๐๐๐ฌ ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐ง๐ฆ ๐ข๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐ง๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐ง๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ก๐๐๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐๐๐ก๐
๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ต ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ค๐บ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ
The Applicant sought interlocutory relief in the form of an order compelling immigration authorities to expedite reconsideration of the refusal decision and to urgently process a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP). Although framed as an injunction, the Court found the relief sought was, in substance, akin to mandamus.
Relying on established Federal Court authority, the judge held that mandamus cannot be obtained outside a proper judicial review framework and cannot be used to compel administrative decision-making on an accelerated basis. The Court further emphasized that granting such relief would effectively amount to an interim declaration of entitlement to enter Canada.
๐๐ฐ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด ๐ช๐ด๐ด๐ถ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฅ
Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court first found that no serious issue had been established. The judge accepted the Respondentโs position that immigration officers are entitled to rely on โreasonable grounds to believeโ under IRPA s.36(1)(c), and are not required to wait for a conviction before making inadmissibility determinations.
The Court further found that it was open to the visa officer to rely on the allegations contained in the foreign indictment when assessing admissibility. The Applicantโs argument that comparative foreign lawโsuch as United States immigration provisionsโshould influence the interpretation of IRPA was rejected as irrelevant to the statutory framework governing Canadian immigration decisions.
๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐ง๐ข๐ช๐ณ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด ๐ข๐ณ๐จ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ฅ๐ช๐ด๐ฎ๐ช๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ
The Court also rejected claims that the decision was procedurally unfair. It found that the Applicant had been specifically notified through a procedural fairness letter that his admissibility was in question due to ongoing criminal proceedings abroad. Despite this, the Court noted, the Applicant did not meaningfully address the concerns or provide sufficient evidence to rebut them.
๐๐ฐ ๐ช๐ณ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ข๐ณ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ณ๐ฎ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฏ
On the second branch of the test, the Court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. While acknowledging the importance of participation in international sporting events and potential reputational consequences, the Court found the evidence was largely speculative and insufficient.
The judge further noted that much of the reputational harm alleged stemmed not from the immigration decision itself, but from the broader context of ongoing criminal allegations in the United Kingdom, which could not be attributed solely to Canadian authorities.
Balance of convenience favours the public interest
Finally, the Court held that the balance of convenience strongly favoured maintaining the status quo. The decision emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity of Canadaโs immigration system and respecting Parliamentโs intent in creating a robust inadmissibility regime under IRPA.
Granting the requested relief, the Court found, would improperly interfere with lawful administrative decision-making and undermine the public interest in consistent enforcement of immigration rules relating to serious criminality.
Conclusion
Court dismissed the motion in its entirety, concluding that none of the three requirements under the RJR-MacDonald test had been met.
However, the judge noted the time-sensitive nature of the Applicantโs pending reconsideration and TRP requests and encouraged immigration authorities to process them expeditiously, while making clear that no further judicial intervention would be granted.
The ruling leaves the visa refusal in place, meaning the Partey remains inadmissible to enter Canada unless future administrative relief is granted and he canโt take part in Ghanaโs game against Panama or even when the team progresses to the next stage of the tournament.
๐ฌ๐ญ Thomas Partey verdict out: he lost Canada entry appeal.