Date: 20040903
Docket: IMM-2471-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1214
Ottawa, Ontario, this 3rd day of September, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
SHITAL CHANDRA ROY
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Shital Chandra Roy arrived in Canada in 1999 and sought refugee protection on the grounds of political and religious persecution in his native Bangladesh. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed his claim in 2001. Mr. Roy subsequently applied for protection by way of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The officer who carried out the PRRA analysis concluded that Mr. Roy would not be at risk if he returned to Bangladesh. Mr. Roy disputes the officer's analysis and asks me to order another officer to reconsider his file.
[2] I cannot find any basis on which to overturn the officer's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issues
1. Is the PRRA officer's affidavit admissible on this judicial review?
2. Did the officer err in failing to consider evidence that the officer was obliged to assess?
3. Was the officer's conclusion that Mr. Roy could find a safe place to live in Bangladesh supported by the evidence?
II. Analysis
A. Is the PRRA officer's affidavit admissible on this judicial review?
[3] Counsel for Mr. Roy objected to an affidavit that had been sworn by the PRRA officer and filed by the respondent. He argued that it is inappropriate for the respondent to rely on an affidavit from the person whose decision is under review. He cited no authority for that proposition.
[4] I have concluded that I need not decide this question here as I have not found it necessary to rely on the affidavit in my consideration of the other issues.
B. Did the officer err in failing to consider evidence that the officer was obliged to assess?
[5] Mr. Roy had applied for permanent resident status under the Post-Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada (PDRCC) program. That program evolved into the PRRA program in 2002. His PDRCC application became a PRRA file. He was given an opportunity to make additional submissions for purposes of the PRRA analysis and he did so.
[6] Mr. Roy argues that the PRRA officer was obliged to consider his original PDRCC submissions and failed to do so.
[7] In her written analysis of Mr. Roy's application, the officer listed the sources she had consulted. She did not specifically mention Mr. Roy's original PDRCC submissions. Mr. Roy argues that the officer had a duty to consider those submissions according to s. 346 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (see Annex).
[8] However, the officer's reasons do contain references to the evidence that Mr. Roy had supplied in his PDRCC application.
[9] Originally, Mr. Roy emphasized the political aspects of his application. He said that he feared the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League because of his activities in the Jaytya Party. His previous refugee claim was based on similar allegations. By contrast, in his PRRA submissions, Mr. Roy placed greater reliance on his fear of religious persecution as a Hindu. These allegations supplemented his original claims.
[10] It is clear to me that the officer addressed the substance of Mr. Roy's original allegations. She specifically considered Mr. Roy's claim of persecution on the part of political parties in Bangladesh and found that there was little basis for his fear. Accordingly, even if I were to accept Mr. Roy's argument that the officer had a statutory duty to consider his PDRCC submissions, I believe the officer discharged that duty.
C. Was the officer's conclusion that Mr. Roy could find a safe place to live in Bangladesh supported by the evidence?
[11] Mr. Roy claimed to fear persecution as a member of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh. The officer agreed that there was evidence of mistreatment of Hindus, particularly in rural areas. However, Mr. Roy stated that he had lived unharmed in the city of Chittagong from 1996 to 1997. The officer concluded that if Mr. Roy returned to Bangladesh and lived in a city, there "would be no more than a remote or speculative chance" of religious persecution. She went on to find that Bangladesh is taking serious measures to combat crime and religious extremism and provides state protection to religious minorities.
[12] Mr. Roy argues that the officer ignored the fact that when he was living in Chittagong he was actually in hiding. Further, he says that violence against Hindus has escalated since he left. He refers to an Amnesty International report for 2001 that described widespread violence against Hindus.
[13] I can overturn the officer's findings of fact only if I conclude that they were patently unreasonable, in the sense that they were unsupported by the evidence. Here, the officer considered Mr. Roy's submissions and the relevant documentary evidence. Mr. Roy disputes the weight the officer gave to some of that evidence, but that is not a basis for overturning her decision.
[14] Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Counsel asked me to certify a question of general importance only if I found that the officer's affidavit was inadmissible. Given my treatment of that issue, I will not state a question.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
"James O'Reilly"
F.C.J.
| Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227
Post-determination refugee claimants in Canada class
346. (1) An application for landing as a member of the post-determination refugee claimants in Canada class in respect of which no determination of whether the applicant is a member of that class was made before the coming into force of this section is an application for protection under sections 112 to 114 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and those sections apply to the application.
|
|
Règlements sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, DORS/2002-227
Demandeurs non reconnus du statut de réfugiéau Canada
346. (1) Est assimilée à une demande de protection visée par les articles 112 à 114 de la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés la demande d'établissement à titre de demandeur non reconnu du statut de réfugié au Canada à l'égard de laquelle aucune décision n'a été prise avant l'entrée en vigueur du présent article quant à savoir si le demandeur a cette qualité.
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2471-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHITAL CHANDRA ROY v.THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: SEPTEMBER 3, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Avi J. Sirlin FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Mary Matthews FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
AVI J. SIRLIN FOR THE APPLICANT
Toronto ON
MORRIS ROSENBERG
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content