Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19981008


Docket: IMM-4621-97

BETWEEN:

     EDOBOR ALFRED AJOSE

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

McGILLIS J.

[1]      The applicant has challenged by way of judicial review the decision of an immigration officer, in which he refused to seek authorization to issue a Minister's permit to enable the applicant to remain in Canada.

[2]      In his letter of refusal dated October 17, 1997, the immigration officer stated that he had considered the applicant's relationship with his wife, as well as his business in Canada. However, the immigration officer concluded that he was not prepared to make a favourable recommendation, given that the applicant's criminal history demonstrated "...a tendency towards violence."

[3]      Despite the able submissions of counsel for the applicant, I have not been persuaded that the immigration officer breached the duty of fairness or committed any other error in refusing to seek authorization to issue a Minister's permit to enable the applicant to remain in Canada.

[4]      With respect to the duty of fairness, I note that the immigration officer met with the applicant and his counsel, who is very experienced in immigration matters. During the course of the interview, the applicant's counsel made submissions in support of the applicant's application for landing in Canada as a permanent resident on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The immigration officer invited the applicant to file further documentation, and he availed himself of the opportunity to do so.

[5]      In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the immigration officer fully complied with the duty of fairness. I am further satisfied that the applicant has failed to establish that the immigration officer erred in law, proceeded on a wrong or improper principle or acted in bad faith in making his discretionary decision in this matter.


[6]      The application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.

"D. McGillis"

Judge

TORONTO, ONTARIO

October 8, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-4621-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      ADOBOR ALFRED AJOSE

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:              McGILLIS, J.

DATED:                          THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1998

APPEARANCES:                     

                             Mr. Robin Morch

                                 For the Applicant

                             Ms. Geraldine MacDonald

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Robin Morch

                             Barrister & Solicitor

                             601-130 Bloor St. W.

                             Toronto, Ontario
                             M5S 1N5

                                 For the Applicant

                              Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                            

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19981008

                        

         Docket: IMM-4621-97

                             Between:

                             EDOBOR ALFRED AJOSE

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

            

                                                                                 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

                            


 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.