Azarcon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration)
Between
Erick Jade Azarcon, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
Erick Jade Azarcon, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2015] F.C.J. No. 685
2015 FC 675
Docket: IMM-4723-14
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Zinn J.
Heard: May 21, 2015.
Judgment: May 25, 2015.
Docket: IMM-4723-14
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Zinn J.
Heard: May 21, 2015.
Judgment: May 25, 2015.
(11 paras.)
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
1 ZINN
J.:-- The applicant asks the court to set aside a decision of a visa officer
denying him a temporary resident visa to visit his mother in Canada. He submits
that he was denied procedural fairness because the decision's reasons are
inadequate and the decision is unreasonable because the officer misconstrued or
ignored evidence. For the reasons that follow, the court must dismiss this
application.
2 The
applicant is a citizen of the Philippines. He sought a six month temporary
resident visa in order to come to Canada to support and care for his mother,
Juliet Azarcon, who lives in Canada. Ms. Azarcon is a caregiver and is in the
processes of obtaining permanent residence. She was in a car accident and
suffers from various injuries.
3 The
visa officer rejected the application as he or she was not satisfied that the
applicant would leave Canada after his stay as a temporary resident. This
decision was stated to have been based on the applicant's travel history,
family ties in Canada and country of residence, limited employment prospects in
country of residence, current employment situation, personal assets and
financial status.
4 The
Visa Officer's notes, which constitute the reasons for the decision, state:
· NO FOSS RECORD. 28 Y/O MALE. VISTING MOTHER FOR SIX MONTHS. MOTHER
FIGURED IN A CAR ACCIDENT IN NOV 2013. MED CERT SEEN. MOTHER SUFFERS FROM
DEPRESSION AND PTSD. SUSTAINED SOME INJURIES AND UNDERGOING PHYSICAL THERAPY.
SHE HAS SOME PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS BUT IS ABLE TO PERFORM BASIC SELF-CARE FUNCTIONS
LIKE DRESSING UP, EATING, GOING TO THE BATHROOM. MOTHER ON A WP AS LCP. HAS NO
FAMILY IN CDA. CURRENTLY RECEIVING DISABILITY BENEFITS. SUBJ HAS NO PREV
OVERSEAS TRAVEL. RUNS A SMALL INTERNET SHOP. NO PROOF OF BUSINESS INCOME.
MODEST FUNDS WITH NO DEPOSIT HISTORY. UNMARRIED, NO DECLARED DEPS. HAS A
NURSING DEGREE. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ALL INFO ON FILE, PARTICULARLY THE
SITUATION OF SUBJ'S MOTHER IN CDA. HOWEVER, SUBJ PRESENTS VERY WEAK TIES IN THE
PHILS (NO TRAVEL, LOW FUNDS, SOURCE OF INCOME). ALSO HAS STRONG ECONOMIC
INCENTIVES TO REMAIN IN CDA. ON BALANCE, I AM NOT SATISFIED THAT SUBJ WILL
LEAVE CDA BY THE END OF AUTHORIZED STAY.
5 I
am unable to agree with the applicant that these reasons are not sufficiently
intelligible or transparent for him and the court to be able to determine
whether the decision is or is not reasonable. The ultimate question the officer
had to address was whether the applicant would return to the Philippines after
visiting Canada to care for his mother.
6 The
duty on a visa officer to provide reasons is at the low end of the scale. The
question the court must ask is whether the reasons are such that the applicant
knows why his application was rejected. In my view, they meet that standard.
The officer noted that the applicant has weak ties to the Philippines. The
information summarized by the officer concerning the applicant's personal ties
to the Philippines is accurate. The officer does not mention that the applicant
has a sibling and a father in the Philippines; however, it is not incumbent on
an officer to recite every fact in the application, especially when, as here,
there is no evidence that these relationships would be a strong draw to return
to the Philippines and leave a mother in Canada who may still require his care.
The applicant knows from the reasons given that the officer concluded that he
had weak ties to the Philippines.
7 The
applicant also knows that the officer knew and understood his reason for
wishing to visit his mother in Canada -- namely, to care for her. He submits
that the officer ignored or misconstrued evidence as to the mother's condition
and her need for his care.
8 In
my assessment, the officer's summary of the mother's condition is a fair and
reasonable summary of the medical evidence tendered by the applicant. In
particular, the observation that "she has some physical limitations but is
able to perform basic self-care functions" is a fair and reasonable
characterization of that evidence. The attendant care evaluation in the record
shows that very little time is required for level 3 care -- "complex
health/care hygiene functions." Most of the care required is in
supervising or the patient or in providing "routine personal care."
The officer's summary is thus reasonable.
9 The
applicant also objects to the officer's statement that he "has strong
economic incentives" to remain in Canada. He submits that it is impossible
to know what incentives the officer was referring to in the notes. In my view,
the officer's observation is not without some merit. Ms. Azarcon is in receipt
of disability income and there is a medical report in the record that states
that she should be in receipt of attendant care benefit, which the applicant
could presumably provide given his nursing background, of $7,840.11 per month.
The conclusion that he would have a financial incentive to overstay his visa is
reasonable.
10 In
summary, although the ultimate decision may have been otherwise based on the
record, the court cannot find that the result reached by this officer was
unreasonable. Nor can the court find that the officer's reasons were lacking in
detail such that they were unintelligible or lacking in transparency.
11 Neither
party proposed a question for certification; nor is there one.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed and no question is certified.
ZINN J
No comments:
Post a Comment