Toronto, Ontario, May 28, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] of a decision of an Immigration Officer [the Officer] dated July 13, 2011 in which the Officer refused the applicant’s request for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds.
[2] The applicant Valarie Valcina Archibald is a citizen of Saint Vincent born on September 27, 1975. She came to Canada on a visitor’s visa, arriving on August 11, 2002 and remained here without status after the visa expired.
[3] On June 2, 2006, she gave birth to a son. The child’s father is not involved in his life. She and her son live with her cousin and her cousin’s family, with all three adults in the household contributing to the care of all of the children.
[4] On November 29, 2010, she made an H&C application based on her establishment in Canada, the hardship if she returns to Saint Vincent, her relationship with her cousin’s family in Canada, and the best interest of her son. That application was refused on July 13, 2011.
[5] The Officer found insufficient evidence of hardship to warrant H&C relief.
[6] The Officer considered the interests of the applicant’s son, but found insufficient evidence that relocating to Saint Vincent would cause hardship given the child’s young age and the presence of several of the applicant’s family members in Saint Vincent. The Officer also considered the evidence of the applicant’s establishment in Canada but gave it little weight because the applicant’s lengthy stay in Canada was within her control and because she waited more than eight years before making any attempt to obtain status to remain here.
[7] The Officer rejected her argument that she had nowhere to live in Saint Vincent, as the applicant did not provide any evidence to show that she could not find a residence there for her and her son.
[8] Finally, the Officer considered the applicant’s relationship with her cousin’s family. The Officer acknowledged that some hardship will result from the applicant’s departure, but found that it was no more than the hardship that normally results when family members relocate to another country. The Officer further noted that the applicant’s parents and five siblings live in Saint Vincent. The Officer therefore refused the H&C application.
[9] I am unable to accept the applicant’s argument that the Officer applied the wrong guidelines and failed to consider her de facto family members who are in Canada. Although the Officer may not have included a separate heading titled “De facto family members” in the decision, it is clear from the reasons for the decision that she considered the applicant’s family members in Canada. Further, the applicant’s H&C application states that her cousin’s home is “chaotic and loud” and that, although she does not complain, “she is being used by her own family members” and is being forced to pay an unreasonable share of the household expenses and is “expected” to babysit her cousin’s children in her spare time. Given that these allegations are found in the H&C application, it is difficult to fault the Officer for not putting more emphasis on the applicant’s Canadian family members.
[10] The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7285-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: Valerie Valcina Archibald v The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
AND JUDGMENT: TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
APPEARANCES:
|
|
|
|
Angela Joshi |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Barrister & Solicitor
|
|
|
Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Québec |
FOR THE APPLICANT
|