CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Status in Canada |
Permanent Residents |
Popic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-5727-98
Hansen J.
14/9/00
4 pp.
Application for judicial review of visa officer's decision refusing application for permanent residence on basis applicant inadmissible in Canada--Issue whether visa officer erred in law in determining offences for which applicant convicted in Germany (obtaining conveyance by means of transport surreptitiously with intention of not paying charge punishable pursuant to Penal Code, ss. 265, 248) equivalent to convictions pursuant to Criminal Code, s. 393(3)--Application allowed--Hill v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1987), 73 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.) applied as to equivalency: first, by comparison of precise wording of each statute both through documents and, if available, through evidence of experts in foreign law and determining therefrom essential ingredients of respective offences--Senior analyst consulted by visa officer uncertain whether obtaining transportation by false pretences or fraud had equivalent essential element in German offence--Faced with incomplete analysis, visa officer concluded applicant, like all residents of Germany, know they must pay for public transit; to be caught 3 times quite exceptional--In general, essential elements of offence actus reus, mens rea--Visa officer erred by importing into analysis above-mentioned considerations not relevant to determination of essential elements of offence--Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 393(3)--Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2.