Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Citation:

Chauhdry v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 22, [2011] 1 F.C.R. D-15

IMM-1426-10

Citizenship and Immigration

Status in Canada

Permanent Residents

Judicial review of visa officer’s decision refusing application for permanent resident visa under skilled worker class on ground applicant’s health condition reasonably expected to cause excessive demand on health, social services—Applicant planning to reside in Prince Edward Island, requiring daily immunosuppressive medication—Responding to fairness letter, stating condition stable, not requiring social services, medical assistance—Providing academic, employment, medical letters of support, details of financial resources, signed promise not to hold authorities responsible for health costs—Visa officer acknowledging additional information—However, not altering original assessment—Applicant submitting that visa officer failing to carry out appropriate individualized assessment, affidavit of medical officer explaining for first time how applicant’s medication costs to be burden on public purse—Issue whether procedural unfairness occurring because applicant not provided with information concerning Prince Edward Island—Applicant stating that if given adequate information, could have provided viable medical insurance plan, could have directed application at province other than Prince Edward Island—Clear from fairness letter, applicant’s response that applicant knew that drug costs, excessive demands upon public health system decisive issue—Applicant knew solution would involve alternative insurance coverage—However, no explanation as to how, where such coverage to be obtained—Applicant only providing inchoate suggestion, declaration of intent—Visa officer not obliged to advise applicant to reside elsewhere—Applicant responsible to review options, provide more than intention to seek group, private insurance—Application dismissed.

Chauhdry v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-1426-10, 2011 FC 22, Russell J., judgment dated January 11, 2011, 22 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.