Docket:
IMM-11638-12
Citation: 2014 FC 306
Ottawa, Ontario, March 31, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
|
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
SPARTAK RADI
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
AND
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondents
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The applicant, a citizen of Albania, seeks judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment (“PRRA”) decision which
found that he would not be subject to a risk of persecution, danger of torture,
risk to life or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he returned to Albania.
[2]
The applicant’s claim relates to an
inter-familial blood feud which arose from a land dispute in 2000. The
applicant went to the United States (“US”) in July 2002 where he filed a
political asylum claim without reference to the blood feud. His US claim was unsuccessful. On December 15, 2007 he entered Canada without presenting himself
to the border authorities. He sought refugee protection a few days later.
[3]
In a decision dated February 9, 2011, the
applicant was found to be a person referred to in article 1(F)(b) of the Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered
into force 22 April 1954, accession by Canada on 4 June 1969) [Refugee
Convention] and therefore neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need
of protection pursuant to s 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. This finding related to a series of criminal charges
and convictions in the US.
[4]
In his PRRA application, the applicant asserted
that his family had sought the assistance of village elders and the local
authorities, including the police and the Committee for Nationwide
Reconciliation (“CNR”), to resolve the blood feud peacefully. Those attempts
had all been unsuccessful.
[5]
The PRRA application was denied on October 5,
2012, on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated that, on a balance
of probabilities, he is likely to face a risk of torture, a risk to his life,
or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he is removed to Albania. Pursuant to s 112(3)(c) of the IRPA, the applicant was not eligible for a
risk assessment against Convention grounds under s 96 of the IRPA.
[6]
The officer considered the evidence submitted
including a news article dated June 3, 2003 relating to a murder but gave it
little weight. The officer also considered a letter of attestation from the CNR
in light of IRB reports which dealt with the role of reconciliation groups in Albania and the availability of attestation letters for purchase from such groups including
the CNR. As a result, the officer also found the letter to be worthy of little
weight. Letters from the District Police Directorate and District Tribunal were
also considered but found to be of questionable provenance and assistance.
[7]
The officer accepted that that the applicant’s
evidence on the current country conditions in Albania established the existence
of blood feuds. However, on a balance of probabilities, the officer found that
the applicant had not succeeded in demonstrating that he or his family were
involved in a blood feud. Moreover, the objective documentation on current
country conditions in Albania did not establish a personalized, forward-looking
risk to the applicant.
[8]
The sole issue in this matter is whether the
officer erred in his consideration of the evidence.
[9]
The standard of review of the PRRA officer’s
findings of fact or of mixed fact and law has been satisfactorily determined by
the jurisprudence to be reasonableness: Corona v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 759, [2012] FCJ no
738 at para 10. Under this deferential standard of review, the Court should not
intervene unless the officer’s conclusions do not fall within the 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 paras 47,
53, 55, 62.; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa,
2009 SCC 12, 302 DLR (4th) 1 at paras 52-62; Newfoundland and Labrador
Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62.
[10]
I am not persuaded that the officer’s findings
and decision were unreasonable.
[11]
The evidence before the officer was that
reconciliation attempts had been made from July 3, 2011. It was reasonable for
the officer to find that had previous reconciliation attempts been made with
CNR prior to that date, the letter of attestation would have indicated an
earlier date. Furthermore, it was for the applicant to provide evidence to
establish that earlier reconciliation attempts had been made or that prior
assistance had been sought from CNR or any other organization, in order to
establish when the blood feud had been declared. He failed to do so to the
officer’s satisfaction.
[12]
With respect to the applicant’s submissions
regarding the officer’s reliance on the IRB reports, it was open to the officer
to find that they undermined the credibility of the attestation letter.
Similarly the
officer’s assessment of the Lezhe District Police Directorate’s letter is
reasonable. While it is not for the Court to weigh the evidence presented to
the officer on the application, it can not help but note that a simple visual
comparison of the police letter with other official documents submitted and
included in the record makes it clear why the officer gave it little weight. It
does not appear to be an official document. The officer did consider the letter
from the District Tribunal Prosecutor’s Office relating to an armed robbery but
the content did not corroborate the claim of an existing blood feud.
[13]
Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the
officer considered the objective evidence, including that submitted by the
applicant. The officer recognized that blood feuds occurred in Albania but was not satisfied that the applicant and his family were engaged in one. The
officer’s reasons for arriving at that conclusion were transparent,
intelligible and justified and the resulting decision was within the range of
acceptable outcomes based on the evidence and the law.
[14]
The applicant failed in establishing his case
and this application must be accordingly dismissed. No serious question of
general importance has been proposed.
Email this Content