YANG CAO Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF, 2017 FC 260

Date: 20170303 Docket: IMM-2496-16 Citation: 2017 FC 260 Ottawa, Ontario, March 3, 2017 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:YANG CAOApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Yang Cao (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Member of the Immigration and Refugee Board,Immigration Division (the “Immigration Division”) to issue an exclusion order pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(

a) and subsection 45(

d) ofthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region who is present in Canada as the holder of awork permit. He had received a permanent resident card in 2006 and that card was due to expire on March 30, 2011. In 2009, he soughtadvice from consultants in Canada about renewal of his permanent resident card.

He surrendered his permanent resident card to animmigration officer at the airport when returning to Canada on July 20, 2013. [3] The Applicant signed a form for renewal of his permanent resident card in blank and left it with the immigration consultantsto be completed and submitted on his behalf. Unknown to him, the immigration consultants provided incorrect information about hisplace of employment, his address and the dates of his entry into and departure from Canada, among other things.

The misinformationcame to the attention of the agents and employees of the Canadian Border Services Agency (the “CBSA”) and on December 18, 2015 theApplicant was reported to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in accordance with subsection 44(1) of the Act.

Ultimately, ahearing was held before the Immigration Division. [4] In its decision, the Immigration Division said that it did not accept the explanations of the Applicant for his choice to providea signed blank form to the consultants, to be submitted to the Canadian authorities on his behalf. [5] The Applicant argues that his right to procedural fairness was breached because the Immigration Division improperlyadmitted unsworn opinion evidence relating to an analysis of frauds committed by immigration consultants.

He also pleads a breach ofprocedural fairness arising from the admission of improperly translated Chinese language documents that were allegedly admitted incontravention of Rule 25 of the Immigration Division Rules, SOR/2002-229 (the “Immigration Division Rules”) and in the absence ofany explanation for their admission. [6] The Applicant further submits that he reasonably signed the documents in blank and is entitled to the benefit of the exceptionfor relief against misrepresentation as discussed in the decision of Medel v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 2F.C. 345 (F.C.A.).

He argues that he actively took steps to avoid a misrepresentation and reasonably did not expect the consultant to filefalse information. [7] Finally, the Applicant argues that he had a legitimate expectation, based on assurances of an immigration officer at theairport, that issues relating to his permanent residence would be resolved if he voluntarily gave up his existing permanent resident card. [8] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the “Respondent”) submits that no reviewable error arises fromthe Immigration Division’s reliance upon the documents presented in the Chinese language.

The Applicant had knowledge of thesedocuments and suffered no prejudice. [9] Further, the Respondent argues that the Applicant accepted the risks of signing a blank form. Ultimately, that form containedmisrepresentations and the Applicant did not qualify for the narrow exception of submitting false information, believing it was true. [10] The Respondent submits that no representations were made to the Applicant about his future entry into Canada, if hesurrendered his permanent resident card.

He argues that the Applicant has not shown that the assurances given were unambiguous. [11] The procedural fairness issue raised by the Applicant is reviewable on the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada(Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at paragraph 43. The issue of legitimateexpectation is another aspect of procedural fairness and is likewise reviewable on the standard of correctness. [12] The overall merits of the decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Eberhardt v.

Canada(Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2013), 441 F.T.R. 170 at paragraph 18. [13] On the basis of the record that was before the Immigration Division, including the oral evidence of the Applicant and hiswife, I find nothing to support the argument of an alleged breach of procedural fairness arising from the Immigration Division’sconsideration of the documents in the Chinese language.

[14] The Applicant understands the Chinese language. He was aware of the contents of the documents and suffered no prejudicefrom their consideration by the Immigration Division. [15] The doctrine of legitimate expectations relates to procedure, not to the particular result of an administrative process; see thedecision in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at paragraph 26.

Inany event, I agree with the arguments of the Respondent that the Applicant failed to show that unambiguous promises were made to himby an Immigration Officer at the Vancouver International Airport or that he was induced to voluntarily surrender his permanent residentcard. [16] Finally, I turn to the Immigration Division’s finding that the Applicant had made a misrepresentation with respect to thecontents of his permanent resident application.

Subsection 11(1) of the Act provides as follows: A foreign national must, before enteringCanada, apply to an officer for a visa or forany other document required by theregulations. The visa or document may beissued if, following an examination, theofficer is satisfied that the foreign national isnot inadmissible and meets the requirementsof this Act. L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée auCanada, demander à l’agent les visa et autresdocuments requis par règlement.

L’agent peutles délivrer sur preuve, à la suite d’uncontrôle, que l’étranger n’est pas interdit deterritoire et se conforme à la présente loi. [17] The Applicant bore the burden of presenting evidence to support the renewal of his permanent resident status. This means hewas required to submit correct information. He did not do so. [18] I have considered the material before the Immigration Division, as well as the oral and written submissions of the parties tothis application for judicial review.

I am satisfied that the Applicant has failed to show any reviewable error by the Immigration Divisionand the application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arises. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2496-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: YANG CAO v. MPSEPPLACE OF HEARING: vancouver, british columbiaDATE OF HEARING: december 14, 2016JUDGMENT AND reasons: HENEGHAN J.

DATED: March 3, 2017 APPEARANCES: Peter A Chapman For The Applicant Brett Nash For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Chen & Leung Barristers & Solicitors Vancouver, British Columbia For The Applicant William F. Pentney, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent