SULAIMAN ALMUHAIDIB Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2018 FC 615
Opinion
Date: 20180613 Docket: T-1886-17 Citation: 2018 FC 615 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Montréal, Quebec, June 13, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN:SULAIMAN ALMUHAIDIBApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Following an application for judicial review, the applicant is seeking a writ of prohibition and a writ of mandamus pursuant tosections 22.1 and 22.4 of the Citizenship Act, RSC, 1985, c C-29 [CA], and sections 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC, 1985, cF7. [2] The applicant is seeking to have the request of a citizenship officer declared illegal and abusive and to stop the proceedings therespondent initiated under
section 23.1 of the CA. [3] The applicant is asking the Court to require by way of a writ of mandamus that the applicant be summoned for a citizenship oathceremony. [4] According to the Court, as specified by the respondent, jurisdiction on admissibility originates from the Minister’s jurisdiction (Zhaov. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 207; and subsection 22(6) of the CA). [5] The applicant’s application to obtain a determination on reasonableness is premature at this stage. [6] Moreover, not all the criteria for obtaining a writ of mandamus have been met (Tayeb Ali v.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),2016 FC 1051; see also Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), (FCA), [1994] 1 FC 742 (C.A.), affg. (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 1100; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nilam, 2017 FCA 44 and the same application for leave toappeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision). The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed pursuant to
section 13.1 of the CA that theMinister had the authority to suspend the proceedings of a citizenship case "“for as long as is necessary”" when questions ofadmissibility might lead to a prohibition. [7] Based on the serious doubt about certain erroneous information under paragraph 22(1)(e.1) of the CA, an officer may requestadditional information authorized in
section 23.1 of the CA (see also GPP v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 562). [8] The question of time pursuant to
section 23.1 of the CA was clearly presented and established. The officer consented to a firstextension of time, but not to a second, given the circumstances of the applicant failing to provide the requested copies of passports. [9] The applicant cannot be summoned to take an oath of citizenship, because his case is suspended under
section 13.1 of the CA. [10] The applicant did not respond to the last notice asking him to submit evidence pertaining to the requests for information or, at least,evidence of the steps he took to submit missing information (see Parliament’s intent set out in the headnote of C-24 and the ordersissued, particularly with respect to the truthfulness of information). [11] Since the reason the officer did not make a decision was the applicant’s lack of response, the delay cannot be attributed to theMinister or the officer. [12] The applicant’s applications cannot be considered, because they are premature at this stage of proceedings (Canada (BorderServices Agency) v.
C.B. Powell Limited, 2010 FCA 61). JUDGMENT in T-1886-17 Based on the analysis above, THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the applications are premature. Moreover, the applications for a writof prohibition and a writ of mandamus are also dismissed. There is no question of importance to be certified. “Michel M. J. Shore” Judge
FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1886-17 STYLE OF CAUSE: SULAIMAN ALMUHAIDIB v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: June 12, 2018 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J. DATED: June 13, 2018 APPEARANCES : Jacques Beauchemin For the applicant Isabelle Brochu For the respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Beauchemin Avocat Montréal, Quebec For the applicant Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec For the respondent
Loading document…