Date: 20050531
Docket: IMM-2582-04
Citation: 2005 FC 749
Ottawa, Ontario, May 31, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHORE
BETWEEN:
PAUL MITCHELL
Applicant
and
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER ANDORDER
INTRODUCTION
[1] A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment officer cannot do more nor less than he is mandated to do under the jurisdiction given to him. If no new evidence, or evidence that was not reasonably available, is presented to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment officer, an applicant whose claim has already been rejected for credibility concerns, cannot expect this Court to return such a decision for redetermination if its reasons are adequately motivated.
JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
[2] This is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) of the decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) officer which, on February 9, 2004, dismissed the Applicant's PRRA application under sections 96 and 97 of IRPA, determining that the Applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and would not be subject to risk of torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment if returned to Grenada.
BACKGROUND
[3] A citizen of Grenada, the Applicant, Mr. Paul Mitchell, entered Canada as a visitor in 1998 but only came to the attention of immigration authorities when he was arrested on March 15, 2002. He then made a refugee claim based on his imputed political opinion. His refugee claim was refused on September 18, 2003. The Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (Board) found that Mr. Mitchell's claim had no credible basis. Mr. Mitchell then made an application under the PRRA program, which was rejected on February 9, 2004. This decision is now under review before this Court.
Page: 3
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[4] The PRRA officer found that Mr. Mitchell did not address nor dispel the credibility concerns raised by the Board in its written reasons concerning the refugee claim. Mr. Mitchell did not provide any evidence of his membership or association to the Grenada Union Labor Party. The PRRA officer noted that Mr. Mitchell relied on the same circumstances as those assessed by the Board, including a number of 2003 country reports on Grenada, and Mr. Mitchell did not indicate how these reports relate to his personal set of circumstances. The PRRA officer considered that the family ties Mr. Mitchell has in Canada and the number of years he has been in Canada are not relevant in the context of a PRRA assessment.
ISSUE
1. Did PRRA officer make a reviewable error?
ANALYSIS
[5] The PRRA process is to assess new risk developments between the refugee hearing and the removal date. Mr. Mitchell provided no new evidence, i.e. evidence that was not or could not have been before the Board. He did not submit any evidence relating to a personal risk if returned to
Page: 4
Grenada and the country reports he submitted date from 2003 (the situation at the time he made a refugee claim). The PRRA officer properly considered Mr. Mitchell's application as well as the pertinent country reports and determined, rightly so, that Mr. Mitchell had not established that he is at risk.
[6] Mr. Mitchell declares that the PRRA officer ignored evidence of continuing human rights violations in Grenada but did not specify any evidence that was ignored. The Court will not rule on unsubstantiated allegations.
[7] Mr. Mitchell also alleges that the PRRA regime violates procedural and natural justice as well as constitutional principles of fundamental justice as the requirements for success under the PRRA program are not specified or are vague and impossible to meet. In the absence of any further submissions on the subject, it is important to recall that section 113 of IRPA gives specific enough criteria for deciding a PRRA application and that on that basis, applicants do succeed with their PRRA application.
CONCLUSION
[8] For the above reasons, the Court answers the question in the negative. Consequently, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
Page: 5
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The application for judicial review be dismissed;
2. No question be certified.
"Michel M.J. Shore"
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2582-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: PAUL MITCHELL v.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 17, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
DATED: May 31, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Munyonzwe Hamalengwa FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Kareena Wilding FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MUNYONZWE HAMALENGWA FOR THE APPLICANT
Mississauga, Ontario
JOHN H. SIMS Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Minister of Justice and
Deputy Attorney General
Email this Content