Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20171130

Docket: IMM-2089-17

Citation: 2017 FC 1080

Toronto, Ontario, November 30, 2017

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1]               The Applicant is a 46 year-old citizen of Syria who moved to Greece in 1998, resided there until May 2014, entered Canada in May 2014 and made a refugee claim against return to Syria. On December 18, 2014, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the Applicant to be excluded for refugee protection on the basis of Article 1E of the Refugee Convention because he was found to be admissible to Greece. An appeal of the RPD decision to the Refugee Appeal Division was dismissed in April 2015. As a result the Applicant applied for humanitarian and compassionate relief to be landed in Canada.

[2]               The present Application challenges a negative humanitarian and compassionate decision rendered by a delegate of the Minister (Officer) dated April 10, 2017. The issue before the Officer was whether the Applicant was presently admissible to Greece. Counsel for the Applicant argued that, on the basis of a lawyer’s opinion produced to the Officer, a change in the law had placed the Applicant’s admissibility to Greece in doubt (see the letter in the Appendix to these reasons). Essentially as the argument goes, the Applicant has lost any status he might have had prior to the change in the law because he has been away from Greece for more than two years.

[3]               The issue for determination in the present Application is whether the Officer reasonably considered the Applicant’s humanitarian and compassionate relief concerns. The following are the Officer’s views about the opinion letter: 

While I acknowledge that counsel has adduced an Opinion Letter from a lawyer in Greece supporting the applicant's view that he would be unable to renew his PR status in Greece, I find that this document is not equivalent to official documentation from the Greek government and/or Greek immigration authorities. Moreover, I find the document to represent that of which it [sic] has been named ("Opinion Letter") - an opinion written by a lawyer in Greece. This document, while it has been prepared by an attorney, expresses the legal implications that may arise taking into account the applicant's status, but does not confirm that the Greek government and/or Greek immigration authorities have rejected the applicant's bid to renew his PR status in Greece, nor does it confirm that the applicant has lost his PR status or has had it revoked. Thus, I find that the inclusion of this document to not bear much weight in regards to the applicant not being able to continue residing in Greece as a permanent resident. A more

compelling piece of evidence, in my view, would be an official refusal letter from Greek authorities in regards to the applicant's renewal of his "Residence Permit", or official government documentation confirming that the applicant has lost his PR status in Greece or has had it revoked by Greek immigration officials.

[Emphasis added]

(Decision, p. 5)

[4]               The Applicant submitted the opinion letter to make a serious point about his future. In my view, the contents of the opinion letter should have been given humanitarian and compassionate consideration. By the use of the Officer’s words “this document to not bear much weight”, I find that the needed consideration was not given.

[5]               As a result, I find that the decision under review is unreasonable.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the decision under review is set aside and the matter is sent back for redetermination by a different decision-maker.

There is no question to certify.

“Douglas R. Campbell”

“APPENDIX”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: