QINGRONG YANG (A.K.A. QINRONG YANG) Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2021 FC 984

Date: 20210923 Docket: IMM-3180-20 Citation: 2021 FC 984 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, September 23, 2021 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:QINGRONG YANG (A.K.A. QINRONG YANG)ApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Qingrong Yang (a.k.a. Qinrong Yang) (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of the decision of an Officer (the "“Officer”"),refusing his application for permanent residence from within Canada, on Humanitarian and Compassionate ("“H and C”") grounds, madepursuant to

section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "“Act”"). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of China. His application for Convention refugee status in Canada was denied. He has resided in Canadafor more than 10 years. He is employed and has never drawn social assistance in Canada. He has family members in Canada.

His wifeand two children live in China. [3] The Applicant argues that the Officer unreasonably assessed his establishment in Canada, as well as the best interests of his children. [4] The decision of the Officer is reviewable upon the standard of reasonableness. [5] According to the 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), that standard requires the Court to ask if the decision under review "“bears thehallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factualand legal constraints that bear on that decision”"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "“Respondent”") submits that the decision meets the applicable standard. [7] Upon considering the record, the written and oral submissions of the parties, I disagree. [8] I agree with the submissions of the Applicant that the Officer failed to provide transparent and justifiable reasons as to why thepositive factors about his establishment in Canada did not yield a positive decision.

It is not necessary for me to address the otherarguments raised by the Applicant. [9] In the result, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to a different Officerfor redetermination. There is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT in IMM-3180-20 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remittedto a different Officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3180-20

STYLE OF CAUSE: QINGRONG YANG (A.K.A. QINRONG YANG) v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN TORONTO, ONTARIO AND ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 20, 2021 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J. DATED: sEPTEMBER 23, 2021 APPEARANCES : Allen Chang For The applicant Stephen Jarvis For The respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Allen Chang Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The respondent