Glushanytsya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Glushanytsya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2008-06-10
Neutral citation
2008 FC 725
File numbers
IMM-4008-07
Decision Content
Date: 20080610
Docket: IMM-4008-07
Citation: 2008 FC 725
Ottawa, Ontario, June 10, 2008
PRESENT: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ARTEM GLUSHANYTSYA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The applicant is a 16-year old citizen of Ukraine where he lives with his mother in Kiev. His parents divorced in 1996. He now wants to join his father in Canada. His father became a permanent resident here in 2000. However, for reasons related to his marriage breakdown, the father breached the requirement to disclose his son as a non-accompanying dependent when he applied for permanent residence. Consequently, pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the applicant cannot be sponsored as a family class member.
[2] This proceeding is the application for judicial review of the visa officer’s refusal to grant humanitarian and compassionate consideration concerning the applicant’s request for permanent residence.
[3] The tribunal record discloses limited information to explain why the best interests of the child dictated an exemption from paragraph 117(9)(d), as to facilitate his admission to Canada. I agree with the respondent’s counsel that the CAIPS notes demonstrate an analysis consistent with the factors Justice Campbell suggested were relevant in Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 613 at paragraph 17, a judgment issued after the visa officer’s decision in this case. I am satisfied that it was open to the visa officer, on the information then available to him, to exercise his discretion as he did.
[4] The visa officer in Kiev could have interviewed the applicant. No interview was requested and none was legally required in the circumstances of this case. However, if the applicant chooses to reapply for permanent residence under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it is my sense that an interview would be helpful to understand better why the applicant wants to join his father and why his best interests dictate the positive exercise of the visa officer’s discretion.
[5] I agree with counsel that this proceeding raises no serious question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Allan Lutfy”
Chief Justice
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4008-07
STYLE OF CAUSE: ARTEM GLUSHANYTSYA
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 2, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DATED: June 10, 2008
APPEARANCES:
Paul VanderVennen for the Applicant
Modupe Oluyomi for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
VanderVennen Lehrer for the Applicant
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. for the Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Ottawa, Ontario