Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Chieu v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )

IMM-3294-95

Muldoon J.

18/12/96

6 pp.

Judicial review of Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision dismissing appeal from deportation order-Applicant from Cambodia, fleeing to Vietnam with parents, siblings in 1975-Married Vietnamese citizen with whom had child-Stating not married, no dependants, on application for permanent resident status-Landed in Canada in 1993-Applied to sponsor wife, child-S. 27(1)(e) report completed, deportation order issued-Applicant appealed deportation order under s. 70(1)(b), giving IAD jurisdiction to consider all circumstances of case-S. 52(2) stipulating country to which person to be removed where not allowed to leave voluntarily-Applicant submitting IAD erred in law in assuming applicant would be returned to Vietnam because only temporary resident there, and in absence of proof of foreign law, under Canadian law only citizens, permanent residents having right to enter country-Thus IAD should have considered effect of return to Cambodia-IAD relying on Hoang v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1990), 13 Imm. L.R. (2d) 35 (F.C.A.): IAD having jurisdiction over whether person should be removed, not over question of country to which removed-Application dismissed-Assessment of country conditions premature as no determination yet made regarding country to which applicant to be deported-As uncertainty where applicant would be returned to, case squarely within Hoang-Hoang dealing with specific powers of IAD's jurisdiction dealing with specific removal provision gives clear direction how IAD should proceed-IAD properly applied Hoang-Question certified: can Appeal Division of IRB in exercise of jurisdiction to have regard to all circumstances of case under Immigration Act, s. 70(1)(b) consider country (and conditions) to which non-refugee would be removed when assessing whether should not be removed from Canada, or not in accordance with Hoang?-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 52(2), 70(1)(b) (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.