IMM-7087-11 NORVIL BAILEY, PRINCESS MARGARET LINDSAY BAILEY, RAJAY BAILEY Applicants v. THE MINISTER OF, 2012 FC 983

Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20120814 Docket: IMM-7087-11 IMM-281-12 Citation: 2012 FC 983 Ottawa , Ontario , August 14, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie BETWEEN: IMM-7087-11 NORVIL BAILEY, PRINCESS MARGARET LINDSAY BAILEY, RAJAY BAILEY Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent AND BETWEEN: IMM-281-12 NORVIL BAILEY, PRINCESS MARGARET BAILEY LINDEY, RAJAY BAILEY Applicants and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicants seek judicial review of a decision of Senior Immigration Officer J.

Rolheiser (H&C Officer), dated August 24, 2011, refusing the applicants’ application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&

C) grounds (IMM-7087-

11) pursuant to

section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA). Judicial review is also sought of adecision of an Inland Enforcement Officer (Enforcement Officer), dated January 9, 2012, refusing to defer the applicants’ removal(IMM-281-12). For the reasons that follow the applications for judicial review are dismissed. Facts [2] The applicants, Norvil Bailey (applicant), Princess Margaret Lindsay-Bailey (female applicant), and their minor son RajayNorvil Bailey (minor applicant), are a family from Jamaica.

The applicants also have a minor son born in Canada, Duray Norvil Bailey. [3] The applicants entered Canada as temporary residents in January 2007. They made claims for refugee protection in May2007, which were refused on November 16, 2009. They submitted a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application in September2010, and an H&C application in November 2010. [4] The applicants’ PRRA application was refused in December 2010 and the decision was delivered to them on January 18,2011. They were informed that removal was imminent.

The applicants received a Direction to Report on June 1, 2011 with a removaldate of July 10, 2011. Two deferral requests were submitted, both of which were refused. The applicants successfully obtained a stay ofremoval in July 2011 on the basis of the second refusal. However, leave was ultimately denied in that application for judicial review. [5] In August 2011, the applicants’ H&C application was refused. Their removal was scheduled for January 12, 2012. Theyrequested deferral of removal on January 6, and that request was denied on January 9.

On January 11, the Court stayed the applicants’removal pending the outcome of the two applications before this Court. [6] As the removal date has long passed the order is spent and of no force. No argument has been advanced which satisfies methat it would be in the best interest of the administration of justice to hear and decide this issue: Borowski v Canada (Attorney general), (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342. The application in respect of the removal order (IMM-281-12) is therefore dismissed.

H&C Decision [7] In the Decision and Reasons the H&C Officer reviewed the applicants’ establishment in Canada, the best interests of thechildren directly affected by the removal, the applicants’ family ties in Canada and found that the applicants had not established unusualand undeserved or disproportionate hardship on any of these grounds. [8] Regarding establishment in Canada, the H&C Officer noted that the applicants’ employment letters were from the previousyear and there was no evidence of their current employment status.

The Officer also noted that the applicants had only provided their2009 income tax returns and those returns indicated that the applicants had been on social assistance during that year. The H&C Officerfound that the applicants had not been financially self-sufficient since arriving in Canada. [9] The H&C Officer noted a letter from the applicant’s sister indicating her support for their H&C application, but found thatthe letter did not indicate whether this support was financial, which would not be binding in any event.

The Officer found little evidencethat the applicants had integrated or were active in the community. [10] The H&C Officer noted the applicants’ submissions that the applicant’s sister, as well as many cousins and friends, are inCanada, and the applicants and their relatives in Canada provide each other considerable emotional support. However, the H&C Officerfound little evidence to substantiate this submission. [11] Regarding the children, the H&C Officer found no evidence that the minor applicant could not assimilate in Jamaica, enrol inschool and make new friends there.

The H&C Officer also found no evidence that Duray could not accompany the applicants back toJamaica, although it was their choice whether or not to leave him in Canada with relatives. [12] The application was therefore refused.

Standard of Review and Issue [ 13 ] The remaining application, in respect of the H&C decision, concerns whether the H&C Officer’s decision reasonable and whether the H&C Officer breached the principles of procedural fairness. [ 14 ] The substance of the H&C Officer’s decision is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness: Da Silva v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FC 247 , and matters of procedural fairness are reviewed on a standard of correctness: Nizar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2009 FC 557 .

Analysis Was the H&C Officer’s decision reasonable? [ 15 ] I find that, while I have concern with aspects of the H&C Officer’s analysis which may have been erroneous, the decision as a whole is reasonable and the application must be dismissed. [ 16 ] The applicants impugn the H&C Officer’s finding that they have not been financially self-sufficient since arriving in Canada. They argue that the relevant question was whether they were currently financially self-sufficient, even if they were not upon first arriving.

The respondent submits that this finding was reasonably open to the H&C Officer. [ 17 ] In my view, this finding by the H&C Officer was odd, or perhaps the choice of language was ill-considered. Whether or not the applicants have always been financially self-sufficient in Canada is not overly relevant to the question at issue. An immigrant initially dependent on government assistance could subsequently become sufficiently established in Canada such that requiring that person to leave would cause unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship.

Therefore, this finding on the part of the H&C Officer was tangential at best, to the overall issue. [ 18 ] Secondly, the Officer obliquely discounts the letters from the applicants’ employees. He said there was no “current” information on file and thus impliedly rejected them or accorded them little weight, even though they were but nine months old. [ 19 ] If an Officer intends to discount or disbelieve evidence which is, on its face, probative, and, in the H&C context, reasonably current, reasons should be given. [ 20 ] Notwithstanding that the decision strains the limits of reasonableness, it should be upheld.

The H&C Officer found that the applicants had provided little evidence of establishment to the degree that would cause undue hardship, and a review of the record supports that conclusion as reasonable. The applicants submitted very little evidence of establishment and integration in Canada. All that was submitted were cryptic employment letters, some income tax returns, and a few letters from friends. As the respondent submits, some degree of establishment is expected and is, alone, insufficient to grant an H&C exemption.

To succeed, the applicants must demonstrate a significant degree of establishment, and I find that the H&C Officer reasonably concluded that the applicants did not do so in this case. [ 21 ] In their submission regarding the issue of financial self-sufficiency, the applicants implicitly argue that the H&C Officer erred by limiting the relevant factors to be considered in the H&C analysis. The applicants submit that the concept of hardship is broad and the Officer must assess any hardship factor highlighted by the applicants. In my view, that is precisely what the H&C Officer did.

He considered whether the applicants’ establishment, family ties, or the best interests of the children warranted an H&C exemption.

While, as discussed above, the H&C Officer may have misconstrued some aspects of the evidence (such as whether the applicants had always been financially self-sufficient as discussed above), the Officer did consider all the relevant factors advanced by the applicants and reached a reasonable and justified conclusion. [ 22 ] In any event, even if I were to accept that it was unreasonable to impugn the applicants’ employment letters when they were less than a year old this finding would not alter the conclusion that the decision as a whole was reasonable.

Even if the H&C Officer had accepted that the applicant and female applicant had been continuously employed since 2009 and 2010, respectively, that finding could

not have moved the conclusion that the applicants would not suffer undue hardship due to their establishment in Canada from the realm of reasonable to that of the unreasonable. As well, the unexplained absence of 2008 and 2010 tax records was, appropriately, significant in the Officer’s mind. Did the H&C Officer breach the principles of procedural fairness? [ 23 ] The applicants argue that the H&C Officer breached the duty of fairness owed to the applicants by failing to seek updated submissions before rendering the decision.

I agree with the respondent that there is no general duty on the part of an officer to seek further submissions or evidence from an applicant before rendering the decision; rather, the obligation is on the applicant to put forward all relevant evidence: Doe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 285 . [ 24 ] The applications for judicial review are dismissed. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the applications for judicial review be and are hereby dismissed. No question for certification has been proposed and none arises. "Donald J.

Rennie" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7087-11 STYLE OF CAUSE: NORVIL BAILEY, PRINCESS MARGARET LINDSAY BAILEY, RAJAY BAILEY v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION DOCKET: IMM-281-12 STYLE OF CAUSE: NORVIL BAILEY, PRINCESS MARGARET BAILEY LINDEY, RAJAY BAILEY v MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: July 25, 2012 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: RENNIE J.

DATED: August 14, 2012 APPEARANCES : Joel Etienne IMM-7087-11 / IMM-281-12 FOR THE APPLICANTS Suran Bhattacharyya IMM-7087-11 / IMM-281-12 FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Gertler, Etienne LLP Barristers and Solicitors Toronto , Ontario IMM-7087-11 / IMM-281-12 FOR THE APPLICANTS Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto , Ontario IMM-7087-11 / IMM-281-12 FOR THE RESPONDENT