Neutral Citation: 2010 FC 38

Student’s name:
Professor’s name:
Course title:
Date:
Neutral Citation: 2010 FC 38
Style of Cause
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Ayed Salem Abed Salem. Mr. Lorne Ptack and serves as the applicant and Ayed Salem Abed Salem is the respondent (CanLII 1).
Material Facts
The respondent is a citizen of Jordan and lives in Dubai. He came to Canada in August 2002 with his family. His child felt sick while the family was traveling to Canada and was admitted at Canadian hospital on arrival. The hospital bill was $10,000, and the respondent went back to work in Jordan to earn money to clear the debt. He cleared the debt after 18 months. The dispute that the respondent does not meet 730 days does not hold ground. The respondent spent 308 days in Canada from August 2002 to April 2009. Advanced several factors that second the ‘findings of H&C to squash decision made by the Visa Officer. IAD concluded that the decision taken by visa officer concerning respondent’s contravention of the residency rules is legally valid. However, the appellant should be given special relief considering the interest of the child who is adversely influenced by the decision. There is enough humanitarian issues force the client to receive special relief (CanLII 1).
The Issue That the Court Was Asked To Decide
The court was required to carry out a judicial review to establish whether the (IAD) was justified in its decision to grant an appeal on the determination taken by Visa Officer that the respondent had not fulfilled all the requirements stipulated for a person to attain permanent residence in Canada.

Depended on the findings of H&C that there were sufficient humanitarian and compassionate issues that require that the client is granted special relief. Consideration of the child’s interest indicates that the decision will affect the child (CanLII 1).
The decision by the court
The court quashed the IAD’s decision and allowed judicial review. The matter was referred back for a new resolution. The new decision will be made by a newly constituted panel. The court ordered the client to present a better case with sufficient evidence which can be tested. The court ruled that there is no question for certification (CanLII 1).
Reasons for the Decision
The court rendered IAD’s decision unreasonable because of the following reasons.
1.IAD claimed that the respondent did not present documents that indicate his effort to find a job in Canada but the same institution concur with H&C finding that the respondent could not find a job in Canada(CanLII 1).
2. It seemed that IAD accepted respondent’s claim that he changed the employer since there was another opportunity at Montreal yet the institution had no evidence from the employer (CanLII 1).
3. IAD concentrated on the respondent’s need to travel back to find money in Jordan to clear hospital bill as its mitigating factor. However, the debt was paid after 18 months after the admission of the child hence the hospital bill was not a relevant mitigating factor in 2009(CanLII 1).
4. IAD emphasized the “best interests of the children” as the main factor that justified special relief, but there was no sufficient evidence as required by the law to grant such special relief.
Implications of This Case for Future
The ruling of the case was based on other decisions that were made earlier such as such as neutral citation: 2004 FCA 38.consequently, the ruling of case 2010 will be referenced by other respondents and applicants in the future in the court of law (CanLII 1).
Work Cited
(CanLII), Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Salem, 2010 FC 38, <http://canlii.ca/t/27g64>, retrieved on 2018-11-26