.

Nonetheless, the Officer did address "“family relationships and the best interests of the child”" in stating that "“the childrenhave access to the mother and that they are able to communicate through telephone or the internet”". [20] Although the Officer’s reasons are brief, I find that the Officer’s decision is reasonable. The Respondent cites Watts v Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 158 [Watts] for this Court to consider the administrative setting in which numerousTRV applications are granted each year.

In Watts, the Court took judicial notice of the following (Watts at para 22): The Court is asked to and takes judicial notice of the administrative setting in which the decision-maker reached herDecisions. As counsel for the Minister submitted, the Minister’s officers approved 1,438,633 applications for temporaryvisitors visas in 2017, according to the 2018 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration. I accept that the Minister’sofficers presumably reviewed numerous additional temporary visa applications that were refused, as with the ones in thiscase.

These are very significant numbers and, of course, each could be subject to the same level of scrutiny on judicialreview. [21] Furthermore, the Respondent argues that shorter reasons in a TRV application may provide sufficient justification in comparison todecisions concerning a refugee claim or an application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate ("“H&C”")grounds. I agree.

In the latter cases, the interests at stake are undoubtedly much higher, where the applicant may be facing a risk ofpersecution or torture if returned back to their country of origin, or facing hardship and removal from an established life in Canada. [22] In the case at bar, the Officer justified the refusal of the Applicant’s TRV application by stating their concern that the Applicantwas not a bona fide visitor due to his strong family ties in Canada, as his estranged spouse and four of his children live in Canada. [23] For the reasons stated above, the Officer’s decision is reasonable. VI.

Certified Question [24] Counsel for the Respondent stated that there is no question for certification and I concur.

VII. Conclusion [ 25 ] The Officer’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s TRV application is reasonable. This application for judicial review is dismissed. JUDGMENT in IMM-2461-19 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1 . The application for judicial review is dismissed. 2 . There is no question to certify. "Shirzad A. Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2461-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: LUCKY UBINI ITSEKOR v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 11, 2020 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: AHMED J.

DATED: February 24, 2020 APPEARANCES : Self-represented (no appearance) For The Applicant Kareena Wilding For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : BLANK BLANK Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent