Date: 20090224
Docket: IMM-3505-08
Citation: 2009 FC 198
Ottawa, Ontario, February 24, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
BETWEEN:
ROXIE
MULASSA SAMUEL
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review by Roxie Mulassa
Samuel seeking to set aside a decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA)
Officer. Ms. Samuel claimed to be the victim of gang violence in
St. Vincent and feared that her life would be endangered if she returned
there. The Officer disagreed and this application arises from that decision.
a.
Background
[2]
Ms. Samuel
was born in St. Vincent on April 18,
1990. When she was 14 she joined a gang called “Dutty Cup Klick”. In 2006,
Ms. Samuel was approached by a rival gang member known to her only as
“Killer”. Apparently Killer was interested in Ms. Samuel but she spurned
his advances. According to Ms. Samuel, Killer assaulted her because of
this rejection. This, in turn, led to some gang conflict and the beating of
Killer by Ms. Samuel’s gang associates. Ms. Samuel’s account of this
to the PRRA Officer included the rather candid acknowledgement that her gang
was much larger than Killer’s gang and that, at the time of these events,
Killer’s gang was out of ammunition.
[3]
Ms. Samuel
entered Canada as a
temporary resident on May 30, 2006. That status expired
on November
30, 2006
and it was not renewed. At some point, Ms. Samuel was detained by
Canadian immigration officials. Initially, she waived her entitlement to a PRRA
but after speaking by telephone with her mother about Killer’s recent
activities she went ahead with a PRRA application.
[4]
According
to Ms. Samuel her mother had reported that Killer had been recently released
from prison and was threatening vengeance against several members of Dutty Cup
Klick including Ms. Samuel. Apparently the supply of ammunition was no longer a
problem because Killer’s brother allegedly shot Ms. Samuel’s brother six times
and wounded three or four other members of her gang. Shortly after Ms. Samuel’s
brother was released from hospital, Killer approached him and told him that Ms.
Samuel was also “going to get it” because she was a “tattletale”.
[5]
According
to Ms. Samuel the police did nothing about the shooting of her brother because
there were no witnesses. This, she said, was consistent with the attitude of
the authorities in St. Vincent who essentially turn a blind eye to
violent criminality.
The PRRA
Decision
[6]
The
PRRA Officer seems to have accepted Ms. Samuel’s account at face value at least
up to a point. The claim was ultimately rejected on state protection grounds
and, in particular, because the evidence was found insufficient to rebut the
presumption of state protection. The Officer found that Ms. Samuel faced a
specific criminal risk which could be adequately mitigated by the authorities
in St. Vincent.
II. Issues
[7]
Did
the Officer err by failing to consider relevant country condition evidence
concerning the effectiveness of police protection in St. Vincent?
III. Analysis
[8]
Ms.
Samuel contends that the Officer ignored the general country condition evidence
reporting a high incidence of violent crime in St. Vincent and an inability by
the authorities to effectively deal with it. She also complains that her
hearsay account of women being victimized by boyfriends and husbands was
ignored. On the record before me these arguments have no merit.
[9]
Anecdotal
hearsay accounts about victims of domestic abuse whose risk profiles did not
match that of Ms. Samuel were of little, if any, relevance to her situation.
The same is true of the country condition reports which dealt generally with
the situation of human rights abuses and gang and domestic violence in the
Caribbean region and, to a limited extent, in St. Vincent. This
evidence carried such little probative value that it was unnecessary for the
Officer to refer to it in the decision. It was not unreasonable for the Officer
to place considerable weight on the fact that Ms. Samuel’s alleged persecutor
had been jailed and to take note of the evidence that the Police were
investigating the shooting of her brother. I agree with counsel for the
Respondent that that was the best and most compelling evidence of state
protection because it raised a presumption that state protection was available
to her in St. Vincent – a presumption that she was unable to overcome. It is
implicit in the decision that this evidence was preferred to the highly
unlikely evidence that the authorities were not interested in investigating the
violent gang-related shootings she had described. It was also not unreasonable
for the Officer to conclude that Ms. Samuel had failed to exhaust all
available avenues of redress in St. Vincent. In fact, the evidence
indicated that she had done nothing whatsoever before leaving St. Vincent for Canada apparently
preferring a self-help approach.
[10]
While
Ms. Samuel’s voluntary participation in a criminal gang undoubtedly attracted
some level of personal risk, it is a risk that she can mitigate by declining to
renew that association and by seeking the protection of the authorities upon
her return to St. Vincent.
[11]
In
conclusion, this is a decision which meets the test of reasonableness and falls
within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes described in Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.
[12]
Neither
party proposed a certified question and no issue of general importance arises
on this record.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ADJUDGES that this application for judicial review is dismissed.
“ R. L. Barnes ”
Email this Content