Docket: IMM-1035-16
Citation:
2016 FC 1064
Toronto, Ontario, September 19, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ANUSHIYAMINI
JEGAN,
AJANTH JEGAN,
ARUNETHRA JEGAN
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Rendered on the Bench at Toronto,
Ontario on September 19, 2016)
I.
Background and Analysis
[1]
Upon arrival in Canada, the principal Applicant
was a permanent resident of Italy and both of her minor dependants were citizens
therein. The Refugee Protection Division of the IRB determined that the
Applicants have the possibility of returning to Italy, recognizing that no
objective, nor subjective fear was deduced by it in that regard (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration v Mahdi, December 1, 1995, 32 Imm LR (2d)
1 (FCA)). The determination was based on an analysis of such status as per Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration) v Zeng (FCA, A-275-09.
[2]
This judgment is in response to the application
for judicial review of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) of a Senior
Immigration Officer of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
[3]
The principal Applicant and her two children
arrived in Canada on August 7, 2014. The Applicants claimed refugee status upon
arrival.
[4]
The principal Applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka,
alleges that her family, parents and siblings, in Sri Lanka, had been targeted
due to Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ties; she left Sri Lanka; had a
relationship with an Italian gentleman with whom she had two children in Italy.
The principal Applicant lived her life with the children in Italy until her
relationship with her common law partner disintegrated.
[5]
The Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] refused
to give refugee status to the Applicants on the basis that the principal Applicant
and her two minor children were determined to be persons to whom Article 1E of
the Refugee Convention applied.
[6]
The onus was on the Applicant to demonstrate a
need of protection. For such, evidence must be submitted to support allegations
in this regard.
[7]
As the principal Applicant is a permanent
resident of Italy with her children who are citizens therein, they can return
and remain in Italy, recognizing its inherent protection.
[8]
For all the above reasons, the decision of the
PRRA Officer is reasonable; and, therefore, the judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for
judicial review be dismissed. There is no serious question of general
importance to be certified.
II.
Obiter
It
is presumed, if eventual removal is to be even considered in the case of the
Applicants, it would be to Italy; if that were not the case, if, it were to Sri
Lanka, a very different set of considerations would appear essential.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Email this Content