Owusu v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2004), 318 N.R. 300 (FCA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. FE.031
Samuel Kwabena Owusu (appellant) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)
(A-114-03; 2004 FCA 38)
Indexed As:
Owusu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Federal Court of Appeal
Strayer, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A.
January 26, 2004.
Summary:
Owusu, a citizen of Ghana, came to Canada in 1991. His Convention Refugee claim was rejected. His application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was also rejected. Owusu applied for judicial review of the humanitarian and compassionate decision.
The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in a decision reported at 228 F.T.R. 19, dismissed the application, but certified a question for the Court of Appeal.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and held that it was unnecessary to answer the question certified by the applications judge.
Aliens – Topic 4
Definitions and general principles – Children – The applicant, a citizen of Ghana, came to Canada in 1991, leaving behind his wife and two small children – The applicant’s Convention Refugee claim was rejected – In 2001, a visa officer rejected his application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate (H & C) grounds – An applications judge dismissed the application – The applicant appealed – The Federal Court of Appeal stated that, in deciding to dismiss the appeal, it was not to be taken to have affirmed the applications judge’s view that an immigration officer’s duty to consider the best interests of an H & C applicant’s children was engaged when the children were not in, and had never been to, Canada – The facts of this case did not require that issue to be decided – See paragraphs 16 to 27.
Aliens – Topic 1206
Admission – Immigrants – General – Upon compassionate or humanitarian grounds – The Federal Court of Appeal stated that “H & C [humanitarian and compassionate] applicants have no right or legitimate expectation that they will be interviewed. And, since applicants have the onus of establishing the facts on which their claim rests, they omit pertinent information from their written submissions at their peril.” – See paragraph 8.
Aliens – Topic 1206
Admission – Immigrants – General – Upon compassionate or humanitarian grounds – The applicant, a citizen of Ghana, came to Canada in 1991, leaving behind his wife and two small children – His Convention Refugee claim was rejected – In 2001, a visa officer rejected his application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds – The applicant sought judicial review – An applications judge dismissed the application – The applicant appealed, submitting that the visa officer erred in failing to consider his children’s best interests – The Federal Court of Appeal held that a half-sentence on page four of the applicant’s seven-page letter, stating only that he would be unable to support his family financially if he was deported, was too oblique, cursory and obscure to impose a positive obligation on the officer to inquire further about the children’s best interests.
Aliens – Topic 1230
Admission – Immigrants – Application for admission – Immigrant visa – Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) – [See
Aliens – Topic 4
and second
Aliens – Topic 1206
].
Aliens – Topic 1236
Admission – Immigrants – Application for admission – Evidence and proof – [See both
Aliens – Topic 1206
].
Aliens – Topic 4089
Practice – Hearings – Right to be present – [See first
Aliens – Topic 1206
].
Cases Noticed:
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 5].
Counsel:
Mark Rosenblatt, for the appellant;
Ann-Margaret Oberst, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Mark Rosenblatt, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 26, 2004, by Strayer, Sexton and Evans, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Evans, J.A., delivered the following oral decision for the court on the same date.
