Date: 20110719
Docket: IMM-7512-10
Citation: 2011 FC 903
Toronto, Ontario, July 19,
2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
|
|
ALEJANDRINA JUANA ORTIZ
REYES
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of a Pre-Removal Risk
Assessment (PRRA) Officer dated November 10, 2010 and communicated to the
Applicant on December 9, 2010.
[2]
The
Applicant is an adult female citizen of Mexico. She claimed
refugee status in Canada. That claim was rejected in a decision of the
Immigration and Refugee Board dated September 18, 2009. The Applicant sought a
pre-removal risk assessment essentially basis on her fear of returning to
Mexico based on her assertion that she would be perceived as a returning
wealthy person and would be targeted by organized criminals.
[3]
The
PRRA Officer considered the application and, in a decision dated November 10,
2010, rejected it. That decision was not, however, released at that time. The
Applicant had been asked to file any further materials in support of the
application. On November 24, 2010 the Applicant’s representative filed further
materials. The record now produced including the affidavit of the PRRA Officer
shows that on November 25, 2010 the PRRA Officer reviewed this further material
and placed a handwritten notation on the cover to the effect that the material
had been reviewed. That note says:
Reviewed decision rendered 10-11-2010
(Signature) 25-11-2010.
[4]
On
the cover page which bears this note is a copy of a “sticky note” in different
handwriting which says:
Submissions Reviewed by officer as per
Note below. Decision stands, PA to file 25/11/10.
There is no evidence as to who wrote this
note or for what purpose.
[5]
The
decision of November 10 includes the following:
I have read and carefully considered the
application and all the submissions presented … (emphasis added)
…
After having carefully assessed all
of the evidence including documentary evidence on country conditions
(emphasis added) …
[6]
These
statements may have been true as of November 10, 2010, however the material
filed November 24, 2010 contained a great deal of further material directed to
country conditions in Mexico.
[7]
The
Officer provided an affidavit in this matter sworn May 26, 2011, which is after
the Application for leave had been granted. She swore:
a.
On
November 25th, 2010 I reviewed and considered the further submissions
I determined that the further submissions did not alter my original decision
and made a notation on the cover page of the further submissions along with my
signature.
[8]
The
notation she made is silent as to whether the further submissions altered her decision
of November 10, 2010. A third party’s notation on a sticky note addresses this
matter. It is unexplained as to whose note this was.
[9]
At
best the Officer’s practice was sloppy. If indeed the decision written November
10, 2010 was unaltered, it should have been redated before it was sent to the
applicant. The applicant did not receive the decision until December 9, 2010.
Therefore, the decision could have been redated before it was sent out.
[10]
If,
on the other had, the unknown author of the sticky note and not the Officer
made a determination that the November 10, 2010 was to stand, then the decision
was not that of the Officer.
[11]
Accordingly,
the application is allowed. It is best that the matter be returned for
redetermination by a different Officer. There is no question for certification,
nor any special reason to grant costs.
JUDGMENT
FOR THE
REASONS PROVIDED
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1.
The
application is allowed;
2.
The
matter is returned for a new determination by a different Officer;
3.
There
is no question to be certified;
4.
No
order as to costs.
“Roger
T. Hughes”
Email this Content