2018 FC, 2018 FC 1240

Date: 20181211 Docket: IMM-2642-18 Citation: 2018 FC 1240 Vancouver, British Columbia, December 11, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:JAGWINDER SINGH AND SARABJIT KAURApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Jagwinder Singh (the “Principal Applicant”) and his wife Sarabjit Kaur (collectively “the Applicants”) seek judicial review of adecision made by a Visa Officer (the “Officer”), refusing their applications for temporary resident visas. [2] The Applicants are citizens of India.

They applied for temporary resident visas for the purpose of visiting a cousin of the PrincipalApplicant who lives in British Columbia. [3] The Officer refused the applications because he was not satisfied that the Applicants would leave Canada at the end of the periodauthorized for their stay, pursuant to subsection 179(

b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the“Regulations”). In the notes to file, the Officer commented upon the Applicants’ lack of travel history, insufficiency of proof of financialresources and the purpose of their visit to Canada. [4] The Applicants now argue that the decision of the Officer fails to meet the standard of reasonableness, as discussed in Dunsmuir v.New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.

They also submit that by failing to give them an opportunity to addressconcerns, the Officer breached the duty of procedural fairness. [5] For his part, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) argues that the decision is reasonable, on the basis ofthe evidence before the Officer.

He further submits that the duty of fairness arising in respect of a visa application is at the lower end ofthe spectrum, that the Officer was not obliged to convoke an interview and no breach of procedural fairness occurred in this case. [6] Issues of procedural fairness are reviewable upon the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada (Citizenship andImmigration) v.

Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339. [7] According to the decision in Dunsmuir, supra, the standard of reasonableness requires that a decision be transparent, justifiable andintelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible on the law and the facts. [8] I agree with the submissions of the Respondent that there was no breach of procedural fairness in this case. The Applicants had theopportunity to submit the information about their personal circumstances, including their financial circumstances.

They did so, by meansof a lengthy affidavit that was submitted with the application for the temporary resident visa.

The fact that the Officer did not invite themfor an interview does not, in this case, give rise to a breach of procedural fairness. [9] However, upon the basis of the evidence before the Officer, I am not persuaded that the decision in question meets the applicablestandard of review, that is reasonableness. [10] It is not clear to me that the Officer took into account all the evidence that was submitted, in particular the evidence concerning thefinancial circumstances of the Applicants. [11] I am not satisfied that the Officer reasonably assessed the Applicants’ travel history, thereby committing a reviewable error, asdiscussed in the decision in Dhanoa v.

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 729. [12] In the result, this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter remitted to adifferent officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT in IMM-2642-18 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and thematter remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising. “E. Heneghan” Judge

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-2642-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: JAGWINDER SINGH AND SARABJIT KAUR v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA DATE OF HEARING: december 10, 2018 JUDGMENT AND REASONS HENEGHAN J. DATED: december 11, 2018 APPEARANCES : Navratan Singh Fateh For The ApplicantS Sarah A. Pearson For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Navratan Singh Fateh Surrey, British Columbia For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent