IMMIGRANT WITH 32 CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS LOSES APPEAL

Why does it take 32 (THIRTY-TWO ) criminal convictions for CBSA to act on a deportation? Note that the "criminal career" in the case below began in 1977, practically a lifetime ago. Obviously this individual had ample time to show rehabilitation. CBSA deports people for single offences regularly. Where was the breakdown in enforcement at CBSA? Did this person not come to their attention earlier? Puzzling. CBSA  is responsible for failure to act quickly. It also took two years for the case to be decided in court since the date of the initial deportation order. Note the very short reasons by the court, as if it were annoyed that this case was even brought forward.

Leandro v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Between Jose Manuel Leandro, Applicant, and
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,
Respondent

[2011] F.C.J. No. 1027

2011 FC 828

Docket IMM-5317-10

Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario

Phelan J.


Heard: April 5, 2011.
Judgment: July 6, 2011.

(9 paras.)

---

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

PHELAN J.:--

·       I. BACKGROUND

1     The Applicant is a citizen of Portugal. He has been in Canada for 45 years. He is addicted to alcohol and crack cocaine and had 31 criminal convictions between September 1977 and May 2010. He added a further conviction on January 4, 2011 while this judicial review was awaiting a hearing.

2     On April 23, 2009, the Applicant was ordered deported from Canada because of his then latest conviction.

3     The Applicant appealed the removal order to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), which appeal was denied.

4     The IAD examined the six Ribic factors, noted that it had a wide discretion and that the Ribic factors were not exhaustive.

5     While the IAD recognized that the Applicant had family support and that he would experience hardship upon return to Portugal, it concluded that any positive factors were outweighed by a low possibility of rehabilitation, lack of establishment and absence of family dependence on him.

·       II. ANALYSIS

6     The standard of review is well established as that of reasonableness (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12).

7     The Applicant is essentially asking this Court to re-weigh the evidence, and assess the Ribic factors to reach a different conclusion.

8     The IAD's reasons were clear and logical. The IAD considered all the relevant factors. There is nothing unreasonable in the weighing of the relevant factors.

·       III. CONCLUSION

9     It is not the Court's function to substitute its assessment of the evidence. There is no error and this judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT

·       THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. 

PHELAN J.