Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Citation:

Karimullah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 824, [2010] 4 F.C.R. D-1

IMM-5903-09

Citizenship and Immigration

Status in Canada

Permanent Residents

Humanitarian and Compassionate Considerations

Judicial review of visa officer’s decision refusing to grant permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds—Applicant, 56-year-old citizen of Guyana, suffering from schizophrenia—Despite receiving medication, applicant stated to be incapable of being self-sufficient—Applicant’s claim based on being last remaining family member in Guyana, being dependant on family members for support due to mental illness—Visa officer denying request on grounds family members willingly leaving him in Guyana, family visiting him regularly, financially supporting him—Officer presuming applicant able to find employment, at very least, care for himself—Applicant submits officer ignoring medical evidence emphasizing his inability to support himself financially, erring by not considering him as de facto family member—De facto family guidelines explaining how officers must be aware of every facet of dependency, from financial to emotional in order to render reasonable decision—This must be done in conjunction with an explanation by officers of the ability of family members to provide financial guarantees, all of which must be shown to have been considered in relation to entire evidentiary record—Without such specific demonstration, decision not reasonable—Unification of family members hallmark of Canadian immigration system, due consideration must be given to this key intention—Visa officer only narrowly focussing on applicant’s material well-being without demonstrating understanding of his mental, emotional health—H&C applications designed to consider all forms of hardship, from tangible to intangible—Application allowed.

Karimullah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-5903-09, 2010 FC 824, Shore J., judgement dated August 19, 2010, 11  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.