T-3373-79
Kingsley Udoro Akpanson (Petitioner)
v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration
(Respondent)
and
C. J. Bourget and Rolland Duval (Mis -en-cause)
Trial Division, Decary J.—Montreal, September
17; Ottawa, December 6, 1979.
Prerogative writs — Certiorari — Mandamus — Immigra
tion — Petitioner's student status changed to that of visitor
because required documents not produced — Petitioner not
advised what documents were required and what standards are
relied on for granting of student visa — At hearing, held
because petitioner overstayed as a visitor, Adjudicator decided
that he had no right to examine Immigration Officer's decision
or to call him — Certiorari sought — Mandamus to issue
ordering Adjudicator to call Immigration Officer to be
examined.
APPLICATION.
COUNSEL:
Norton Segal for petitioner.
Daniel Marecki for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Lech ter & Segal, Montreal, for petitioner.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for order ren
dered in English by
DECARY J.: The petitioner requests the issue of
a writ of certiorari in view of the following facts:
he entered Canada as a visitor on January 18,
1973; three months later he received student status
which was renewed several times, the last time on
October 13, 1978 to be valid until November 24,
1978; on November 21, 1978, three days before
the expiration of his student status, he attended at
the Immigration office and then produced docu
ments, one showing that he was a student at
Concordia University enrolled in 2nd-3rd year
computer sciences, and another one being a letter
from a bank showing that he had $3,000 in his
bank account; the immigration officer was not
satisfied with these documents and changed his
status to that of visitor, to be valid until November
28, 1978, that is for six days; petitioner had had
then student status for five years and 6 months in
Canada; on November 29, 1978, he attended at
Immigration establishing that he had remained in
Canada after he had ceased to be a visitor; a
report was made leading to a hearing before the
Adjudicator on June 19, 1979; two questions were
asked the Adjudicator:
1. whether he had the jurisdiction to examine
the decision of the immigration officer who
refused the extension of petitioner's student
status and whether he had the jurisdiction to
vary or change that decision if he considered it
necessary;
2. asked permission to call the immigration offi
cer who refused the extension of the student
status to determine why it was refused.
The Adjudicator's decision was that he had no
right to examine the decision of the immigration
officer and consequently should not call him to be
examined.
It is my opinion that petitioner has the right to
know the reason why his student visa is not extend
ed further after having been granted that status
for five years and six months; he should be advised
otherwise than by an evasive "he did not produce
the documents required" as appears in the report,
and should be told what are the documents
required and the standards relied upon for grant
ing a student visa.
It is my opinion that these facts, as I see them,
call for a writ of mandamus rather than one of
certiorari, and therefore an order will go to issue a
writ of mandamus ordering that the Adjudicator
call the immigration officer who signed the report
under section 27(2) of the Immigration Act, 1976,
1976-77, c. 53, dated the 15th day of December
1978 to be examined.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that a writ of mandamus be
issued ordering Claude Bourget, Adjudicator
acting on the inquiry started June 19, 1978, to
summon the immigration officer who signed the
report made under the provisions of section 27(2)
of the Immigration Act, 1976, dated December 15,
1978, to appear as a witness to be examined and
cross-examined as need there be.
Costs to be paid by respondent.
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.