Date: 20100722
Docket: IMM-2919-09
Citation: 2010 FC 776
Ottawa, Ontario, July 22, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
NESLYN CORVETTE DURRANT
MONTSICA ZEAVECIA DURRANT
MOSRAN
MOZARRO DURRANT
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
applicants seek judicial review of a negative decision made in relation to
their application for a Pre-removal Risk Assessment. They have not persuaded me
that the PRRA Officer erred in analyzing their application. Consequently, the
application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Analysis
[2]
The
applicants sought refugee protection in Canada, claiming to fear a violent criminal who had
seriously injured a member of their family in St. Vincent, and who had
threatened to kill the applicants.
[3]
The
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board had already
assessed the risk faced by the family in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, finding
that adequate state protection was available for them in that country. An
Application for Leave and for Judicial Review of this decision was dismissed by
this Court.
[4]
The
applicants provided a number of documents in support of their PRRA application.
The PRRA Officer quite properly disregarded several of them, as they pre-dated
the Refugee Protection Division’s decision and were not “new evidence” within
the meaning of subsection 113(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
[5]
Some
documents did, however, satisfy the statutory test for new evidence. This
evidence demonstrated that the threats from the applicants’ agent of
persecution were ongoing. New evidence was also provided with respect to
country conditions within St. Vincent, particularly as they related to victims of family
violence.
[6]
This
documentation was duly considered by the Officer, who observed that the threats
from the agent of persecution had already been addressed by the Refugee
Protection Division, and that evidence that the threats were ongoing did not
amount to a new risk development. This was a reasonable finding in the
circumstances.
[7]
Insofar
as the country condition information was concerned, the Officer determined that
the new documentation submitted by the applicants did not demonstrate that
there had been a significant change in conditions for victims of family
violence since the Refugee Protection Division made its finding that adequate
state protection was available to the applicants. Having reviewed the new
country condition information, I am satisfied that this was a finding that was
reasonably open to the PRRA Officer.
[8]
Having
failed to establish a reviewable error on the part of the PRRA Officer, it
follows that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question
arises for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application
for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No
serious question of general importance is certified.
“Anne
Mactavish”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2919-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: NESLYN CORVETTE
DURRANT, MONTSICA ZEAVECIA
DURRANT, MOSRAN MOZARRO DURRANT v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: July 21, 2010
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: Mactavish
J.
DATED: July 22, 2010
APPEARANCES:
|
Solomon Orjiwuru
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Ian Hicks
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
SOLOMON ORJIWURU
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
MYLES J. KIRVAN
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content