Docket: IMM-2903-16
Citation:
2017 FC 471
Ottawa, Ontario, May 9, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MYKALEE ALLANIE
BRACKENRIDGE, STEPHANIE ANNMARIE BRACKENRIDGE, SAMUEL DWIGHT WAYNE
BRACKENRIDGE, JAYDEN TENDAJI BRACKRENRIDGE
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Ms Stephanie Brackenridge put her life at risk
by testifying in Jamaica at the trial of the man accused of murdering her
brother. She alleges that as a result, a bounty was placed on her life, as well
as those of the other applicants – her husband, Mr Samuel Brackenridge, and her
two children. State authorities offered the family temporary protection, but
when those measures were due to expire, the applicants fled to Canada and
claimed refugee status. A panel of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied
the applicants’ claim on the basis that they failed to rebut the presumption
that their home state could adequately protect them. On appeal, the Refugee
Appeal Division (RAD) arrived at the same conclusion.
[2]
The applicants argue that the RAD unreasonably
concluded that the Jamaican authorities were able to protect them. They ask me
to quash the RAD’s decision and order a re-hearing.
[3]
I agree that the RAD’s decision was
unreasonable. Therefore, I will grant this application for judicial review.
[4]
The sole issue is whether the RAD’s conclusion
on state protection was unreasonable.
I.
Was the RAD’s conclusion on state protection
unreasonable?
[5]
The Minister notes that the applicants had been
placed in protective custody and provided accommodation in a safe house. The
Minister also points out that Jamaica has a reputable witness protection
program. Further, the applicants left Jamaica before any alternative arrangements
to assure their safety had been put in place. According to the Minister, this
evidence shows that Jamaica was willing and able to protect the applicants.
[6]
I disagree.
[7]
In my view, the RAD ignored evidence that
pointed away from state protection being available to the applicants. Specifically,
a letter from the Superintendent of the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) to the
Jamaican National Intelligence Bureau stated that “the
existing security arrangement for the BRACKENRIDGE family was inadequate…”,
and recommended that “…further efforts be made to
ensure the security of the BRACKENRIDGE family”. A second letter from
the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Jamaican Constabulary to Ms
Brackenridge’s employer stated that the employer urgently needed to extend “any assistance that is possible” to enhance Ms
Brackenridge’s security. Six months after the date of the NIB letter, the
applicants had yet to see any increased protection. In addition, the evidence
showed that the applicants, before they fled to Canada, were about to be
removed from their safe house and that no alternate arrangements had been made.
[8]
In my view, the RAD’s conclusion that the
applicants had failed to meet their burden of proof was unreasonable. The
question the RAD had to answer was whether, based on the whole of the evidence,
including evidence about Jamaica’s capacity to protect them, the applicants
faced a reasonable chance of persecution. The RAD appears not to have
considered important evidence relevant to that question. Accordingly, I find
that its conclusion was unreasonable.
II.
Conclusion and Disposition
[9]
The RAD unreasonably concluded that applicants
had failed to rebut the presumption that state protection was available to them
in Jamaica. On that basis, I will allow this application for judicial review.
Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and
none is stated.
Email this Content