Docket: IMM-2278-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1289
Toronto, Ontario, November 9, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
|
|
MUSTAFA UDDIN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant is an adult male citizen of Bangladesh. He came to Canada and sought
refugee protection in January 2001. That claim was denied in 2003. In December
2010, the Applicant submitted a request for a pre-removal risk assessment
(PRRA). That request was denied in a written decision dated February 25, 2011.
This is a judicial review of that decision. For the reasons that follow, I am
allowing this judicial review and sending the matter back for redetermination
by a different Officer who shall hold a hearing.
[2]
The
essential issue in this matter is whether the PRRA Officer should have convoked
a hearing. I very recently reviewed the law in this respect in my decision in Rajagopal
v Canada (MCI), 2011 FC
1277. I will not repeat that analysis, which I adopt in these Reasons.
[3]
The
Court is concerned about decisions of PRRA Officers in which there is an
endeavour to avoid the use of the word “credibility” in the hopes of avoiding a
hearing. The intent of IRPA, its Regulations and attendant jurisprudence
is clear; if credibility is an issue central to the matter before the Board and
likely to lead to a result unfavourable to the applicant, a hearing should be
held. It is not for a PRRA Officer to finesse these requirements by
endeavouring to couch what are, in reality, credibility concerns, in language
suggesting lack of evidence or contradictory evidence.
[4]
Here,
the central issue was claim by the Applicant, recently arising, that he had
been sought out in Bangladesh by militants by reason of his supposed
affiliation with a particular political group. Upon learning that the Applicant
was in Canada, the
militants beat the son and left with a warning that they would do the same to
the Applicant if he were to return to Bangladesh. That was the sworn
evidence before the Officer.
[5]
To
back up the sworn evidence, photographs of the son after the beating, a local Bangladesh newspaper
report substantiating the Applicant’s evidence, and a letter from the Applicant’s
sister substantiating the evidence were produced. The PRRA Officer expressed
certain doubts about this material. In other words, the Officer was attacking
the Applicant’s credibility. That is what a hearing is supposed to be for.
[6]
The
matter is returned for redetermination before a different Officer, with a
hearing. Counsel did not request certification, and I agree.
JUDGMENT
FOR THE
REASONS PROVIDED:
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that:
1. The application is allowed;
2. The matter is sent back for
redetermination by a different Officer, who shall hold a hearing;
3. No question is certified; and
4. No Order as to costs.
“Roger
T. Hughes”
Email this Content