Docket: IMM-4064-16
Citation:
2017 FC 309
[ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, March 24, 2017
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice LeBlanc
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MARIA HONORINA
MABONZE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicant, a citizen of Angola, is
challenging the results of her Pre-removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] that was
conducted under section 112 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c. 27 [the Act]. Essentially, she argues that the immigration
officer who conducted the assessment [the Officer] failed to consult and
analyze the documentary evidence on the prevailing situation in Angola to which
she referred in the appendix to her written submissions in the form of references
to websites, and that in so doing, the Officer failed in her obligations of
procedural fairness.
[2]
The facts that are relevant to this application
for judicial review can be summarized as follows. The applicant arrived in
Canada via the United States in May 2013. She then requested refugee
protection, which she was denied in November 2013. The applicant claimed that
she feared returning to Angola due to the harm allegedly caused to her by the
police while she was detained for having participated in a protest related to
the elections that were to be held in the country. The Refugee Protection
Division [RPD] did not believe her story. More specifically, it did not believe
that she participated in that protest, that she was arrested and detained by Angolan
authorities, or even that she was a person of interest for them. The applicant,
whom the RPD described as an apolitical storekeeper, tried to appeal the
Division’s decision, but she was unable to get past the authorization stage, as
the Court denied it to her in March 2014.
[3]
On March 10, 2016, the applicant submitted her
PRRA application, which was based on the same story that was deemed to be
lacking credibility by the RPD. She cited the RPD’s failure to examine the
state protection offered in Angola to those who are dealing with difficulties
similar to her own as constituting a potential error in a Pre-removal Risk
Assessment. She also argued that she had the profile of a person persecuted
based on her belonging to a recognized at-risk social group, Angolan women, in
connection with the fact that she would be seen by the Angolan police
authorities as being an active militant or opponent to the regime. Finally, she
alleged that if she returned to Angola, she would also risk being detained
arbitrarily, harassed or even subject to extortion due her status as a rejected
and deported refugee claimant.
[4]
On August 9, 2016, the Officer rejected the
applicant’s PRRA application, noting that aside from the usual form and the
written submissions, said application did not come with any other evidence, as
she was essentially relying on the same risks as those alluded to before the
RPD. On this matter, the Officer reiterated that it was up to the applicant to
provide evidence of all the components of her PRRA application, and that to
meet this burden, it was insufficient to simply provide a list of Internet
links on the country’s overall situation without anything else. The Officer,
who then proceeded to analyze the objective documentation on the situation of
women and respect for human rights in Angola, concluded that although the
situation in that country was not perfect, there had been no significant
changes since the RPD’s rejection of the applicant’s refugee claim that would
justify Canada granting her its protection.
[5]
As I have already mentioned, the applicant
is essentially arguing that the Court must intervene in this case on the sole
ground that the Officer deemed that it was not necessary to consult the
Internet sites listed in the appendix to her written submissions. She considers
this to be a fatal defect of procedural fairness.
[6]
In other contexts, the argument would carry
weight, but I cannot agree with it in this case, since the applicant has not
shown, neither before the Officer, nor before the Court, how and why the
information on those sites could have an influence on the merits of the case (Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Patel, 2002 FCA 55 at para 5).
In particular, there are no specific references to aspects of that information
that would support the applicant’s claims in the written submissions produced
in support of the PRRA application. Furthermore, the applicant has not tried to
show before the Court that this information contradicted the conclusions made
by the Officer on the prevailing situation in Angola.
[7]
In my view, it is insufficient to submit a bulk
of information to the administrative decision-maker in the hopes that he or she
can find something to prove that the person who submitted that information was
right. I should reiterate that when it comes to the PRRA, just like in many
other matters governed by the Act, the burden lies with the person
submitting the application (Mbaraga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2015 FC 580 at para 31; Bayavuge v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2007 FC 65 at para 43). It was therefore up to the applicant to show the
usefulness of that information and to draw the Officer’s attention to the
passages that might influence what she had to decide upon, namely by specifying
the passages that might apply to her situation. She did not do this, either
before the Officer or before the Court.
[8]
The outcome would have been different if the
Officer had failed to consider this information after having been confronted
with passages that contradict or even shade her reading of the facts (Vargas
Bustos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 114 at para 39;
Cepeda‑Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
[1998] FCJ No 1425, 157 FTR 35). However, this is the not the situation
with which the Court is dealing in the case at hand.
[9]
I also note that the applicant did not file an
affidavit in support of this remedy, which by itself is also, theoretically,
fatal (Dhillon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 614 at
paras 7, 9).
[10]
The applicant’s application for judicial review
shall therefore be dismissed. Neither party asked for a question to be
certified for the Federal Court of Appeal, nor do I see any matters to be
certified in the specific circumstances of this case.
Email this Content