Docket: IMM-4601-15
Citation:
2016 FC 697
Ottawa, Ontario, June 21, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice McDonald
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GERALD DESMOND
WELLS
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of a
decision of an immigration officer (the Officer) of Citizenship and Immigration
Canada, dated August 21, 2015, refusing the Applicant’s pre-removal risk
assessment (PRRA).
I.
The PRRA decision
[2]
The PRRA Officer (the Officer) reviewed the two
risks which the Applicant raised in his PRRA submissions: (1) a risk of harm
from the Applicant’s half-sister; and (2) a risk of harm arising from the lack
of adequate care and support for the Applicant’s mental health issues.
[3]
The Applicant submitted that his half-sister
threatened to kill him if he returned to Trinidad and Tobago, because his
half-sister does not want the Applicant to make a claim with respect to his
father’s estate. The Officer noted that no documentary evidence was submitted
to corroborate this claim, such as copies of the threatening text messages that
the Applicant received from his half-sister, or correspondence from the
Applicant’s family members, friends, or acquaintances.
[4]
Despite the lack of corroborating evidence, the
Officer went on to consider whether the Applicant would be able to obtain
assistance from the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago assuming that his
half-sister did in fact wish to harm him. The Officer reviewed the country
condition evidence and found that state protection was available.
[5]
Accordingly, the Officer rejected this ground.
[6]
The Applicant also submitted that he would be at
risk of harm if returned to Trinidad and Tobago because he would be unable to
obtain adequate care and support for his mental health issues. The Officer
reviewed the medical documentation, which indicated the Applicant suffers from
a major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, a non-specified
anxiety disorder, and social anxiety disorder. The Officer acknowledged that
the Applicant has generally responded well to medication for these mental
health issues, and he has accessed medical assistance, counselling, and
outpatient group therapy on a regular basis in Canada.
[7]
The Applicant claimed that he has no support
network in Trinidad and Tobago and would be homeless and subjected to violence
and humiliation by the local Trinidad community. The Officer considered the
Applicant’s written submissions, medical documentation, and a letter of support
from his common-law spouse. The Officer found there was little objective
documentary evidence to indicate the Applicant would be unable to obtain
adequate care in Trinidad and Tobago.
[8]
The Officer reviewed two publically available
documents concerning mental health care in the country. Based on this evidence,
the Officer found there is an established system of mental health care in
Trinidad and Tobago, offering a range of primary and secondary care, including
medication, psychotherapy, and rehabilitation programs. The Officer found that
treatment is accessible at a variety of medical facilities, including mental
health outpatient and day treatment facilities, hospitals, and residential
facilities.
[9]
Based on this evidence, the Officer concluded
that the Applicant would be able to access adequate treatment for his mental
health issues in Trinidad and Tobago, and there was therefore no risk of harm
on this basis if he were to return.
II.
Issues and standard of review
[10]
The parties agree that the reasonableness
standard applies. The Court will only intervene if the decision of the Officer
falls outside the range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in
respect of the facts and law: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at
para 47.
[11]
The sole issue in this case is whether the
decision of the Officer was reasonable.
[12]
As a preliminary issue, the Applicant sought to
introduce a number of newspaper articles attached to the affidavit of May Grace
Espiritu (sworn December 3, 2015). While these articles may be publically available,
they were not before the Officer and do not form part of the record. The
Respondent objects to the consideration of the information, as it was not
before the Officer. I agree and the exhibits were not considered for the
purpose of this judicial review.
III.
Analysis
[13]
The Applicant relies on two cases concerning
mental-health related risks: Richmond v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2013 FC 228 and Level v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2010 FC 251. However, both cases are distinguishable from
the facts here.
[14]
Richmond
concerned a PRRA application based on the unavailability of treatment for
mental health issues in Guyana. The Federal Court set aside the negative PRRA
decision because the officer referred only to evidence showing that Guyana is
improving in its efforts to address mental illness. The officer failed to
specify treatment that the applicant could undergo or a particular facility
that could be accessed.
[15]
Here however, the Officer noted that the
documentary evidence showed a number of medical facilities that are available
to the Applicant in Trinidad and Tobago, offering medication, psychotherapy,
and rehabilitation. More significantly, the Court in Richmond noted that
there was objective documentary evidence suggesting stigmatization of the
mentally ill in Guyana, which the officer had failed to consider. No such
evidence was before the Officer here.
[16]
In Level, the negative PRRA decision was
set aside because the officer ignored evidence of abuse of the mentally ill.
The officer also ignored evidence concerning the lack of state protection for
the mentally ill.
[17]
Again, in this case, no such contradictory
evidence was before the Officer. Rather, the Applicant’s PRRA application was
rejected for want of evidence. The Applicant adduced evidence of his mental
health issues, but he did not establish that the situation in Trinidad and
Tobago was such that his mental health issues necessitated protection under
sections 96 or 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
2001, c 27. Nor did this evidence establish that the Applicant would be unable
to obtain adequate care in Trinidad and Tobago.
[18]
As such, in the circumstances, the Officer’s
rejection of the PRRA application was reasonable.
Email this Content