AADIL MAQBUL SAJAN Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF, 2017 FC 466

Date: 20170509 Docket: IMM-3660-16 Citation: 2017 FC 466 Ottawa, Ontario, May 9, 2017 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:AADIL MAQBUL SAJANApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Aadil Maqbul Sajan (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Visa Office (the “Officer”) denying hisapplication for restoration of a visitor’s visa. [2] The Applicant, a citizen of Tanzania, claims that he arrived in Canada on September 8, 2015, in possession of a visitor’s visaissued by the Government of Canada.

He submitted an application for a study permit in March, 2016; that application was refused byletter dated April 1, 2016. [3] The Applicant’s request for restoration of his visitor’s visa was refused by letter dated August 16, 2016, on the grounds thathe had not provided evidence of entry into Canada on September 8, 2015. [4] The Applicant filed an affidavit in support of this application for judicial review in which he deposed as follows: “Included inmy application for a restoration and a visitor’s visa was proof that I had received a visitor’s visa on September 8, 2015 when I enteredCanada.” [5] Attached as an exhibit to his affidavit are copies of pages from his passport showing various stamps, including an entrystamp for Pearson International Airport on September 8, 2015. [6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) filed the affidavit of the Officer in response.

At paragraph 4of the affidavit, the Officer deposed as follows: The Applicant failed to provide the relevant page(

s) from his passport which established proof of entry into Canada in September 2015 asalleged. Applicants seeking restoration of status are required to submit copies of passport pages clearly showing, among other things, thestamp made by Canadian authorities on their most recent entry into Canada. The Applicant, however, provided a copy of passport pagesshowing his (most recent) entry into Canada dated April 2014.

Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the onlyCanadian entry included in the Applicant’s application for restoration. [7] The dispositive question arising in this application is whether the Officer committed a reviewable error. [8] The Applicant argues that the Officer committed a breach of procedural fairness by failing to give him the opportunity toanswer any concerns about the documents he had submitted in support of his application for restoration of his visitor’s visa.

He alsosubmits that the Officer erred by failing to restore that visa. [9] For his part, the Respondent argues that the Applicant did not meet his onus to provide the necessary documentation and thatthere is no obligation upon the Officer to seek further information. He submits that the Applicant did not provide a copy of his passportshowing the entry stamp of September 8, 2015. [10] Any issue of procedural fairness arising in this application is reviewable on the standard of correctness; see the decisionCanada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339.

The Officer’s assessment ofthe evidence is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 ,[2008] 1 S.C.R. 190. [11] According to the decision in Dunsmuir, supra at paragraph 47, the “reasonableness” standard requires that a decision beintelligible, transparent and justifiable, and fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes. [12] In this case, each party has filed an affidavit. Neither party cross-examined the deponent of the opposing party.

The CertifiedTribunal Record does not contain a copy of the Applicant’s passport showing a stamp for entry into Canada on September 8, 2015. [13] The situation then is one of competing claims. The Applicant says that he submitted copies of his passport showing theSeptember 8, 2015 stamp; the Officer says the most recent visible entry stamp was for April 2014. [14] There is no presumption of truth in favour of the Respondent’s deponent. Sworn affidavits filled in an application for judicialreview are presumed true unless and until the contrary is shown; see the decision in Maldonado v.

Canada (Minister of Employment andImmigration), (FCA), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (F.C.A.) at paragraph 5.

[ 15 ] In his affidavit, as quoted above, the Applicant does not specify exactly what he submitted with his application to restore his visa.

The Certified Tribunal Record does not contain the copy of the passport page that is attached to the affidavit he filed in support of this application for judicial review. [ 16 ] The Applicant bears the burden of submitting the material necessary for obtaining the benefit sought; see subsection 11(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [ 17 ] I see no breach of procedural fairness resulting from the fact that the Officer did not request clarification or further information from the Applicant.

The Applicant was responsible for submitting the relevant and necessary information. In light of the evidence before the Officer, the negative decision meets the applicable standard of reasonableness. [ 18 ] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising. 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-3660-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: AADIL MAQBUL SAJAN v MCI PLACE OF HEARING: toronto DATE OF HEARING: March 29, 2017 JUDGMENT AND reasons: HENEGHAN J. DATED: MAY 9, 2017 APPEARANCES : Mr. Robert Gertler For The Applicant Ms Neeta Logsetty For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Robert Gertler Gertler Law Office Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant William F. Pentney, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent