Date: 20040226
Docket: IMM-2903-03
Citation: 2004 FC 266
Between:
ALFRED YOUNIS
Applicant
- and -
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment ("PRRA") Officer, dated March 18, 2003, wherein the Officer found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "Act").
[2] Alfred Younis (the "applicant") is a citizen of Pakistan. The applicant claims to fear persecution and risk to his life in Pakistan at the hands of Islamic fundamentalists and the police because he is Christian.
[3] On March 18, 2003 the applicant's PRRA application was rejected because the Officer determined that the applicant does not face a risk of persecution, a risk of torture, a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he returned to Pakistan. The Officer provides the following reasons in support of the decision:
- although much documentary evidence exists to support the allegation that Christians in Pakistan have fewer rights than Muslims, the Constitution provides for freedom of religion in Pakistan;
- while the Pakistani government often fails to intervene in cases of violence against members of minority religious groups, the government has taken steps to curb religious extremism and militancy;
- the incident of the applicant's home being raided and his subsequent detention by the police in August 1993 occurred more than nine years ago and the applicant does not allege that he faced any persecution until then;
- the applicant's parents and siblings, all of whom are Christians residing in Pakistan, have not experienced any persecution and have not had any problems with fundamentalists in Pakistan;
- nothing suggests that the authorities or the Islamic fundamentalists have had any interest in the applicant since his departure from Pakistan in 1993;
- the documentary evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the applicant will receive a sentence of execution for the charge of blasphemy;
- the applicant left Pakistan with his own passport without encountering any problems despite his allegation that he is wanted by police and despite the existence of strict exit procedures in Pakistan.
[4] The applicant submits that he was entitled to an oral hearing because his refugee claim was heard under the old Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, while his PRRA claim was considered under the new Act. As a result, the applicant did not have the opportunity to make oral submissions with respect to section 97 of the new Act. The respondent, on the other hand, argues that neither the Act nor principles of fundamental justice require that an oral hearing be held in this case.
[5] Subsection 346(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the "Regulations") provides that applications under the Post-Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada that are outstanding at the time of the coming into force of the new Act, are to be transferred to the PRRA program. The applicant asserts that as a transitional case between the old and the new Acts, he is entitled to a full oral hearing in respect to his submissions under section 97 of the Act. In general, PRRA applications are decided on the basis of written submissions. Nevertheless, subsection 113(b) of the Act provides that a hearing may be held where the Minister is of the opinion that a hearing is required. The Minister forms this opinion on the basis of factors prescribed in section 167 of the Regulations.
[6] According to the applicant, one of the factors to be considered in determining whether a hearing should have been granted in this case includes the importance of the decision to the individual affected. Although it is true that the refusal of the applicant's PRRA application is of considerable importance to him, I do not find that the absence of a hearing necessarily violates principles of fundamental justice. A review of the decision reveals that the PRRA Officer considered the application under both section 96 and section 97. Therefore, the applicant was not deprived of a review of his application with respect to section 97 of the Act. Furthermore, it is important to note that the applicant was given a full opportunity to file additional submissions with respect to the PRRA application, as required by subsection 161(1) of the Regulations. A review of the applicant's submissions reveals that extensive arguments were made with respect to the applicant being subjected to a risk of torture, a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment and to a risk to his life in Pakistan. I am satisfied that the applicant was not prejudiced by the procedures followed in the determination of his PRRA application and the process accorded to him was consistent with the principles of fundamental justice (see Suresh v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, and Ahani v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72).
[7] For the reasons outlined above, I am of the opinion that the absence of an oral hearing was not inconsistent with principles of fundamental justice. Consequently, as no other issues were raised by the applicant, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[8] No questions were proposed for certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 26, 2004
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2903-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALFRED YOUNIS v. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: January 15, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: February 26, 2004
APPEARANCES:
William Macintosh FOR THE APPLICANT
Sandra Weafer FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
William Macintosh Associates FOR THE APPLICANT
Surrey, British Columbia
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Vancouver, British Columbia
Email this Content