Date: 20090219
Docket: IMM-3293-08
Citation: 2009
FC 179
Toronto, Ontario,
February
19, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
DIAKY LUCIEN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
In the
present case, the Applicant applied to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD)
for refugee protection on the basis of political affiliation in Haiti. The evidence relied upon by the
Applicant with respect to this claim is that his affiliation with a certain
political party resulted in his persecution by political opponents which
included the beating death of his father. The RPD in considering the claim did
not make a negative credibility finding but found that the in-country
conditions in Haiti have changed to such an
extent during the seven years of the Applicant’s absence that there is no
longer an objective fear of persecution. On this basis, the Applicant’s claim
under s. 96 and s. 97 of the IRPA was dismissed.
[2]
Counsel
for the Applicant in the present Application makes a strong argument that the
RPD failed to accurately find the present in-country conditions in Haiti, and, therefore, the decision under
review is made in reviewable error. In addition, Counsel argues that the RPD’s
failure to independently consider the evidence and argument tendered at the
hearing with respect to risk under s. 97 constitutes a reviewable error.
[3]
In my
opinion, the RPD’s failure to conduct an independent analysis under s. 97 is
the cardinal reviewable error in the decision under review. Independent of
whether there is more than a mere possibility of persecution should the
Applicant return to Haiti, there is ample evidence on the record to warrant an
independent analysis of risk to the Applicant under s. 97 should he return. On
this issue a discreet argument with respect to s. 97 was placed before the RPD
which is unaddressed in the decision. Counsel for the Applicant argued that
there is sufficient evidence of mistreatment of deportees upon their return to Haiti to warrant a finding that the Applicant
would face s. 97 risk should he return (see Tribunal Record, p. 160 and p. 262
and following). In my opinion, the failure of the RPD to address this argument
constitutes a reviewable error.
ORDER
Accordingly, I set aside the
RPD’s decision and refer the matter back to a differently constituted panel for
redetermination.
There is no question to
certify.
“Douglas R. Campbell”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3293-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: DIAKY
LUCIEN v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 19, 2009
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: CAMPBELL J.
DATED:
FEBRUARY 19,
2009
APPEARANCES:
|
Julian Jubenville
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Nina Chandy
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Julian Jebenville
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|