Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20020307

Docket: IMM-3257-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 260

Toronto, Ontario, Thursday the 7th day of March, 2002

PRESENT:            The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson

BETWEEN:

YADWINDER SINGH SIDHU, RANJODH SINGH

and KIRANJEET KAUR

                                                                                                   Applicants

                                                    - and -

   THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                 Respondent

                     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER


[1]    Yadwinder Singh Sidhu was landed in Canada in August of 1995 as a permanent resident. Subsequently, he sponsored the applications for landing of his father, Ranjodh Singh, and his sister, Kiranjeet Kaur. Together, they bring this application for judicial review of the decision of a senior immigration officer refusing to land Mr. Singh and Ms. Kaur, and seek by way of mandamus an order that they be immediately landed.

[2]    While the Notice of Application filed on their behalf also put into issue the decision of an immigration officer which preceded the decision of the senior immigration officer, that claim was, on consent, abandoned at the hearing.

THE FACTS

[3]    Mr. Sidhu was born in India, moved to the United States, and became a citizen of the United States in 1994. He then applied to immigrate to Canada and was granted permanent residence in August of 1995. Since then, Mr. Sidhu states that he has maintained two residences; one in Windsor, Ontario and one in Sterling Heights, Michigan. His wife, mother and children live in Michigan and his wife works in Michigan. Mr. Sidhu also works in Michigan.

[4]    Mr. Sidhu says that because he knew that he was required to maintain a residence in Canada he rented a place in Windsor with friends, lived there during the week for most of the year, commuted to work in Michigan, and visited his family after work and on weekends and vacations. These assertions are not accepted by the Minister.


[5]                 Mr. Sidhu says his plan upon immigrating to Canada was to sponsor his parents and siblings to immigrate, and that his plan was that when they were landed in Canada he would move his entire family to Canada from the United States.

[6]                 On April 6, 2000, the same day that his father and sister were arriving in Toronto from India, Mr. Sidhu was stopped from entering Canada at the Windsor border. An immigration officer issued a report pursuant to section 20 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 ("Act") that in his opinion Mr. Sidhu was no longer a permanent resident of Canada because Mr. Sidhu had remained outside of Canada for more than 183 days. The report was forwarded to a senior immigration officer who issued a direction for inquiry and a direction for Mr. Sidhu to return to the United States.

[7]                 Mr. Sidhu claims not to have received notice of a scheduled inquiry that he was to attend on July 14, 2000. He states that he has not been successful in obtaining another date for the inquiry.

[8]                 Kiranjeet Kaur and Ranjodh Singh arrived in Canada on April 6, 2000 with immigrant visas seeking landing as permanent residents. Immigration officials at that time decided to defer their landing interview until an investigation could be done as to whether or not Mr. Sidhu remained a permanent resident of Canada.


[9]                 Kiranjeet Kaur and Ranjodh Singh sought leave and judicial review in this Court to review that decision, and on March 19, 2001 their application for judicial review was allowed and their cases returned to different immigration officials for determination as to whether or not they would be landed. The basis for allowing the application was that the immigration officials had not set a precise date for their re-examination, contrary to the Act and Immigration Regulations, 1978 SOR/78-172 ("Regulations"). See: Sidhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2001 FCT 197; [2001] F.C.J. No. 368 (F.C.T.D.).

[10]            On June 19, 2001, Kiranjeet Kaur and Ranjodh Singh were interviewed by an immigration officer who prepared reports under subsection 20(1) of the Act based on his opinion that they were members of the inadmissible class of persons described in paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Act and section 12 of the Regulations. These reports were reviewed by a senior immigration officer who then directed an inquiry which was scheduled for August 28, 2001. This application for judicial review is brought in respect of the decision of the senior immigration officer to direct an inquiry.

[11]            To date, no inquiry has been held and the Court was advised that the inquiry has been adjourned pending the outcome of this application for judicial review.


THE ISSUES

[12]            The applicants raise two issues on this application:

1.         Was the decision to refuse landing to Kiranjeet Kaur and Ranjodh Singh in error?

2.         Was the duty of fairness breached in the manner by which a decision to refuse landing was made by the senior immigration officer?

[13]            In response, the Minister raises the objection that remedies such as those sought on this application for judicial review ought not to be granted where there is an adequate, alternative remedy available to the applicants.

RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

[14]            The term permanent resident is defined in subsection 2(1) of the Act as follows:


"permanent resident" means a person who

(a) has been granted landing,

(b) has not become a Canadian citizen, and

(c) has not ceased to be a permanent resident pursuant to section 24 or 25.1,

and includes a person who has become a Canadian citizen but who has subsequently ceased to be a Canadian citizen under subsection 10(1) of the Citizenship Act, without reference to subsection 10(2) of that Act;

« résident permanent » Personne qui remplit les conditions suivantes_:

a) elle a obtenu le droit d'établissement;

b) elle n'a pas acquis la citoyenneté canadienne;

c) elle n'a pas perdu son statut conformément à l'article 24 ou 25.1.

Est également visée par la définition la personne qui a acquis la citoyenneté canadienne mais l'a perdue conformément au paragraphe 10(1) de la Loi sur la citoyenneté, compte non tenu du paragraphe 10(2) de cette loi.



[15]            Other relevant sections of the Act are as follows:


9. (1) Except in such cases as are prescribed, and subject to subsection (1.1), every immigrant and visitor shall make an application for and obtain a visa before that person appears at a port of entry.

[...]

9(2) An application for an immigrant's visa shall be assessed by a visa officer for the purpose of determining whether the person making the application and every dependant of that person appear to be persons who may be granted landing.

[...]

9(4) Subject to subsection (5), where a visa officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations to grant landing or entry, as the case may be, to a person who has made an application pursuant to subsection (1) and to the person's dependants, the visa officer may issue a visa to that person and to each of that person's accompanying dependants for the purpose of identifying the holder thereof as an immigrant or a visitor, as the case may be, who, in the opinion of the visa officer, meets the requirements of this Act and the regulations.

9. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1.1), sauf cas prévus par règlement, les immigrants et visiteurs doivent demander et obtenir un visa avant de se présenter à un point d'entrée.

[...]

9(2) Le cas du demandeur de visa d'immigrant est apprécié par l'agent des visas qui détermine si le demandeur et chacune des personnes à sa charge semblent répondre aux critères de l'établissement.

[...]

9(4) Sous réserve du paragraphe (5), l'agent des visas qui est convaincu que l'établissement ou le séjour au Canada du demandeur et des personnes à sa charge ne contreviendrait pas à la présente loi ni à ses règlements peut délivrer à ce dernier et aux personnes à charge qui l'accompagnent un visa précisant leur qualité d'immigrant ou de visiteur et attestant qu'à son avis, ils satisfont aux exigences de la présente loi et de ses règlements.

12. (1) Subject to the regulations, every person seeking to come into Canada shall appear before an immigration officer at a port of entry, or at such other place as may be designated by a senior immigration officer, for examination to determine whether that person is a person who shall be allowed to come into Canada or may be granted admission.

12. (1) Sous réserve des règlements, quiconque cherche à entrer au Canada est tenu de se présenter devant un agent d'immigration à un point d'entrée ou à tout autre lieu désigné par l'agent principal en vue de l'interrogatoire visant à déterminer s'il est autorisé à entrer au Canada ou s'il peut y être admis.


14. (1) Where an immigration officer is satisfied that a person whom the officer has examined(a) has a right to come into Canada,

(b) is a person in possession of a subsisting permit,

(c) is a person against whom a removal order has been made who has been removed from or otherwise left Canada but has not been granted lawful permission to be in any other country, or

(d) is a person returning to Canada in accordance with a transfer order made under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act who, immediately before being transferred to a foreign state pursuant to the transfer order, was subject to an unexecuted removal order,

the officer shall allow that person to come into Canada.

14(2) Where an immigration officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations to grant landing to an immigrant whom the officer has examined, the officer shall

(a) grant landing to that immigrant; or

(b) authorize that immigrant to come into Canada on condition that the immigrant be present for further examination by an immigration officer within such time and at such place as the immigration officer who examined the immigrant may direct.

14. (1) L'agent d'immigration laisse entrer au Canada ceux dont l'interrogatoire l'a convaincu_:

a) soit qu'ils en ont le droit;

b) soit qu'ils sont munis d'un permis en cours de validité;

c) soit qu'ils n'ont pas obtenu l'autorisation de séjourner dans un autre pays après avoir été renvoyés du Canada ou l'avoir quitté à la suite d'une mesure de renvoi;

d) soit qu'ils reviennent au Canada en conformité avec une ordonnance de transfèrement rendue sous le régime de la Loi sur l'entraide juridique en matière criminelle et que, immédiatement avant leur transfèrement dans un État étranger en exécution de cette ordonnance, ils faisaient l'objet d'une mesure de renvoi qui n'avait pas été exécutée.

14(2) L'agent d'immigration qui est convaincu, après interrogatoire d'un immigrant, que l'octroi du droit d'établissement ne contreviendrait pas, dans son cas, à la présente loi ni à ses règlements est tenu_:

a) soit de lui accorder ce droit;

b) soit de l'autoriser à entrer au Canada à condition qu'il se présente, pour interrogatoire complémentaire, devant un agent d'immigration dans le délai et au lieu fixés.

20. (1) Where an immigration officer is of the opinion that it would or may be contrary to this Act or the regulations to grant admission to a person examined by the officer or otherwise let that person come into Canada, the officer may detain or make an order to detain that person and shall

(a) subject to subsection (2), report that person in writing to a senior immigration officer; or

(b) allow that person to leave Canada forthwith.

20. (1) L'agent d'immigration qui, après interrogatoire, estime que le fait d'admettre ou de laisser entrer l'intéressé au Canada contreviendrait ou pourrait contrevenir à la présente loi ou à ses règlements peut le retenir ou prendre une mesure à cet effet. Il est tenu_:

a) soit, sous réserve du paragraphe (2), de signaler son cas dans un rapport écrit, à un agent principal;

b) soit de l'autoriser à quitter le Canada sans délai.


23. (1) Where a senior immigration officer receives a report made pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(a) concerning an immigrant, the officer shall

(a) grant landing to that immigrant, or

(b) authorize that immigrant to come into Canada on condition that the immigrant be present for further examination by an immigration officer within such time and at such place as the senior immigration officer may direct,

if the officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations to grant landing to or otherwise authorize that immigrant to come into Canada.

23. (1) À la réception d'un rapport visant un immigrant, l'agent principal doit, s'il est convaincu que le fait d'accorder le droit d'établissement à celui-ci ou de l'autoriser par ailleurs à entrer au Canada ne contreviendrait pas à la présente loi ni à ses règlements_:

a) soit lui accorder ce droit;

b) soit l'autoriser à entrer au Canada à condition de se présenter, dans le délai et au lieu fixés, devant un agent d'immigration pour interrogatoire complémentaire.

23(4.2) Subject to subsections (4.3) and (5), where a senior immigration officer does not make an exclusion order under subsection (4) or (4.01), or a conditional departure order under subsection 28(1), the senior immigration officer shall

(a) cause an inquiry to be held concerning the person as soon as is reasonably practicable; or

(b) allow the person to leave Canada forthwith.

23(4.2) Sous réserve des paragraphes (4.3) et (5), dans le cas où il n'a pas pris la mesure d'exclusion prévue aux paragraphes (4) ou (4.01) ou la mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle prévue au paragraphe 28(1), l'agent principal est tenu_:

a) soit de faire procéder à une enquête dès que les circonstances le permettent;

b) soit d'autoriser la personne à quitter le Canada sans délai.

31. (1) An adjudicator shall give a decision as soon as possible after an inquiry has been completed.

31. (1) L'arbitre rend sa décision le plus tôt possible après la fin de l'enquête.

32(3) Where an adjudicator decides that a person who is the subject of an inquiry is a person who, at the time of his examination, was seeking landing and that it would not be contrary to any provision of this Act or the regulations to grant landing to that person, the adjudicator shall

(a) grant landing to that person; or

(b) authorize that immigrant to come into Canada on condition that the immigrant present himself for further examination by an immigration officer within such time and at such place as the adjudicator may direct.

32(3) S'il constate que l'intéressé avait sollicité l'établissement au moment de son interrogatoire et conclut que l'octroi de ce droit ne contreviendrait pas à la présente loi ni à ses règlements, l'arbitre est tenu_:

a) soit de le lui accorder;

b) soit de l'autoriser à entrer au Canada à condition de se présenter, dans le délai et au lieu fixés, devant un agent d'immigration pour interrogatoire complémentaire.


70(2)Subject to subsections (3) to (5), an appeal lies to the Appeal Division from a removal order or conditional removal order made against a person who

(a) has been determined under this Act or the regulations to be a Convention refugee but is not a permanent resident; or

(b) seeks landing or entry and, at the time that a report with respect to the person was made by an immigration officer pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(a), was in possession of a valid immigrant visa, in the case of a person seeking landing, or a valid visitor's visa, in the case of a person seeking entry.

70(2) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3) à (5), peuvent faire appel devant la section d'appel d'une mesure de renvoi ou de renvoi conditionnel_:

a) les non-résidents permanents qui se sont vu reconnaître le statut de réfugié au sens de la Convention aux termes de la présente loi ou de ses règlements;

b) les personnes qui, ayant demandé l'admission, étaient titulaires d'un visa de visiteur ou d'immigrant, selon le cas, en cours de validité lorsqu'elles ont fait l'objet du rapport visé à l'alinéa 20(1)a).

73. (1) The Appeal Division may dispose of an appeal made pursuant to section 70

(a) by allowing it;

(b) by dismissing it;

(c) in the case of an appeal made pursuant to paragraph 70(1)(b) or 70(3)(b) respecting a removal order, by directing that execution of the order be stayed; or

(d) in the case of an appeal made pursuant to paragraph 70(1)(b) or 70(3)(b) respecting a conditional removal order, by directing that execution of the order on its becoming effective be stayed.

73. (1) Ayant à statuer sur un appel interjeté dans le cadre de l'article 70, la section d'appel peut_:

a) soit y faire droit;

b) soit le rejeter;

c) soit, s'il s'agit d'un appel fondé sur les alinéas 70(1)b) ou 70(3)b) et relatif à une mesure de renvoi, ordonner de surseoir à l'exécution de celle-ci;

d) soit, s'il s'agit d'un appel fondé sur les alinéas 70(1)b) ou 70(3)b) et relatif à une mesure de renvoi conditionnel, ordonner de surseoir à l'exécution de celle-ci au moment où elle deviendra exécutoire.

74. (1) Where the Appeal Division allows an appeal made pursuant to section 70, it shall quash the removal order or conditional removal order that was made against the appellant and may

(a) make any other removal order or conditional removal order that should have been made; or

(b) in the case of an appellant other than a permanent resident, direct that the appellant be examined as a person seeking admission at a port of entry.

74. (1) Si elle fait droit à un appel interjeté dans le cadre de l'article 70, la section d'appel annule la mesure de renvoi ou de renvoi conditionnel et peut_:

a) soit lui substituer celle qui aurait dû être prise;

b) soit ordonner, sauf s'il s'agit d'un résident permanent, que l'appelant fasse l'objet d'un interrogatoire comme s'il demandait l'admission à un point d'entrée.


[16]            Sponsor is defined in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations as follows:



"sponsor" means a person who

(a) is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident who is at least 19 years of age, sponsors an application for landing of a member of the family class and satisfies an immigration officer that the person will reside in Canada exclusively and without interruption beginning on the date of giving an undertaking in respect of the application for landing until the member is granted landing in Canada, and that the person will reside in Canada after that time, or

(b) is a Canadian citizen who is at least 19 years of age, sponsors an application for landing of a member of the family class referred to in subsection 6(3) and satisfies a visa officer that, at the time of giving an undertaking in respect of the application for landing, the person resided exclusively outside Canada and that the person will reside in Canada when the member is granted landing in Canada;

« _répondant_ »

a) Citoyen canadien ou résident permanent âgés d'au moins 19 ans qui parrainent la demande d'établissement d'un parent et qui démontrent à l'agent d'immigration qu'ils résideront exclusivement au Canada, sans interruption, à partir de la date de leur engagement à l'égard de la demande jusqu'au moment où le parent se verra accorder le droit d'établissement au Canada et qu'ils résideront au Canada après ce moment;

b) citoyen canadien âgé d'au moins 19 ans qui parraine la demande d'établissement d'un parent visé au paragraphe 6(3) et qui démontre à l'agent des visas qu'il résidait exclusivement à l'étranger à la date de son engagement à l'égard de cette demande et qu'il résidera au Canada lorsque le parent se verra accorder le droit d'établissement au Canada.


[17]            The other relevant provision in the Regulations is section 12 which provides:



12. An immigrant who has been issued a visa and who appears before an immigration officer at a port of entry for examination pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the Act is required

(a) if his marital status has changed since the visa was issued to him, or

(b) if any other facts relevant to the issuance of the visa have changed since the visa was issued to him or were not disclosed at the time of issue thereof,

to establish that at the time of the examination

(c) the immigrant and the immigrant's dependants, whether accompanying dependants or not, where a visa was issued to the immigrant pursuant to subsection 6(1), section 9 or subsection 10(1) or (1.1) or 11(3) or (4), or

(d) the immigrant and the immigrant's accompanying dependants, in any other case,

meet the requirements of the Act, these Regulations and the Humanitarian Designated Classes Regulations, including the requirements for the issuance of the visa.

12. Un immigrant à qui un visa a été délivré et qui se présente pour examen devant un agent d'immigration à un point d'entrée, conformément au paragraphe 12(1) de la Loi, doit

a) si son état matrimonial a changé depuis la délivrance du visa, ou

b) si des faits influant sur la délivrance du visa ont changé depuis que le visa a été délivré ou n'ont pas été révélés au moment où le visa a été délivré,

établir

c) que lui-même et les personnes à sa charge, qu'elles l'accompagnent ou non, dans le cas où un visa a été délivré à l'immigrant conformément au paragraphe 6(1), à l'article 9 ou aux paragraphes 10(1) ou (1.1) ou 11(3) ou (4),

d) que lui-même et les personnes à sa charge qui l'accompagnent, dans tout autre cas,

satisfont, au moment de l'examen, aux exigences de la Loi et du présent règlement ainsi qu'à celles du Règlement sur les catégories d'immigrants précisées pour des motifs d'ordre humanitaire, y compris les exigences relatives à la délivrance du visa.


ANALYSIS

[18]            It is helpful to review the scheme set out in the Act and Regulations for the sponsorship of family members and their landing.

[19]            Subsection 2(1) in conjunction with subsection 5(2) of the Regulations allows Canadian citizens or permanent residents who meet certain requirements to sponsor an application for landing of a member of the family class.

[20]            As to the admission of the sponsoree, section 9 of the Act requires an immigrant to apply for and obtain an immigrant's visa before appearing at a port of entry. Such applications are to be assessed by a visa officer, and where a visa officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the Act or Regulations to grant landing, the officer may issue a visa to the applicant to identify the applicant as a person who, in the opinion of the visa officer, meets the requirements of the Act and Regulations.

[21]            The holder of the immigrant visa then, pursuant to subsection 12(1) of the Act, presents himself or herself to an immigration officer at a port of entry for examination to determine whether the person is a person who may be granted admission.


[22]            So that the immigration officer can determine if the person still meets the requirements of the Act and the Regulations at the time the person arrives at the port of entry, the person is, by section 12 of the Regulations, required to disclose all material facts changed since the issuance of the visa, or not disclosed at the time the visa was issued.

[23]            Under subsection 14(2) of the Act, where the immigration officer is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the Act or the Regulations to grant landing, the immigration officer shall either grant landing or authorize the immigrant to come into Canada on condition that the immigrant be present for further examination.

[24]            Under subsection 20(1) of the Act, where the immigration officer is of the opinion that it would, or may be, contrary to the Act or Regulations to grant admission, the immigration officer shall either report the person in writing to a senior immigration officer or allow the person to leave Canada forthwith.

[25]            Where a senior immigration officer receives such report, and is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the Act or Regulations to grant landing or otherwise authorize the immigrant to come into Canada, the senior immigration officer shall, pursuant to subsection 23(1) of the Act, either grant landing or authorize the immigrant to come into Canada for further examination.


[26]            Where, as in the present case, the senior immigration officer does not grant landing or allow the immigrant to enter pursuant to subsection 23(1), and does not make an exclusion order, paragraph 23(4.2)(a) of the Act requires the senior immigration officer to cause an inquiry to be held concerning the person as soon as is reasonably practicable.

[27]            Section 31 of the Act requires an adjudicator conducting an inquiry to give a decision as soon as possible after an inquiry and where, in respect of a person who was seeking landing, the adjudicator is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the Act or Regulations to grant landing, the adjudicator shall grant landing as provided in paragraph 32(3)(a) of the Act.

[28]            Where the inquiry results in the issuance of a removal order or a conditional removal order, there is a right of appeal pursuant to paragraph 70(2)(b) of the Act to the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Appeal Division").

[29]            On such appeal, the Appeal Division may either allow or dismiss the appeal, as provided for in subsection 73(1) of the Act. Where the appeal is allowed, subsection 74(1) allows the Appeal Division to make any removal order or conditional removal order that should have been made or to direct an examination as a person seeking entry at a port of entry.


[30]            What emerges from this review is an understanding that sections 9, 12, 14, 20, 23, 31, 32, 70, 73 and 74 of the Act establish a complete procedure governing landing, including ultimately a right of appeal to the Appeal Division where landing is denied.

[31]            It is a settled principle of law that remedies such as those sought on this application for judicial review ought not to be granted if the Court is satisfied that an adequate, alternative remedy is available to the applicant. See, for example, Anderson v. Canada (Armed Forces), [1997] 1 F.C. 273 (F.C.A.). The point is often expressed in terms that applicants ought to exhaust all statutory remedies before seeking judicial review, and reflects the discretionary and extraordinary nature of judicial review.

[32]            In my view, in the present case the legislative provisions governing landing provide an adequate, alternative remedy to judicial review of the decision of the senior immigration officer.


[33]            In so concluding I have had regard to the following factors. The tenor of the Adjudication Division Rules, SOR/93-47 and the Immigration Appeal Division Rules, SOR/93-46 encourages the parties to proceed expeditiously. There is no suggestion that the process is costly, or in any event more costly than judicial review. An adjudicator has jurisdiction to grant landing, which is a remedy superior to that available on an application for judicial review, where the matter may well simply be remitted for redetermination. The final decision of the Appeal Division may be the subject of an application for leave and for judicial review.

[34]            Declining, in the face of an adequate alternative remedy, to exercise the court's discretion at this juncture preserves the integrity of the process established by Parliament, reflects a proper and measured concern for the economic use of judicial resources, and ensures that if questions of law are ultimately to be decided by this Court on an application for judicial review the Court will have the benefit of reasons from the Appeal Division.

[35]            For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.

[36]            Counsel for the applicants sought certification of a question in the following terms:

Is a senior immigration officer at a port of entry obliged to land holders of Family Class immigrant visas, where there has been an opinion by another immigration officer that the sponsor is no longer a permanent resident, and there has been no judicial or quasi-judicial determination of this issue?

[37]            In view of the basis on which I have disposed of this application, it is not appropriate to certify the question posed or any similar question. This is an argument which should be addressed in the first instance to an adjudicator, and then, if necessary, to the Appeal Division.


[38]            In these circumstances the outstanding, but adjourned, inquiry should proceed expeditiously before the adjudicator.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1.          The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2.          No question is certified.

"Eleanor R. Dawson"

                                                                                                           Judge                        

Toronto, Ontario

March 7, 2002


                          FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                   Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                                                        IMM-3257-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                            YADWINDER SINGH SIDHU, RANJODH SINGH and KIRANJEET KAUR

                                                                                                   Applicants

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                 Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:                           TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2002

PLACE OF HEARING:                                      TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                                               DAWSON J.

DATED:                                                                THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002

APPEARANCES BY:                                       Ms. Barbara Jackman

For the Applicant


Mr. Greg George

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                        Barbara Jackman

Barrister & Solicitor

281 Eglinton Avenue East

Toronto, Ontario

M4P 1L3

For the Applicant

                                    Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

            Date: 20020307

          Docket: IMM-3257-01

BETWEEN:

YADWINDER SINGH SIDHU, RANJODH SINGH and KIRANJEET KAUR

                                              Applicants

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                           Respondent

                                                   

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

                                                   

 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.