Valdez v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-5430-97
Reed J.
12/3/99
7 pp.
Application for judicial review of IAD decision dismissing appeal of removal order issued on ground applicant not able to satisfy port of entry officer or immigration adjudicator he and dependants met all requirements of Act and Regulations-In statutory declaration signed in 1990, applicant stated unmarried and had no children-Upon arrival in Canada in September 1992, applicant declared had three children born in 1988, 1990 and 1992 and although not married, had been living with common law wife, mother of children-Port of entry officer's report stated applicant could not establish at port of entry dependants met requirements of Act and Regulations for issuance of visa-And that applicant had not answered truthfully questions put to him when applying for visa, contrary to Act, s. 9(3)-Adjudicator dismissed allegation applicant in violation of Act, s. 9(3) but held applicant failed to satisfy Regulations, s. 12 obligation to establish he and dependants admissible, meeting all requirements of Act and Regulations-IAD upheld adjudicator's decision-Application dismissed-IAD decision clearly correct in law and fully supported by facts-IAD did not err in not relying on evidence collected after adjudicator's decision as relevant to appeal of decision before it (documents proving relationship of children to applicant and medical assessment of them), and in not declaring him admissible on basis of that evidence-While IAD may make use of newly created evidence in sponsorship cases, and when making assessments under its equitable jurisdiction, but not when determining correctness of adjudicator's decision on question of law or fact-In last case, relevant evidence that existing at date of adjudicator's decision-In any event, new evidence produced herein not supporting applicant's claim has proven meeting all requirements of Act-Flores case (T94-00301, 19/4/96), where IAD allowed appeal pursuant to Act, s. 73(1)(a) following request by Minister, wrongly characterized by IAD herein as consent decision based on IAD's equitable jurisdiction-IAD misapprehended its authority when it signed Act, s. 73(1)(a) order in Flores case-IAD correct in saying consent judgments have no precedential value-In exercising its equitable jurisdiction, in present case, IAD found applicant had deliberately tried to circumvent Canada's immigration laws, and did so with full cooperation of family-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 9(3), 73(1)(a) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18)-Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, s. 12.