Date: 20120529
Docket: IMM-5159-11
Citation: 2012 FC 660
Ottawa, Ontario, May 29,
2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
|
|
REGINOLD JEBANESAN
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr.
Reginold Jebanesan (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision made
by Visa Officer Rena Patel (the “Officer”) of the High Commission of Canada
located in New
Delhi, India. In that
decision dated March 7, 2011, the Officer refused the Applicant’s application for
a permanent resident visa as a member of the Convention refugee abroad or the
Humanitarian-protected persons abroad classes pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the “Act”), as well as sections
147, 145 and paragraph 139(1)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”).
[2]
The
Applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka, of Tamil ethnicity.
His application was based upon a fear of rebels and the army in Sri Lanka. He claimed
that he had been abducted twice, once with his brother and cousin, and on a
second occasion with his father, brother and cousin. His father had been
abducted once, on his own, and held for three months.
[3]
The
Applicant was interviewed by the Officer, with his brother, on March 1, 2011.
His father was also interviewed on that day. The Officer expressed concerns
about the credibility of the father’s evidence and gave him the opportunity to
resolve those concerns. She did not express concerns about the Applicant’s
account of his experiences.
[4]
In
her decision the Officer said that she did not have “reasonable grounds” to
believe that the Applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution, noting a
lack of “reasonable objective grounds to believe that you or your family has
been or would be specifically targeted or persecuted”.
[5]
This
decision, involving an assessment of facts to determine if a person is a
Convention refugee within the meaning of section 96 of the Act, is reviewable
on the standard of reasonableness since it involves a question of mixed fact
and law. In this regard, I refer to the decisions in Dunsmuir v New
Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para 53 and in Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration v Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339.
[6]
The
Applicant raises a single challenge to the decision. He submits that it fails
to meet the standard of reasonableness since the reasons given do not address
his specific circumstances. The Officer sent the same negative decision to his
father, brother and cousin.
[7]
The
application for permanent residence, as Convention refugees abroad and as
members of the Humanitarian-protected persons abroad, was made by the
Applicant’s father on behalf of his family, including the Applicant, his
brother and his cousin, and the Applicant’s particular circumstances for his
fear of persecution were set out in his father’s narrative. I am satisfied that
the Officer was not obliged to deliver individual reasons in deciding the
application. The Officer properly addressed the constituent elements of a claim
for Convention refugee protection, that being a subjective and objective fear.
She was not satisfied that the Applicant had met the burden of proving that he
was at risk. The reasons adequately set out the basis for her decision and meet
the standard of reasonableness set out in Dunsmuir, above at para 47.
[8]
In
the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no
question for certification arising.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial
review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
“E.
Heneghan”
Email this Content