Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Citizenship and Immigration                                                                                                                                        

Status in Canada

Permanent Residents

Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations

Judicial review of decision by immigration officer refusing application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds—Applicant citizen of United Kingdom, arriving in Canada as visitor in November 2001—Asking to remain in Canada to care for aging relatives—Convicted of failure to comply with conditions of undertaking given to officer under Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 145(5.1)—Also convicted of failure to comply with conditions of judicial release under Code, s. 145(3)—Officer finding applicant inadmissible on account of two criminal convictions pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), s. 36(2), therefore refusing application for permanent residence—Officer fettering discretion by limiting consideration to whether or not applicant specifically requested exemption under IRPA, s. 25(1) (humanitarian and compassionate considerations) from requirement he not be inadmissible to Canada—Even if exercising discretion, officer wrongly concluding not appropriate case to grant exemption—No breach of procedural fairness on mere basis immigration officer not putting applicant’s case forward for consideration for exemption on own initiative—However, officer fettered discretion by not considering possibility of putting case forward for exemption in absence of exemption request—Based on H&C grounds existing in 2003, applicant’s need to remain in Canada to care for aging relatives compelling—Unreasonable, procedurally unfair to reject applicant’s H&C application on basis of inadmissibility— Application allowed.

Rogers v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-202-08, 2009 FC 26, de Montigny J., order dated January 9, 2009, 19 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.