Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 141 : Federal Court Rejects Criminal Inadmissibility Finding After Officer Ignored Self-Defence and Speculated About Withdrawn Charges

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Lorebeth Garcia’s permanent residence application under the live-in caregiver class. Her application was refused because her husband, Joresce Ballesteros, was found criminally inadmissible under paragraph 36(1)(c) of IRPA based on a 2006 bar fight in the Philippines. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer failed to properly assess self-defence, inadequately weighed the evidentiary record, and unfairly speculated that withdrawn charges resulted from a private settlement.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that a criminal inadmissibility finding under paragraph 36(1)(c) requires reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed acts constituting an offence in Canada. This requires consideration not only of the offence’s elements but also applicable defences such as self-defence. Withdrawn foreign charges and exculpatory evidence must be meaningfully assessed, and officers cannot rely on unsupported assumptions or undisclosed specialized knowledge.

Background

Ms. Garcia had worked in Canada as a live-in caregiver since 2009 and applied for permanent residence in 2011. She later added her husband as an accompanying dependant.

In 2006, Mr. Ballesteros and several companions were involved in a fight outside a karaoke bar in the Philippines. The complainant alleged that the group assaulted him and caused serious injuries. Mr. Ballesteros and the other accused maintained that they had been attacked first, that one companion was stabbed, and that they acted in self-defence.

Although charges for frustrated homicide were laid, the complainant later signed an Affidavit of Desistance stating that the incident resulted from misunderstanding, that the accused had no intention to injure him, and that his testimony would completely exonerate them. The charges were dismissed in 2009.

IRCC nevertheless concluded that Mr. Ballesteros had committed acts equivalent to assault causing bodily harm in Canada and found him inadmissible.

Court Findings

• Self-Defence Was Not Meaningfully Assessed

The Court held that the officer could not reasonably determine that Mr. Ballesteros committed a Canadian offence without addressing self-defence. His evidence consistently maintained that force had first been used against him and his companions. The officer summarized this explanation but never analyzed whether the defence available under Canadian criminal law applied.

• Exculpatory Evidence Was Inadequately Weighed

The Court found that the officer failed to explain why the complainant’s original allegations remained sufficiently credible despite contrary evidence. The record included evidence that a companion had been stabbed, corroborating accounts from the co-accused, Mr. Ballesteros’ statutory declaration, the Affidavit of Desistance, and the eventual dismissal of the charges. The officer’s broad reference to “court documents” did not demonstrate a thorough assessment.

• Settlement Assumption Was Unreasonable and Unfair

The officer discounted the Affidavit of Desistance by stating that out-of-court settlements and such affidavits were common in the Philippines. There was no evidence that any settlement occurred in this case. The Court found the assumption speculative and procedurally unfair because this alleged local practice was never disclosed to Ms. Garcia for response, despite being central to the officer’s reasoning.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the refusal decision, and returned Ms. Garcia’s permanent residence application to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Garcia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 141 (CanLII)