Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Oraha v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )

IMM-2659-96

Gibson J.

6/6/97

8 pp.

Application for judicial review of visa officer's decision rejecting principal applicant's application for immigration to Canada as member of Convention refugees seeking resettlement designated class-Principal applicant national of Iraq, three co-applicants sponsors of principal applicant's application for immigration to Canada-Visa officer finding applicant's statements lacking credibility-Application dismissed, based on Jallow v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 1452 (T.D.)-Visa officer herein had duty to follow Immigration Act and to act fairly-Duty of fairness somewhat limited by comparison with Convention refugee claimants applying from within Canada as persons such as principal applicant not in Canada and do not face possibility of deportation-No basis herein to find hearing other than full and fair-Supreme Court of Canada decision in Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177 distinguished as applicant herein not physically present in Canada as filed application at Canadian embassy abroad-Therefore cannot benefit from Charter protection-No basis on which to conclude visa officer's decision herein perverse or capricious or made without regard to material and substance of interview-Finding of implausibility herein not so unreasonable as to warrant Court's intervention-Following questions certified: (1) Whether Immigration Act, ss. 44, 46.02 and 67 confer sole and exclusive jurisdiction on CRDD to hear and determine claim to Convention refugee status made at Canadian embassy abroad; (2) If answer to question 1 negative, whether applicant herein accorded requisite degree of natural justice and procedural fairness in determination of claim to Convention refugee status-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 44 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 14), 46.02 (as enacted idem; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 37), 67 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18).

 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.