Date:
20121016
Docket:
IMM-1003-12
Citation:
2012 FC 1206
Ottawa, Ontario,
October 16, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie
BETWEEN:
|
|
LATIFEH AHMADPOUR
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
applicant seeks judicial review of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
Officer’s decision dated December 19, 2011. For the reasons that follow the
application is granted.
[2]
In
reaching the decision to refuse the PRRA application, the Officer gave
substantial weight to the fact that the applicant had been issued an Iranian
passport immediately prior to leaving the country in November 2008. The
Officer noted a 2010 country report which stated that, “The government …
increasingly targeted journalists, academics, opposition politicians, and
activists - including women’s rights activist - for travel bans and passport
confiscation during the year.” Based on this, the PRRA Officer concluded that
“… if the authorities viewed the applicant or her family as problems they would
not have issued her a passport and exit permit to leave the country.”
[3]
The
existence or not of a passport, visa and exit papers is invariably an important
part of the analysis of any claim for status, in first instance, and on any
subsequent review. In this case, there are three flaws in the treatment of
this evidence which cumulatively render the decision unreasonable.
[4]
First,
the applicant does not fall within any of the categories listed in the 2010
country report cited by the Officer. The applicant did not claim to be an
activist; rather the evidence was that she was the mother of activists already
abroad. This distinction was not considered by the Officer in considering the
inferences to be drawn from the fact that she had been issued a passport.
[5]
Second,
the applicant’s passport was issued in 2008, but the country report is dated
2010. There was no basis in the evidence to conclude that all “problem”
persons would have been prevented in 2008 from traveling. The evidence
supported a finding that the government in 2010 was “increasingly” employing
this option. Any inferences to be drawn from the fact that the applicant had a
passport had to be tempered by or take into account this evidence. On the
logic of the Officer's reasoning there could never be refugees from Iran, as anyone permitted to leave would be, by definition, not at risk.
[6]
Finally,
the inference drawn from the possession of the passport is inconsistent with a
critical date in the chronology. The applicant asserted that she was at risk
based on events that took place after she arrived in Canada. The events that
would have prompted the Iranian government to refuse a passport and exit had
not yet occurred. It is simply incorrect to conclude, therefore, that she
could not be at risk as she had a passport. Again, any inferences to be drawn
from the fact that she had a passport and visa had to be predicated on the
correct facts.
[7]
The
Officer placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant had been
issued the passport, finding that this overcame other evidence which indicated
that the applicant faced risks if returned to Iran. As I cannot find that
the outcome would necessarily have been the same had the PRRA Officer not
misapprehended the evidence and drawn the inferences noted, the decision under
review cannot stand.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is
granted. The matter is referred back to Citizenship and Immigration Canada for
reconsideration before a different Pre-Removal Risk Assessment officer.
There is no question for certification.
"Donald J.
Rennie"
Email this Content