Date: 20090630
Docket: IMM-5172-08
Citation: 2009 FC 682
Ottawa, Ontario, June 30,
2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Snider
BETWEEN:
MOYA
MECKESHA CAMPBELL
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. BACKGROUND
[1]
The Applicant is a
citizen of Jamaica who came to Canada in 2004 and made a claim for refugee protection in 2006.
She alleged a well-founded fear of persecution by her ex-boyfriend in Jamaica. In a decision dated August 7, 2007, a panel of the
Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected her
claim on the basis that the Applicant was not a credible witness; the RPD found
that the Applicant had “created this story with the purpose of gaining refugee
status in Canada”. In May 2008, the Applicant applied for
a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA). In a decision dated October 2, 2008, an
immigration officer (the PRRA Officer) rejected her application. The Applicant
now seeks judicial review of the PRRA Officer’s decision.
II. ISSUES
[2]
The Applicant raises
the following issues:
1.
Did the PRRA Officer
err by taking into account an invalid affidavit?
2.
Did the PRRA Officer
err by taking into account an alleged risk contained in a different application
made by the Applicant?
3.
Did the PRRA Officer
err by failing to take into account certain documentary evidence of the failure
of the state to protect women who were victims of domestic abuse?
III. STANDARD
OF REVIEW
[3]
The decision of the
PRRA Officer is reviewable on a reasonableness standard, meaning that I will
not overturn a decision if “it falls within a range of possible, acceptable
outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para.
47).
IV. THE
PRRA OFFICER’S DECISION
[4]
The PRRA Officer’s
decision falls into two parts. The first step taken by the Officer was to
assess whether the Applicant had provided sufficient evidence to rebut the
finding of the RPD that she would not be the subject of domestic abuse if she
returned to Jamaica. Having concluded that the Applicant had
not met this burden, the PRRA Officer went on to consider other risks to the
Applicant.
[5]
The PRRA Officer’s
decision reflects that he considered all of the evidence that was presented in
support of the application. Some of the evidence was rejected as not “new”
within the contemplation of s. 113(a) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (IRPA). The balance of the documents and submissions were
considered; no evidence was ignored by the PRRA Officer.
V. THE
AFFIDAVIT OF JOAN REGIS
[6]
In support of her
Application, the Applicant submitted a document entitled “Affidavit of Joan
Regis”. Contrary to the assertion of the Applicant, I am satisfied that the
Officer was entitled to treat this as a valid affidavit of the Applicant. This
document was obviously mistitled. Its contents, however, clearly are facts
related to the case of the Applicant and the document was signed and sworn by
the Applicant. There is no indication that it was only a draft document or that
it was not intended to be the affidavit of the Applicant. In spite of the
incorrect title, the PRRA Officer properly considered it to be the valid
affidavit of the Applicant and accurately described its contents in the
reasons. There is no error.
VI. EFFECTIVENESS
OF STATE PROTECTION
[7]
The Applicant asserts
that the PRRA Officer failed to examine the evidence as to how, as a practical
matter today, the state of Jamaica can effectively protect women such as
the Applicant against persons who threaten to kill her, such as her
ex-boyfriend. The Applicant relies on the case of Wisdom-Hall v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2008 FC
685, where Justice Hughes concluded that the RPD had erred for not undertaking
that analysis. The difference in the case before me is that this is not a
judicial review of an RPD decision. In this case, the RPD has already found
that the Applicant’s story was not credible; in other words, the RPD concluded
that the Applicant was not being threatened by her ex-boyfriend. The PRRA
Officer expressly considered the evidence put forward by the Applicant related
to her fears of the ex-boyfriend and concluded that it was insufficient to
rebut the conclusions made by the RPD. In my view, this determination was open
to the Officer on the evidence.
[8]
Having concluded that
the Applicant had presented insufficient evidence to rebut the RPD’s finding
that she did not have a well-founded fear of her ex-boyfriend, the PRRA Officer
was required to assess only those risks faced more generally by women in Jamaica. While the Officer did not make extensive references to
the documentary evidence, I am satisfied that he recognized the problems faced
by women in obtaining effective state protection. His conclusion was not
unreasonable.
VII. ALLEGED
RISK DISCLOSED IN H&C APPLICATION
[9]
The PRRA Officer
examined whether the Applicant would be at risk because “persons returning to Jamaica are often targeted because it is believed that they are
taking back a lot of cash”. The Officer concluded that the documentary evidence
failed to mention any such difficulties. This possible risk was not raised by
the Applicant in her PRRA Application (although one wonders why not); rather it
was made by her in her application for inland processing on humanitarian and
compassionate (H&C) grounds. The Applicant alleges that the Officer erred
by “importing” this alleged risk into the PRRA without providing her with an
opportunity to address the concern. Presumably, the Applicant believes that she
could somehow provide further submissions on the risks to returning wealthy
individuals, even though she provided no further elaboration in her H&C
application. This is a most unusual argument. The PRRA Officer was obviously attempting
to address every possible risk that could face the Applicant. I would
acknowledge that it is unusual for the PRRA Officer to go beyond the
application at hand, other than to examine general country condition
documentation. However, I can see no reviewable error where the Applicant
herself had made the allegation of risk in the H&C application. This is not
a case of the PRRA Officer relying on extrinsic evidence. In fact, if I ignore
the section of the reasons dealing with this argument, the PRRA Officer’s
decision would be no different in its outcome. Accordingly, even if there is an
error in “importing” this allegation of risk from the H&C application, the
error is immaterial.
VIII. CONCLUSION
[10]
For these reasons, I
will dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a
question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that
1.
the application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2.
no question of general importance is certified.
“Judith
A. Snider”
Email this Content