Razavi v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-207-97
McGillis J.
19/2/98
10 pp.
Applicant, unsuccessful refugee claimant, deemed to have made application for landing as member of Post Determination Refugee Claimants Class (PDRCC)-Failed to make written submission in support of application within time prescribed in Regulations-Requests for extension of time received no response-Neither Immigration Act nor Immigration Regulations permitting extension of time limit prescribed in Regulations, s. 11.4(3), (4), (5)-Post Claim Determination Officer (PCDO) determined applicant not member of PDRCC class-Application for judicial review on basis PCDO's failure to consider request for extension of time in violation of applicant's Charter, s. 7 right to fundamental justice-Application dismissed-Application of Sinnappu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 2 F.C. 791 (T.D.) where nature of application for landing as member of PDRCC class considered in context of overall legislative scheme pertaining to refugee claimant and where extensive safeguards and various avenues of recourse available to refugee claimant summarized-In Bains v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 3 F.C. 487 (C.A.), Court found that rigid and inflexible time limit within which to apply for redetermination, with no possibility of extension no matter what circumstances, not in accordance with principles of natural justice and may lead to deprivation of life, liberty or security of person, contrary to Charter, s. 7-That principle, however, not applicable herein as decision to refuse extension purely administrative in nature-Furthermore, visa officer considered substance of applicant's deemed application for landing as member of PDRCC class, even though did not consider request for extension of time-In circumstances, PCDO had no jurisdiction to consider request for extension of time limits in Regulations, s. 11.4(3), (4), (5), in absence of express legislative provision permitting him to do so-Dictates of fundamental justice enshrined in Charter, s. 7 did not require PCDO to entertain applicant's request to extend time limit prescribed in Regulations prior to making his administrative decision on deemed application-Applicant had obligation to actively and aggressively pursue all legislative avenues available in attempt to obtain status in Canada: Sinnappu-Not only did applicant not pursue his application for leave and deemed application for landing in timely manner, but has also failed to launch application for landing on humanitarian and compassionate grounds-Since applicant has not exhausted his legislative avenues of recourse, has failed to establish that any of his rights under Charter, s. 7 have been breached-Question certified: Does failure of PCDO to consider request to extend time limits prescribed in Immigration Regulations, 1978, s. 11.4(3), (4), (5) prior to making decision on deemed application for landing as member of PDRCC class constitute breach of unsuccessful refugee claimant's rights under Charter, s. 7?-Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, s. 11.4(3) (as enacted by SOR/93-44, s. 10), (4) (as enacted idem), (5) (as enacted idem)-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 7.