Date:
20120828
Docket:
IMM-6335-11
Citation:
2012 FC 1021
Ottawa, Ontario,
August 28, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Near
BETWEEN:
|
|
KEIVAN MANOUCHEHRNIA
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant, Keivan Manouchehrnia, seeks judicial review of a negative
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) dated July 20, 2011. The PRRA Officer found
that he would not be subject to a risk of persecution, danger of torture, risk
to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to his
home country of Iran.
I. Facts
[2]
The
Applicant came to Canada and made a refugee claim in 2001 based on a fear of
persecution by Iranian authorities linked to his brother’s involvement in the
Mojahedin opposition group. After his brother fled to Pakistan in 1988 and was recognized as a refugee, the Applicant states that he was detained
and questioned periodically prior to leaving the country in 1999.
[3]
In
2003, the Applicant was arrested in accordance with a warrant issued following
his failure to appear for a refugee determination interview. On March 16,
2005, a hearing ultimately took place and his refugee claim was subsequently
denied by the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board).
[4]
The
Board found he lacked subjective fear, noting his long delay in leaving Iran and failure to make a claim on passing through Greece or the United States. Also discussed
were some differences in his Personal Information Form (PIF) and oral testimony
as to how often he was questioned by authorities. The Board concluded that if
there was any intention of harming the Applicant, the authorities would have
simply required him to report throughout the eleven year period. The Applicant
was seen as country shopping to establish himself economically.
[5]
In
December 2010, the Applicant requested the PRRA that is now before this Court.
II. Decision
under Review
[6]
The
PRRA Officer determined that the Applicant had not provided new evidence with
his application as defined by section 113(a) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. It was noted:
The applicant provided no new risks and no personal
or objective evidence to support his risks feared. Essentially, the applicant
repeats the same allegations in his PRRA application which he had previously
presented in his PIF and before the Board. As noted above, it is not the role
of the PRRA officer to revisit factual and credibility conclusions drawn by the
Board. I note that the Board found that the applicant’s story had various
inconsistencies and questioned his credibility.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate
that he is personally at risk if he returns to his home country. In
consideration of the lack of evidence submitted, I find that the applicant has
not met his burden of proof and has not satisfied me that he is personally at
risk if he returns to Iran.
[7]
Turning
to conditions in Iran, it was acknowledged that human rights violations occur
in the country. The PRRA Officer nonetheless found:
[…] there are many general problems with human
rights and personal freedom in Iran. Furthermore, the situation has not
significantly changed, in a negative way, since the Board rendered its decision
in April 2005.
That being said, the applicant did not demonstrate
that he was a member of a targeted group. Though human rights conditions in Iran are far from ideal, I am not satisfied that the applicant is personally at risk of
persecution because of his personal profile. Based on the evidence submitted
and on objective sources consulted, and in consideration of the Board decision,
I am not satisfied that the applicant is wanted by the Iranian authorities or
that he is a member of one of the groups of persons who are significantly at
risk of human rights violations in Iran.
III. Issues
[8]
The
Applicant raises a single issue that can be addressed as follows:
(a) Did the PRRA Officer err in analyzing
country conditions regarding the Applicant’s personalized risk?
IV. Standard
of Review
[9]
Assessments
of a PRRA Officer are generally reviewed according to the reasonableness
standard (see for example Hnatusko v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2010 FC 18, [2010] FCJ no 21 at paras
25-26).
[10]
This
Court will only intervene where the decision does not demonstrate the existence
of justification, transparency and intelligibility or falls outside the range
of possible, acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law (Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para 47).
V. Analysis
[11]
The
principal argument raised is that the PRRA Officer’s consideration of current
country conditions facing the Applicant and those similarly situated to him was
unreasonable in the circumstances. The Applicant asserts that his PRRA
application and overall claim is inextricably linked to his brother’s
membership in the Mojahedin and subsequent claim for refugee status. He
insists that the PRRA Officer seemingly ignored evidence of similarly situated
persons and he need not demonstrate that he would be at risk due solely to his
personal profile.
[12]
The
Respondent maintains, and I agree, that the PRRA Officer did not ignore
relevant evidence. Beyond the emphasis placed on the association with his
brother, the Applicant has not demonstrated he belongs to a targeted group. The
Board also previously determined that he was not at risk in Iran as a result of his brother’s opposition activities. The PRRA Officer stressed the Applicant
did not submit any new evidence to rebut this finding or raise a new element of
risk.
[13]
As
reflected by the Federal Court of Appeal’s determination in Raza v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385, [2007] FCJ no 1632 at
para 13, the purpose of a PRRA is not to re-argue the basis of the refugee
claim. Rather, it is premised on respect for the negative refugee
determination “unless there is new evidence of facts that might have affected
the outcome of the RPD hearing if the evidence had been presented to the RPD.” Lacking
this new evidence, it was reasonable for the PRRA Officer to respect the
Board’s findings regarding the risks facing the Applicant in relation to his
brother along with current country conditions as in this case.
[14]
Having
reviewed the documentary evidence, the PRRA Officer recognized general problems
associated with human rights and personal freedoms in Iran. In light of this objective evidence and the Board’s decision, however, the PRRA Officer was
“not satisfied that the applicant is wanted by the Iranian authorities or that
he is a member of one of the groups of persons who are significantly at risk of
human rights violations in Iran.” I stress that the PRRA Officer is not
required to specifically mention each and every piece of documentary evidence (Hassan
v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 147 NR 317,
[1992] FCJ no 946 (FCA)).
VI. Conclusion
[15]
I
am not convinced that the PRRA Officer erred in the assessment of relevant
country conditions as applied to the Applicant. For this reason, 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