Docket: IMM-390-14
Citation:
2015 FC 380
Toronto, Ontario, March
25, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ETHISHAM-UL HAQ
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is a judicial review of a decision of a
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) Officer dated December 6, 2013 wherein it
was determined that the Applicant would not be subject to risk of persecution,
danger of torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual punishment if
returned to Pakistan.
[2]
The Applicant is an adult male citizen of Pakistan. He claims to be a member of a particular group, Nazim, and of a particular
political affiliation PML(N). He claims that twice, when he was out of the
country, he was accused of killing someone in Pakistan, which required him to
clear his name by demonstrating that he was out of the country. He claims that
he was personally attacked, and that a colleague of the same minority and
political affiliation was killed.
[3]
The Applicant’s claim for refugee protection in Canada was rejected in a decision dated December 9, 2008. In May 2010, the Applicant
applied for PRRA which resulted in the decision under review, inexplicably some
three years later.
[4]
Applicant’s Counsel argues that new and
significant evidence was overlooked and given no weight or too little weight by
the Officer. Respondent’s Counsel argues that the so-called new evidence is
little more than a repetition of the evidence before the Refugee Board which
was found not to be credible.
[5]
The refugee claim was based on allegations by
the Applicant that he had been falsely accused of a murder in Pakistan. He was out of the country at that time and went to the police to his clear his name. He
thought that had been done so he left for a holiday in Canada. He feared returning to Pakistan.
[6]
The Board found the Applicant not to be credible
for a number of reasons, and concluded that he would not be at risk if he were
to return to Pakistan. Further, the Board found that the political scene in Pakistan had changed and the party to which the Applicant belonged was no longer in power.
[7]
The Applicant applied for a PRRA in May 2010.
Among the pieces of evidence provided were:
•
two arrest warrants issued in 2009;
•
a newspaper article dated in 2010 reporting that
arrest warrants had been issued against the Applicant and that he was a wanted
person;
•
sworn statements from the Applicant’s father,
wife, father-in-law and two friends respecting various persons continuing to
inquire after the Applicant;
•
a police report respecting a complaint made by
the Applicant’s wife as to a raid on her house by unknown persons in March
2010.
[8]
The Officer’s decision was written some three
years after the submission of the PRRA application. There is no apparent
reason for the delay which leaves the puzzling remark in the Officer’s decision
that evidence was required to show that the 2009 warrants remained outstanding
as of 2013, some four years later, unanswered. Does an Applicant bear some
onus to report on some periodic basis that, in respect of the evidence
submitted upon the filing of the PRRA application, nothing has changed during
the period that it languishes with Citizenship and Immigration Canada?
[9]
The Officer failed to recognize that the 2009 arrest
warrants not only validate the claims found not to be credible by the Refugee
Board but, more importantly, provide evidence that, since the Board’s decision,
the Applicant continues to be at risk.
[10]
The 2010 newspaper article which reports on the
2009 arrest warrants provided evidence of public awareness of the fact of the
warrants and supports the validity of the warrants. The Officer fails entirely
to note the importance of that evidence. Possibly this is because the file had
not been looked at for three years.
[11]
The Officer minimizes the sworn statements of
relatives and friends of the Applicant because it was from relatives and
friends. As pointed out by Justice de Montigny of this Court in Ugalde v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 458 at paragraph
28, it is unreasonable to distrust evidence from relatives and friends simply
because it came from such sources. Often they are the best or only persons
capable of giving such evidence.
[12]
Further, it was wrong to ignore such evidence
because it is like that given at the refugee hearing. If such evidence is as
to harassment continuing after the refugee hearing, it is new and relevant
evidence.
[13]
Yet further, the Officer mishandled the report
as to the complaint of the Applicant’s wife to the police. The evidence shows
only that they undertook to make a report. There is no evidence that they took
appropriate action to protect her or investigate as to her assailants (see
Justice Kane in Flores v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2013 FC 938 at paragraph 45).
[14]
I find that there are sufficient errors in the
Officer’s decision, possibly caused by the long delay in giving attention to
the matter, that the decision must be considered to be unreasonable. The
application will be allowed.
[15]
No party requested a certified question.
Email this Content