Reliance on Extrinsic Evidence


I know I’m overthinking the process at this point.  I’m using different search terms to look at various court decisions.  My latest search turned up several hundred decisions and I’ve started by looking at very recent (2012) decisions.

One of these is Noh v MCI (2012 FC 529) an interesting H&C decision for a family who overstayed their visitor visas and are now trying to obtain permanent residency.  Cases such as this one are held up as an example of how the immigration system is broken.  Their children (now both over 18) have lived the past 8.5 years in Canada, going to school and even University here.  The parents are using their children’s needs as part of the rationale for why they should be allowed to remain in Canada.  I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if they should be allowed – or not – because that isn’t what caught my eye as I read the decision.

[20]           A decision-maker’s reliance on undisclosed extrinsic evidence is a breach of procedural fairness (see Tariku v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2007 FC 474 at paragraph 2 and Qureshi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2009 FC 1081 at paragraph 14). Likewise, the opportunity to respond to a decision-maker’s concerns is also an issue of procedural fairness (see Karimzada v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2012 FC 152 at paragraph 10 and Guleed  v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2012 FC 22 at paragraphs 11 and 12.

To be honest, I’ve been thinking that the issue the medical officer raised in her affidavit (the text she didn’t have in her original notes but recalled nine months after the fact) was a “reasonableness” standard but after reading this I begin to think that in fact this is an issue of law and thus must be judged on a standard of correctness.

The standard of correctness is a much higher standard than reasonableness and there is no deference given to the tribunal for decisions on the correctness standard – while there is such deference given on the reasonableness standard.

In other words, if the medical officer and/or visa officer had concerns that the insurance coverage would pay the cost of medication, they should have advised me of this fact.  Otherwise, they deprived me of the right to address their concerns.  It reminds me of the trial in L’Étranger.

Even so, if one were to use the standard of reasonableness:

[24] When reviewing a decision on the standard of reasonableness, the analysis will be concerned with “the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process [and also with] whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.” See Dunsmuir, above, at paragraph 47, and Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)v Khosa 2009 SCC 12 at paragraph 59.  Put another way, the Court should intervene only if the Decision was unreasonable in the sense that it falls outside the “range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.”

The decision still falls short, because even if one accepts the medical officer’s opinion that the insurance wouldn’t provide coverage, it fails to address the PHSP that covers any legitimate medical expense.

The Companioni decision set the bar fairly high – so high that it is extremely difficult for anyone not already inside Canada to reach.  Despite this, I put together a plan that I maintain anyone objectively reviewing the evidence would conclude actually met that rather high bar – it was a choate plan, the biggest concern voiced by the judge in that case.  It did not rely upon a personal promise to pay, either, another potential issue.  And, it demonstrated more than adequate funding to pay for a huge amount (approximately $68,000).

I seriously doubt that an impartial reviewer using the reasonableness standard would agree with the original rejection because if this plan cannot pass muster, no plan could pass muster and thus this whole process is a charade.  Just reject people in my position categorically.

But what I submit really happened (where “really happened” means “on a balance of probabilities”) is that the plan was ignored.  The rationale for that now are concerns that had never previously been voiced.  Rather than bolstering the government’s case, it actually damages their credibility.  Perhaps that is why thus far the government hasn’t really presented any actual legal argument against this application.  My best guess is that they will do so in their filing on the 28th – complete with the advantage of providing us with no opportunity to reply.

As usual, it’s a waiting game. 39 days to go – for the hearing.  Nobody knows how long until the decision.

Advertisements

Deadlines


Today I decided to really look further into the case law around tribunal records.  In the process I got side tracked by noticing Immigration Rule 21(2):

No time limit prescribed by these Rules may be varied except by order of a judge or prothonotary.

So my distraction turned into a bit of a search for case law regarding the meaning of the rules around the strict timelines laid down by the Federal Court of Canada.  Why is this important?  If the response is not timely and the Court does not grant an order then the material is excluded from consideration.

I also noticed another time issue: the “certified tribunal record” includes material that is dated AFTER the original decision, which runs counter to CIC’s own rules – the tribunal record should only include information/material that was considered by the decision maker.  Interestingly, if the extra material had been present in December 2011, the visa officer should have reached a positive determination, since it indicates I am not medically inadmissible (a code of “M39” which means “medically admissible – excessive demand exempt, will require health and/or social services”).

One might think that a single day doesn’t really matter – but it does.  It could be easily overcome by filing an application with the Court, asking for the change in schedule to be allowed and explaining why the extension is justified.  Indeed, I read a case in which the attorney delivered the application to the Bailiff for service on the day the service was due but the Bailiff did not serve the papers until the subsequent day.  The court did not consider the application record because it was not served in a timely fashion and the Applicant’s counsel did not ask for an extension of time to file.

I have seen signs of game playing in civil litigation before, so I shouldn’t be surprised at these shenanigans, but it is a bit shocking when it is my case to which they are being applied.

Then again, it makes me wonder: if the government had a strong case here, why would they play these games.  This really does suggest they expect to lose.  In some ways, having the Court strike down 38(1)(c) might be a blessing for the government because it would get them out of the medical inadmissibility business, which does seem to create a lot of grief for them.

We will know on or after October 17, 2012. I don’t see that deadline changing.

Three Years


Three Years

Celebrating Three Years

I realized earlier this week that my immigration journey has now been ongoing for three years.  My attorney at the time submitted my application three years ago to Sydney, Nova Scotia to the “Central Intake Office” (CIO) responsible for doing initial evaluation of Federal Skilled Worker (FSW) applications for CIC.  Little did I know that three years later I would find myself with immigration unresolved.  If I  had, I think I probably would not have filed the application – no human deserves the disrespect and dehumanization that this process represents.  I wonder if it is as dehumanizing for the workers at Citizenship and Immigration Canada as it is for the applicants they are evaluating – I suspect that at times it must be – after all, each of the applications represents the stories of real people and you either have to distance yourself from their stories or you would be deeply saddened by those same stories.

I suspect my story would not have been one to pluck at the heart-strings.  After all, I’m actually successful – I am well-known in my field and successful.  I have traveled extensively, work with people all over the world.  One would think I am an ideal candidate – I basically enter Canada with my set of skills, my own customers, and a proven track record of being able to create novel and creative work (now I have four issued US patents and I’m working on more, not to mention multiple published books in my field, many technical articles, public presentations, etc.)  Technically I barely met the bar for consideration: I had the lowest possible score (67) because of course being able to set up shop on my own doesn’t count for anything in the FSW category (they give you big points for having arranged employment, but nothing for being able to create a new firm and bring your customers with you.)  I struggle by in my rudimentary French (I only studied three years back in High School and that was many years ago with very little intervening use since then.)  I only have a Bachelor’s degree, albeit with many years of experience.  My evidence of English were my published books, articles, talks, and the fact that I was born in the US in a household in which English was our only language (ok, American English, so it’s not quite the same as Canadian English.)

At any rate, here we are, three years later and the application is still not technically completed – after all, I still have a pending application before the Federal Court challenging the decision.  And of course, I haven’t heard anything on that either.  Since Monday July 2, 2012 is a statutory holiday (Canada Day) I won’t hear anything before the 11 week mark at this point.  Even though I have a second option (spousal sponsored immigration) I am forever bound by my unconditional promise to pay for my medication, should that prove to be necessary – I realize there is no legal mechanism for enforcement, but I recognize it as an immoral act to violate my own solemn sworn oath.

It is ironic that I now must worry about my sponsorship.  My spouse’s family is very unhappy about our marriage and is using every emotional tool in the arsenal to force a return home (where for them “home” means where they are, not where we are.)  I don’t expect that to happen, but I have to consider what I will do should it happen (of course, at the same time I am being as supportive as I can because regardless of what my spouse decides I know it will be for the best.)

If that does happen and the court decides not to hear my case (which seems likely at this point – it’s now pushing three months) then my plan is to go back to the US.  Sad, to be defeated and unwanted by both Canada and one’s own country – at least the US has no choice but to allow me to return.

We shall see what happens…

Wishing everyone a Happy Canada Day.