2019 FC, 2019 FC 1113

Date: 20190829 Docket: IMM-6101-18 Citation: 2019 FC 1113 [UNREVISED CERTIFIED ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, August 29, 2019 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN:HAMMAN ALMOUSLIApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Nature of the matter [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Division [ID] of the Immigration and Refugee Board ofCanada dated November 23, 2018, regarding a deportation order under paragraph 36(1)(

b) of the Immigration and Refugee ProtectionAct, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], for inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality. II. Facts [2] The applicant claimed refugee protection. An inadmissibility hearing was held before the ID on July 31, 2018, after it was found thatthe applicant would be inadmissible under paragraph 36(1)(

b) of the IRPA. [3] The ID states that the panel determined that the applicant was inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality as a result of aconviction under 18 U.S. Code § 472, "“Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities” "(applicant’s record). This offence was found to beequivalent to “Possession, etc., of counterfeit money” under

section 450 of the Criminal Code, an offence punishable by imprisonmentfor a term of not more than 14 years. [4] Under paragraph 36(1)(

b) of the IRPA, a person having been convicted of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada,would be punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years. [5] In addition, the applicant was found guilty of possession of two firearms, a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver and a .60 Marlin rifle. [6] On June 9, 2004, the applicant was arrested and placed in state custody in Massachusetts. A grand jury upheld the charges and, onJune 13, 2006, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts found the applicant guilty on both of the specifiedcharges. [7] This Court agrees with the respondent that this issue is of no consequence.

Section 450 of the Criminal Code, including the textsetting out the maximum sentence of 14 years, has not been significantly amended since the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985 Act,RSC 1985, c 40 (3rd Supp). In this case, it is immaterial whether the 2004 or 2018 text is considered, since nothing has changed. [8] "“The only question to determine is whether the Officer’s equivalency findings and her resulting inadmissibility conclusions arereasonable.”" To that end, a specific method of careful analysis is very clearly described by Justice Denis Gascon in Nshogoza v Canada(Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1211 at paras 27 and 28. [9] This Court is in complete agreement with the

preamble of the respondent’s supplementary memorandum with respect toequivalencies between 18 U.S. Code § 472 and

section 450 of Canada’s Criminal Code. That is to say, the text is essentially unchangedbetween the time of the crime in 2004, the time of the conviction in 2006 and the hearing before the ID in 2018. [10] In 2004, 2006 and 2018 (and even in 1985), the crimes set out in

section 450 of the Criminal Code were punishable byimprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years; that is, the applicant would be inadmissible based on 10 years as set out inparagraph 36(1)(

b) of the IRPA. The

interpretation is very clear (see Mobil Oil Canada Ltd v Canada-Newfoundland Offshore PetroleumBoard, (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 202). [11] The applicant did not provide a reply justifying his actions. He stated that he no longer remembered the events of his being chargedor convicted. [12] Nevertheless, it should be noted that intent to defraud was required by the United States District Court for the District ofMassachusetts; therefore, the conclusion is self-evident in this regard.

III. Conclusion [ 13 ] For these reasons, the ID’s decision is reasonable. JUDGMENT in IMM-6101-18 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review be dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify. “Michel M. J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation This 4th day of September, 2019. Michael Palles, Reviser FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6101-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: HAMMAN ALMOUSLI v THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: August 21, 2019 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J.

DATED: August 29, 2019 APPEARANCES : Vincent Desbiens FOR THE APPLICANT Daniel Latulippe FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Aide juridique de Montréal Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT