Les limites du pouvoir discrétionnaire de l’agent d’IRCC : une hypothèse stéréotypée ne peut suffire à justifier un refus de parrainage
Par Delphine Azak, avocate
Dans la décision Eroglu c. Canada (Ministre de la citoyenneté et de l’Immigration), 2022 FC 1305, la Cour fédérale a déterminé que la décision de refus de parrainage de l’agent d’immigration était déraisonnable, car basée sur des stéréotypes nuisibles.
Contexte
Les requérants, Monsieur et Madame Eroglu, demandent le contrôle judiciaire d’une décision rendue par l’agent d’immigration, refusant la demande de parrainage du couple. L’agent refuse la demande conformément à l’article 4.1 du Règlement sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, DORS/2002-227 (ci-après » RIPR « ) au motif que les requérants auraient dissous leur mariage afin que M. Eroglu puisse acquérir le statut de résident permanent dans le cadre d’une nouvelle relation, pour ensuite divorcer puis parrainer Mme Eroglu afin qu’elle puisse à son tour obtenir sa résidence permanente au Canada.
L’agent a mentionné dans ses motifs de refus qu’il ne trouvait pas que la relation du couple (d’origine kurde de Turquie) ne soit représentative de personnes qui semblent être culturellement conservatrices. Il note par ailleurs ne pas être convaincu par leur explication (ou l’absence d’explication) de la chronologie de leur relation. Il termine en expliquant que la manière et les circonstances dans lesquelles le mariage initial du répondant a été dissous puis repris sont commodes et orchestrées.
Les requérants, quant à eux, soutiennent que l’agent a violé le principe de l’équité procédurale en ne leur permettant pas de répondre à ces préoccupations et qu’il a pris une décision déraisonnable sur le fond.
« [26] The Applicants submit that the Officer failed to provide adequate reasons to justify the severe decision to separate their family (Vavilov at para 133; VIA Rail Canada Inc v National Transportation Agency, 2000 CanLII 16275 (FCA) at para 22). The Officer’s decision does not address the Applicants’ reasons for their divorce, the issues that led to Mr. Eroglu’s divorce from Ms. Dumais, or the circumstances that led to their reconciliation. The Applicants argue that the Officer applied baseless assumptions to their relationship timeline and failed to engage with the evidence on record, as well as the plausibility of the Applicants’ circumstances. This Court has found that decision makers must proceed cautiously and rely on common sense or evidence when drawing adverse credibility findings from the implausibility of a claimant’s narrative (Aliserro v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 412 (“Aliserro”) at paras 30-31). It was also unreasonable for the Officer to find that Mr. Eroglu reunited with Ms. Eroglu when he returned to Turkey after becoming a Canadian permanent resident, when there is no evidence of the couple’s communication or contact during this time. In fact, the evidence demonstrates that the couple had been divorced for several years at this point and barely spent time together when Ms. Eroglu first visited her children in Canada in 2013.
[27] The Applicants further submit that the Officer’s broad statements about their cultural conservatism and relationship timeline are entirely speculative and based on stereotypes. The Officer’s decision suggests that the relationship is one of convenience because the Applicants are “culturally conservative”, yet there was no evidence before the Officer to justify this conclusion. During the hearing, counsel for the Applicants stressed that the Officer’s reasoning is tainted by their view of the Applicants as stereotypes, rather than as people. »
Décision
La Cour a déterminé que la décision de refus du parrainage était déraisonnable en ce que les motifs de l’agent ne sont pas intelligibles, transparents ou justifiés à la lumière des nombreuses preuves fournies par les requérants. Elle mentionne sa préoccupation par le fait que l’agent s’appuie sur des stéréotypes pour soutenir sa conclusion (par. 26).
« [30] The only unique factor the Officer seems to rely on to support their findings that the Applicants relationship is one of convenience is grounded in a stereotypical assumption about the Applicants’ apparent cultural conservatism. The Officer’s decision states: “I do not find their relationship pattern to be demonstrative of people who appear to be culturally conservative.” As rightly noted by the Applicants, the record does not support this conclusion, nor did the Officer explain the origins of this finding. The Applicants provided a sworn affidavit from Mr. Eroglu and letters from their children and friends outlining their relationship timeline, including the events leading to their initial divorce in 1999, Mr. Eroglu’s ten-year relationship with Ms. Dumais, and the Applicants’ remarriage in 2019. The Officer did not refer to any of these materials, nor do I find that anything in the record addresses the Applicants’ alleged cultural conservatism or any inherent unwillingness to divorce or remarry because of their cultural beliefs. The Officer appears to have reached this conclusion on their own, based on stereotypical beliefs about how the Applicants—and those like them—ought to behave. To be clear, the Vavilov framework does not support such a “justification”.
[31] Immigration officers do not have the inherent authority to make assumptions about an applicant’s personal beliefs—whether they are cultural, religious, or the like. Without any statements from the Applicants on the topic, the Officer had no reasonable basis upon which to conclude they adhered to a culturally conservative lifestyle, or to make assumptions about what that sort of lifestyle would entail. The Officer had the opportunity to ask the Applicants to elaborate on their beliefs during an interview or in a follow-up procedural fairness letter, yet the Officer opted not to take such steps.
[32] Underlying the test for section 4.1 of the IRPR is the need for a decision maker to consider whether a previous marriage or partnership, “[…] was dissolved primarily so that the foreign national, another foreign national or the sponsor could acquire any status or privilege under the [IRPA]”. A determination of this motive requires context, which in turn requires that consideration be given to the unique evidence and facts underlying each case. In other words, intent matters. »
Commentaire
Dans cette décision, la Cour vient limiter la portée du pouvoir discrétionnaire des agents d’immigration. Bien que l’arrêt Vavilov permette la brièveté des motifs d’une décision, cela ne permet pas aux agents de passer complètement sous silence les questions clés appuyées par la preuve au dossier et ainsi de rendre des décisions entachées de jugement et opinion personnelle.
Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible ici.
Commentaires (0)
L’équipe du Blogue vous encourage à partager avec nous et nos lecteurs vos commentaires et impressions afin d’alimenter les discussions sur le Blogue. Par ailleurs, prenez note du fait qu’aucun commentaire ne sera publié avant d’avoir été approuvé par un modérateur et que l’équipe du Blogue se réserve l’entière discrétion de ne pas publier tout commentaire jugé inapproprié.