 Printer-Friendly Page
Date: 20000323 Docket: A-138-98 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: SEYYED AMIR RAZAVI Appellant
- and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, March 23, 2000 Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, March 23, 2000 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A.
Date: 20000323 Docket: A-138-98 CORAM: STRAYER J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: SEYYED AMIR RAZAVI Appellant
- and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, March 23, 2000) SEXTON J.A.: [1] The appellant came to Canada from Iran in November, 1994. On March 16, 1996 the Immigration and Refugee Board ("IRB") rejected his refugee claim, on the basis that he lacked credibility. [2] On March 27, 1996, the IRB"s decision and reasons were forwarded to the applicant. [3] On April 16, 1996 the appellant instituted an application for leave and for judicial review of the IRB"s decision. This application was dismissed on August 19, 1996 because the appellant had failed to file a record. [4] On October 28, 1996 a lawyer wrote on behalf of the appellant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicating that he had "been approached" by the appellant who intended to retain him and he requested an extension of time to file submissions in support of the appellant"s status as a Post-Determination refugee claimant in Canada ("PDRCC"). The Minister did not reply to the letter. [5] On December 18, 1996 the lawyer again wrote to the Minister requesting an extension of time. At no time did the appellant in fact make any submissions despite having had at least eight months to do so. [6] The appellant received a letter dated December 19, 1996 indicating that his deemed application for landing as a member of the PDRCC class had been rejected. [7] The appellant"s application for judicial review of the alleged failure of an Immigration Officer to consider the request for an extension of time was dismissed by McGillis J. who then certified the following question:
Both parties, as well as McGillis J., appear to have assumed that an extension of time was necessary in order for the appellant to make submissions. [8] There is no evidence before the Court as to whether the letter requesting an extension of time was ever received by or seen by the decision-making officer prior to making the decision in question, nor was there evidence that there was any refusal to consider any request for an extension of time. Similarly, there is no evidence that the immigration officer considered that any extension of time was necessary in order for the appellant to make submissions. There are no findings by the Motions Judge on these matters either. [9] Therefore, there is an insufficient fact base in order to answer the question posed by the Motions Judge. [10] Because there was no evidence of any refusal to receive submissions nor of any refusal to extend the time, there is no foundation for any argument that the appellant"s Charter rights have been violated. [11] The appeal is dismissed. "J. E. Sexton" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 2000 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, March 23, 2000 APPEARANCES: Mr. Micheal Crane
Ms. Ann Margaret Oberst
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Date: 20000323 Docket: A-138-98
BETWEEN:
Appellant
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
