ROGELIO LAMUG GUILLERMO CHRISTINE NAIOME ALAPAY GUILLERMO Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP, 2017 FC 61

Date: 20170118 Dockets: IMM-2759-16 IMM-2760-16 Citation: 2017 FC 61 Toronto, Ontario, January 18, 2017 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN:ROGELIO LAMUG GUILLERMO CHRISTINE NAIOME ALAPAY GUILLERMOApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIPRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The Applicants, father and daughter, are citizens of the Philippines.

They filed to visit their respective wife and mother of theApplicants, who is a live-in caregiver for an employer and his well-established family. [2] As the Visa Officer, who assessed the Applicants’ application, was not satisfied that the Applicants would want to return to thePhilippines but rather would wish to remain in Canada with their wife and mother respectively; and, find opportunities herein, the VisaOfficer denied the Applicants’ request. [3] The Applicants have submitted to the Court that the Visa Officer’s decision was unreasonable due to the evidence presented to theofficer; they, therefore, request that the Court set aside the officer’s decision for this application to be considered anew by a differentofficer. [4] Subsequent to a review of the file and its evidence, the Court considers that indeed the decision of the Visa Officer is unreasonable. [5] It is noted by the Court as the evidence clearly demonstrates that the employer of the wife and mother in Canada wanted to surprisetheir employee for consistent loyal service to the family; and, therein stems the invitation for a family visit with financial support for thevisit by the employer. [6] In addition, the invitation was planned during the Christmas break from school of the daughter. [7] It is duly noted by the Court that evidence presented to the Visa Officer included a demonstration of ties to the Philippines, propertyownership and specific elements of attachment to their country of citizenship. [8] Visits to close family members are understandable; and, are the very reason for the granting of such temporary visas (reference ismade to Khatoon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 276 at paragraph 7). [9] A visa for such purposes is not to be summarily dismissed.

Although reasons for a decision may be most succinct, they mustnevertheless be reasonable as per the Supreme Court’s reasoning in respect of its standard of review reiterated in Dunsmuir v NewBrunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S C R 190 [Dunsmuir]. As stated by Justice Michael L. Phelan in Nabin v Canada (Ministerof Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 200 at paragraph 7 and 8: [7] The case law in this Court is consistent; the burden of establishing entitlement to a visa rests on an applicant. This burdenincludes the responsibility to produce all relevant information which may assist the application.

There is no generalrequirement that visa officers engage in a form of dialogue as to the completeness or adequacy of materials filed. [8] The exception to the absence of any obligation on a visa officer to give notice of concerns about filed materials is wherethere are concerns about the credibility, accuracy or genuineness of the information submitted or extrinsic evidence ariseswith respect to that information (see Olorunshola v.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1056, paras. 30-37). [10] Thus reasons, although brief, by an immigration officer, must nevertheless be transparent and intelligible, in respect of the facts andthe law to be reasonable as handed down by the Supreme Court, both in Dunsmuir and Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union vNewfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at paragraph 14. [11] Therefore, due to all of the above, the decision is unreasonable; as a result, the judicial review is granted. The matter is to bereturned to a different visa officer for consideration anew. JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review be granted; the matter is to be returned to a different visa officer for consideration anew. There is no serious question of general importance to be certified. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2759-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: ROGELIO LAMUG GUILLERMO v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND CITIZENSHIP PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: January 18, 2017 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J. DATED: JANUARY 18, 2017 APPEARANCES : Stephen W.

Green Aris Daghighian For The Applicant Christopher Ezrin For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Green and Spiegel, LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent