Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20240822


Docket: IMM-2227-23

Citation: 2024 FC 1304

Ottawa, Ontario, August 22, 2024

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen

BETWEEN:

MONICA HERRERA SOTO

MATIAS REYES HERRERA

PAULA REYES HERRERA

Applicants

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Principal Applicant and her two children seek judicial review of a decision of a visa officer dated February 9, 2023, refusing their application for electronic travel authorizations [ETA]. The ETAs were refused on the basis that the Principal Applicant’s husband (and the father of the two children) [Spouse] was found inadmissible under subsection 37(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. As a result, by operation of subsection 42(2) of the IRPA, the Applicants were found to be inadmissible as well.

[2] This application was heard together with Court file no. IMM-2212-23, in which the Spouse sought judicial review of, among other things, the visa officer’s determination that he was inadmissible to Canada pursuant to subsection 37(1) of the IRPA.

[3] In the lead up to the hearing of IMM-2212-23, the Respondent conceded that the visa officer’s subsection 37(1) determination was unreasonable and should be set aside. As such, the parties agreed at the hearing of this matter that the visa officer’s determination regarding the Applicants was no longer sustainable and should also be set aside. Accordingly, on consent of the parties, the application for judicial review shall be granted, the decision of the visa officer set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination by a different visa officer.

[4] Neither party proposed a question for certification and I agree that none arises.

 


JUDGMENT in IMM-2227-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

  1. The application for judicial review is granted.

  2. The February 9, 2023 decision of the visa officer is set aside and the Applicants’ ETA application is remitted to a different visa officer for redetermination.

  3. The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises.

“Mandy Aylen”

Judge

 


FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD


DOCKET:

IMM-2227-23

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:

MONICA HERRERA SOTO, MATIAS REYES HERRERA, PAULA REYES HERRERA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE

 

DATE OF HEARING:

August 13, 2024

 

JUDGMENT AND REASONS:

AYLEN J.

 

DATED:

August 22, 2024

 

APPEARANCES:

Lorne Waldman

 

For The Applicants

 

Christopher Ezrin

 

For The Respondent

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Waldman & Associates

Barristers and Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario

 

For The Applicants

 

Attorney General of Canada

Toronto, Ontario

 

For The Respondent

 

 

 

 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.