Date: 19971016
Docket: IMM-3796-96
BETWEEN:
KLINS HAGAN
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER0
(delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec
on Wednesday, October 15, 1997)
HUGESSEN, J.
[1] The only decision which is under attack in these proceedings is the letter from the Minister's delegate dated 27 September 1996 refusing to grant the Applicant exemption from the requirements of subsection 9(1) of the Act, ie. that he must apply for permanent
residence from abroad. His previous Post Determination Refugee Claim had been turned down more then 9 months previously; it was not attacked at that time and is not now in issue here.
[2] The Applicant was seeking a privilege for himself which is not granted to others. The decision is discretionary and the consequences for the Applicant far less serious than those flowing from the refusal of his Post Determination Claim. The procedural requirements are minimal1. There is no evidence to support a finding of bad faith, failure to consider relevant material or consideration of irrelevant material. The application will be dismissed.
[3] I invite counsels to submitt their views as to the possible certification of a question.
[4] [Later] After hearing counsel for the Applicant I do not find that there is any question worthy of certification pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act.
James K. Hugessen
Judge
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
October 16, 1997
IMM-3796-96
KLINS HAGAN
Applicant
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO: IMM-3796-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: KLINS HAGAN |
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 15, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hugessen
DATED: October 16, 1997
APPEARANCE: Me Stewart Istvanffy for the Applicant
Me Ian Hicks for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Me Stewart Istvanffy for the Applicant
Montreal, Quebec
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario for the Respondent
__________________
1 Shah vs M.E.I., 170, N.R. 238 (CA) Dasent vs Canada, 193, N.R. 303 (CA)