Applicant, citizen of India, became Canadian permanent resident as accompanying child of his parents, but he never became Canadian citizen. Applicant pled guilty and was convicted of sexual interference with minor, and he was sentenced to 18 months in jail and two years probation. Report was issued under s. 44(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and applicant was determined to be inadmissible pursuant to s. 36(1)(a). Admissibility hearing took place via teleconference and applicant requested Punjabi translator shortly after hearing began, which was arranged. Deportation order was issued. Applicant unsuccessfully brought application for judicial review. Applicant unsuccessfully brought application to avoid removal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Applicant brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. Applicant sought rehearing on arguments made in H&C application. Applicant could not ask to reweigh hardship of return to India as that had already been balanced against all other elements of application. Guidelines outlining separation of persons did not bind decision-maker as they contained permissive language. H&C considerations were not based upon sympathetic factors but rather required officer to balance all positive and negative factors and here, criminal offence weighed heavily against applicant.
Bisla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 7548, 2017 CarswellNat 7701, 2017 FC 1164, 2017 CF 1164, Ann Marie McDonald J. (F.C.); application for judicial review refused (2016), 2016 CarswellNat 10436, 2016 CarswellNat 4474, 2016 FC 1059, 2016 CF 1059, Alan S. Diner J. (F.C.).