Docket: IMM-2816-16
Citation:
2017 FC 457
Ottawa, Ontario, May 05, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice McDonald
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
KOBIKRISHNA
KANAKASINGAM
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The Applicant, Mr. Kanakasingam, is a Tamil from
northern Sri Lanka. He arrived in Canada in 2009 and made a refugee claim on
the basis of having been physically assaulted and interrogated on suspicion of
involvement with the militant separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam
[LTTE]. His refugee claim was denied on the basis that conditions in Sri Lanka
at that time (2010) were improving, and therefore he would not be at risk.
Unfortunately, the situation in Sri Lanka for those with a profile like that of
the Applicant’s has not improved.
[2]
In this application, Mr. Kanakasingam seeks
judicial review of the Removal Officer’s [the Officer] decision, dated July 4,
2016 refusing to defer his removal from Canada. For the reasons that follow, this
judicial review is allowed.
I.
Background
[3]
The Applicant is from Jaffna in the north of Sri
Lanka. He came to Canada in October 2009 (entering through the United States)
and made a refugee claim on the basis of a history of being arrested and
detained by the authorities and pre-government paramilitaries as a young Tamil
man from the north of Sri Lanka. He claimed to have also been physically
assaulted and interrogated on suspicion of involvement with the militant
separatist group LTTE.
[4]
Mr. Kanakasingam’s refugee claim was heard in
September, 2010. In October 2010, his application was refused by the Refugee
Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board, on the basis
that conditions in Sri Lanka at that time were improving, and that consequently,
he would neither be a risk nor a target of special interest. His application
for judicial review of the RPD’s decision was dismissed.
[5]
In November 2011, Mr. Kanakasingam made a
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] application. His PRRA was refused in February
2012.
[6]
In April 2012, Mr. Kanakasingam was ordered to be
removed from Canada. He was scheduled to be deported on April 8, but he failed
to appear for removal. The Canadian Border Services Agency [CBSA] issued a
warrant for the Applicant’s arrest. On June 20, 2016, Mr. Kanakasingam turned
himself in to the offices of the CBSA and was subsequently arrested and
detained.
[7]
Mr. Kanakasingam’s removal from Canada was scheduled
for July 5, 2016. He requested a deferral of his removal from CBSA until he
could receive another PRRA, as four years had passed since his risk had been
assessed. The request for a deferral was refused.
[8]
Mr. Kanakasingam did receive a stay of removal
by Order of this Court pending the outcome of this application for judicial
review.
II.
Decision under review
[9]
The Officer acknowledged that he had little
discretion to defer removal under subsection 48(2) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act [IRPA] and noted that his role was to assess whether
there was compelling new evidence to justify the delay of his removal to Sri
Lanka.
[10]
After reviewing the documentation package
submitted by the Applicant, the Officer was not satisfied that there was
sufficient evidence demonstrating that the conditions in Sri Lanka had
seriously deteriorated since the Applicant’s previous PRRA assessment four
years before.
[11]
Mr. Kanakasingam filed a medical report from Dr.
Paul Agarwal regarding his psychological and emotional functioning and
potential impacts on his mental health if required to return to Sri Lanka. Dr.
Agarwal had diagnosed the Applicant with Severe and Chronic Major Depressive
Disorder. In considering this report, the Officer noted that the Applicant had
not brought any evidence showing that he had made any attempts to follow Dr.
Agarwal’s medical advice to mitigate the effects of his mental health
condition.
[12]
Overall, the Officer was not satisfied that the
Applicant’s evidence was sufficient to justify the deferral of his removal.
III.
Issue
[13]
While the Applicant has raised a number of
issues in his application for judicial review, the determinative issue is the
reasonableness of the Officer’s decision.
IV.
Analysis
[14]
The Applicant argues that as a young male of
Tamil ethnicity, he fits the profile of those likely to be targeted for
mistreatment. He claims that the situation in Sri Lanka has not improved and
that human rights violations continue to be perpetrated against Tamils and
those who fled the country to seek safety. The Applicant argued that if
returned to Sri Lanka, he would face a real risk of detention and torture.
[15]
The Officer noted that he has limited discretion
to defer removal and that he has an obligation under section 48 of the IRPA to
enforce removal orders as soon as reasonably practicable. However, a deferral
may be warranted in circumstances “where failure to
defer will expose the applicant to the risk of death, extreme sanction or
inhumane treatment” (Baron v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81 at para 51).
[16]
The Officer’s role is not to assess risk, but
rather, to assess whether there are special circumstances that could justify
deferring the removal (Kaur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2001 FCT 741 at para 15).
[17]
Here, the Officer was tasked with considering
the evidence submitted in order to assess whether removal should be deferred
until a PRRA application could be determined. In Atawnah v Canada (Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 774, this Court explained that
an enforcement officer can defer removal to allow for a “fulsome risk assessment where an applicant facing removal
adduces sufficient evidence of a serious risk in his or her country of origin,
and that risk has not previously been assessed” (para 82).
[18]
The Applicant argues that the evidence submitted
to the Officer showed escalating and systemic violations of human rights in Sri
Lanka towards young males of Tamil ethnicity in the north of Sri Lanka. However,
the Officer found that the new evidence submitted by the Applicant did not lead
to different conclusions than those made by the RPD (in 2010). Namely, the
Officer stated that: “I am not satisfied that your
submissions provide sufficient evidence that the conditions in Sri Lanka have
seriously deteriorated since your last PRRA.”
[19]
The Officer failed to identify or to mention any
of the evidence submitted, besides stating that the “submissions
are rather voluminous and consist of reports relating to general conditions in
Sri Lanka”. Further, the Officer did not refer to the changes in country
conditions in Sri Lanka over the recent years.
[20]
Additionally, it was not reasonable for the
Officer to require evidence of a personalized risk of harm. The Officer noted
that the Applicant’s submissions did not provide “any
compelling evidence of the alleged personalized risk that [he] may face in Sri
Lanka”. However, there was no need for the Applicant to present direct
evidence that he would in fact face such targeted risks if sent back to Sri
Lanka; rather, it can be inferred by circumstantial evidence by the fact the
Applicant is a member of a group that is being discriminated against. (see Kanthasamy
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para 53)
[21]
Finally, this Court has accepted that the
situation for Tamils returning to Sri Lanka appears to have deteriorated (Navaratnam
v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 244 [Navaratnam] at
para 15). In Navaratnam, the Court explained that:
[15] In April, 2013 the Prime Minister
of Canada’s special envoy to Sri Lanka, after his investigation, reported that
what was happening to Tamils in Sri Lanka was “soft
ethnic cleansing”. In October 2013, the Prime Minister of Canada
boycotted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting hosted by Sri Lanka
because of Sri Lanka’s human rights issues including treatment of Tamils. The
Swiss ceased removals to Sri Lanka in later 2013. In terms of the position
adopted by Canadian refugee authorities, I find it very noteworthy that on
November 7, 2014 the RPD revoked its 2010 Tamil-related persuasive decision:
see Policy Note: Notice of Revocation of Persuasive Decision VA9-02166.
These are all matters of public record.
[22]
Considering the seriousness of the potential
consequences combined with the insufficient reasons provided by the Officer, the
decision is unreasonable.
[23]
In light of my conclusion that the Officer’s
decision was unreasonable, there is no need to determine whether or not there
was a breach of procedural fairness.
[24]
This judicial review is allowed and the matter
is remitted for reconsideration by another officer.
Email this Content