Date:
20120730
Docket:
IMM-8770-11
Citation:
2012 FC 944
Ottawa, Ontario, July 30, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Near
BETWEEN:
|
|
AZIZUL HAKIM CHOWDHURY
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of Pre-Removal Risk
Assessment (PRRA) Officer Lisa Rae Devries (the Officer), dated March 4, 2010,
with an addendum dated May 31, 2011, in which the Officer refused the
Applicant’s PRRA.
I. Facts
[2]
The
Applicant, Azizul Hakim Chowdhury, is a citizen of Bangladesh born on
December 16, 1956. He is deaf and mute. His wife and three children
all remain in Bangladesh along with his seven siblings. The Applicant arrived
in Canada on August 23, 2003 and claimed refugee protection, alleging
persecution by the police and several rival political parties who had forced
him to draw political cartoons insulting each other; his refugee claim was
refused on January 20, 2005 after the Board found insufficient credible
and reliable evidence that he was at risk in Bangladesh and explicitly rejected
the allegation that the Applicant is being sought by either state authorities
or political party officials. In November 2006, he made a humanitarian &
compassionate (H&C) application and, in February 2007, applied for a PRRA.
[3]
The
H&C and the PRRA were refused on March 3 and 4, 2010 respectively. However,
they were inadvertently not disclosed to the Applicant, who made additional
submissions in both the H&C and the PRRA in October 2010. Those additional
submissions were considered in addenda dated May 24 and 31, 2011 and then both
final decisions were disclosed to the Applicant.
II. Decision
under Review
[4]
The
Officer began by summarizing the allegations and reasons for the refugee
decision, and found that there was insufficient evidence to refute the findings
in the negative refugee decision.
[5]
The
Officer noted that the Applicant had provided new evidence in the form of an
undated and unattributed political cartoon, a complaint his daughter made to
the police dated March 1, 2006, a letter from his daughter, a complaint made to
the police against the Applicant dated March 19, 2006, a newspaper
clipping describing threats against the Applicant’s family, and country
condition evidence. The Officer gave the cartoon little weight as there was no
evidence it had been published, and the Applicant had not explained how it was
obtained or whether it was attributed to him.
[6]
The
Officer rejected the evidence provided by the Applicant’s daughter on the basis
that she has an interest in his claim succeeding, and noted that his daughter’s
police complaint was inconsistent with the newspaper clipping. The Officer
further noted that the newspaper clipping did not purport to contain news
reporting and appeared rather to be a letter to the editor. Based on this and
on objective evidence about the ease of bribing journalists in Bangladesh, the Officer gave the newspaper clipping little weight.
[7]
The
Officer also gave little weight to the police complaint about the Applicant, as
it was dated almost three years after the Applicant left and gave no
explanation for why he was still being sought despite having ceased drawing
political cartoons. The Officer also noted that, despite naming three other
individuals, the complaint focused unaccountably on the Applicant.
[8]
Finally,
the Officer considered the evidence about country conditions in Bangladesh, noting that corruption and human rights violations remain a problem, although
there is some evidence that conditions are improving. The Officer also noted
evidence about the difficulties faced by the disabled, but found that this
discrimination did not amount to persecution, particularly given the
Applicant’s achievements before he fled Bangladesh and the support provided by
his family.
III. Issue
[9]
The
only issue in this application is whether the Officer unreasonably rejected the
Applicant’s evidence.
IV. Standard
of Review
[10]
This
issue relates to the Officer’s consideration of the evidence and findings of
fact and therefore requires deference (see Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] SCJ No 12 at
para 46).
V. Analysis
[11]
The
Applicant submits that the Officer unreasonably discounted significant new
evidence that demonstrates an ongoing risk to him in Bangladesh merely because
it originated from his family. This evidence consisted of a letter from his
daughter dated April 28, 2006, a complaint his daughter made to the police
dated March 1, 2006, and a newspaper clipping dated April 5, 2006 that
described ongoing threats made to his family by people looking for the
Applicant (found at pages 60 and 61 of the Applicant’s Record). The Applicant relies
on Ugalde v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),
2011 FC 458, [2011] FCJ No 647 in support of this argument. He also argues
that the newspaper clipping was not necessarily written by his family members
and that the Officer therefore acted unreasonably in rejecting it.
[12]
He
also notes that he provided a copy of a complaint made by a political official
about the Applicant and others and submits that the Officer unreasonably
discounted this evidence. The Applicant states that the timing of the
complaint was explained by reference in the complaint to ongoing terrorist
activities and an impending national election.
[13]
The
Respondent submits that the Officer’s consideration of the evidence was
reasonable and that the Applicant is simply asking this Court to re-weigh that
evidence, which is outside its purview. The Respondent cites Kim v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 437, [2005] FCJ No
540 in support of this argument. The Respondent also notes that Officers are
entitled to give evidence little weight if it is vague or lacking in
particulars, citing Ferguson v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2008 FC 1067, [2008] FCJ No 1308 and other cases.
[14]
In
his reply, the Applicant disputes the Respondent’s argument that the Officer
gave multiple reasons for rejecting the evidence from the Applicant’s daughter
and states that the evidence was rejected solely because they came from a
family member.
[15]
In
its further memorandum, the Respondent reiterates its argument that the Officer
had other reasons for rejecting the evidence, although it does not list any
other reasons in its submissions.
[16]
In
fact, the Officer did have other reasons for rejecting the evidence from the
Applicant’s family: the evidence was not consistent as to when the men came to
the family home. The Applicant’s daughter’s police complaint states that men
came to the home looking for her father on February 26, whereas the newspaper
clipping states that this happened on February 4. The Officer noted this
inconsistency at page 5 of the decision, and provided additional reasons for
discounting the newspaper clipping (namely, that it looks more like a letter to
the editor than a typical news report). Indeed, when the clipping is examined,
it does appear to be signed by the Applicant’s family at the bottom of the
page. Although the Officer noted the inconsistency in the summary of the
evidence rather than in the section titled “findings of fact,” the
inconsistency is nonetheless noted in the decision and the Officer was entitled
to give little weight to internally conflicting evidence. Further, the
Officer’s consideration of this evidence must be examined in light of the
Board’s explicit rejection of the allegation that political party officials
were looking for the Applicant; the Applicant simply did not provide sufficient
evidence to refute the Board’s earlier determination.
[17]
Regarding
the complaint to the police about the Applicant and others, the Officer was
entitled to reject the evidence given the lack of explanation in the
Applicant’s submissions as to why he was now being sought again almost three
years after fleeing the country and the vague and unspecific nature of the
allegations in the complaint (e.g., “Recently we came to know from various
sources that…”). Further, the complaint is only mentioned once in passing in
the Applicant’s submissions.
[18]
The
Applicant has not shown that the Officer’s consideration of his evidence was
unreasonable. Rather, he is disputing the Officer’s weighing of the evidence
and arguing that it ought to have been given more emphasis. This is not
sufficient to show that the decision is unreasonable or to justify the Court’s
intervention.
[19]
It
is clear that the Officer considered the documents and ultimately decided to
assign little weight to them. In this exercise the Officer is to be accorded a
high level of deference (see Sayed v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2010 FC 796, [2010] FCJ No 978 at para 21 and Kang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 293, [2011] FCJ No 378 at
para 40).
VI. Conclusion
[20]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“
D. G. Near ”
Email this Content