Huggins v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 250

Date: 20050216

Docket: IMM-637-04

Citation:2005 FC 250

Toronto, Ontario, February 16^th, 2005

Present:           The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein                               

BETWEEN:

                                                              KELVIN HUGGINS

                                                                                                                                              Applicant

                                                                            and

                                MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for clarification and precision)

[1]                This case involves a police officer from Trinidad who claims he fled to Canada because he was involved in a sting operation in his home country. The drug lords who were targets of said operation discovered his identity through a leak in the police force and the Applicant fled to Canada, fearing for his life. His flight was also motivated by the killing of his cousin who had been involved in another police operation against drug lords. His PRRA application had been rejected, as the PRRA officer found that the Applicant had not established an absence of state protection.

[2]                I can find nothing patently unreasonable in the decision of the PRRA officer.

[3]                The Applicant has the burden of establishing with clear and convincing evidence that there is no state protection in Trinidad (see Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689). The Report of the Department of State relied on by the officer indicates the contrary.

[4]                A single case of a state witness being murdered (even assuming he was under police protection, which is asserted but not proven) does not amount to a lack of state protection. The Applicant has not produced any evidence establishing a lack of state protection, nor presented any convincing argument why he could not avail himself of police protection.

[5]                The fact that the officer relied on publicly available documents or documents obtainable on the internet does not violate any rules of procedural fairness (see Mancia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] A.C.F. No. 565 and Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 1033).

[6]                Accordingly, this application cannot succeed.

                                                                        ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that this application be dismissed.

"K. von Finckenstein"

                                                                                                                                                    J.F.C.                     

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                            IMM-637-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                             KELVIN HUGGINS

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                        TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:              FEBRUARY 16, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                                VON FINCKENSTEIN, J.

DATED:                                                FEBRUARY 16, 2005

APPEARANCES BY:                      

Stella Iriah Anaele                                  FOR THE APPLICANT

Greg George                                         FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                                                                                                                                 

Stella Iriah Anaele

Toronto, Ontario                                   FOR THE APPLICANT

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada      FOR THE RESPONDENT