El‑Khatib v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

El‑Khatib v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2017-02-09
Neutral citation
2017 FC 160
File numbers
IMM-3388-16
Notes
Une correction fut apportée le 15 août, 2019.
Decision Content
Date: 20170209
Docket: IMM‑3388‑16
Citation: 2017 FC 160
[UNREVISED CERTIFIED ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, February 9, 2017
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Locke
BETWEEN:
KHALED EL‑KHATIB
ALINA FLORENTINA EL‑KHATIB
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Upon the applicants’ application for judicial review of an immigration officer’s refusal of their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (H&C application);
[2] Upon reviewing the parties’ records and considering counsel’s written and oral submissions;
[3] Whereas the parties agree, and the Court concurs, that the standard of review that applies to an immigration officer’s decision regarding an H&C application is that of reasonableness for questions of fact and questions of mixed fact and law (Kisana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 189 at paragraph 18; Caesar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 215 at paragraph 11);
[4] Whereas (i) decisions on H&C applications are discretionary, (ii) the onus is on the applicants to provide the administrative decision‑maker with sufficient evidence to show that exceptional relief is warranted, and (iii) it is not for the Court to re‑weigh the relevant factors in reviewing the exercise of ministerial discretion: Abdirisaq v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 300 at paragraph 3, citing Suresh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at paragraphs 4, 46;
[5] Whereas, with respect to the applicants’ establishment in Canada, the Court notes that they did not submit in their factum, nor, in any event, is the Court satisfied, that the officer’s analysis was unreasonable;
[6] Whereas, with respect to the best interests of the children, although the applicants would have preferred a different outcome, the Court finds that the officer’s analysis was not unreasonable because:
the evidence submitted to the officer was limited;
the officer considered all of the children involved;
the officer’s finding that his decision would not have any negative and significant effect on the well‑being of the applicants’ children was based on reasonable grounds;
the Court is not satisfied that the officer’s decision was influenced by irrelevant factors, nor that the officer failed to consider relevant factors;
[7] Whereas the applicants do not object to the respondent’s request for the style of cause to be amended to indicate the “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration” as the respondent;
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
This application is dismissed.
No serious question of general importance is certified.
The style of cause is amended to indicate the “Minister of Citizenship and Immigration” as the respondent.
“George R. Locke”
Judge
Certified true translation
This 31st day of July 2019
Lionbridge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM‑3388‑16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
KHALED EL‑KHATIB, ALINA FLORENTINA EL‑KHATIB v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:
Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING:
February 2, 2017
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:
LOCKE J.
DATED:
February 9, 2017
APPEARANCES:
Anthony Karkar
For the applicants
Charles Junior Jean
For the respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Anthony Karkar
Counsel
Montréal, Quebec
For the applicants
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
For the respondent