Amaya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 629

Date: 20070612

Docket: IMM-4647-06

Citation: 2007 FC 629

Edmonton, Alberta, June 12, 2007

PRESENT:     The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan

BETWEEN:

OSMAN AMAYA

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

 AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]               Mr. Osman Amaya (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer. In that decision, dated August 18, 2006, the Applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (the “PRRA”) was dismissed. The PRRA Officer determined that the Applicant was not a person in need of protection as defined in section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended (the “Act”).

[2]               The Applicant is a citizen of El Salvador. He claims to be at risk in his country of nationality because he is a former gang member. He alleges that he will be targeted for death by the membership of the gang.

[3]               The PRRA Officer did not agree with the position put forth by the Applicant and concluded that, on the basis of the evidence presented, there were no substantial grounds to support a finding that he was a person described in paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.

[4]               The findings of the PRRA Officer in this case are factually driven and accordingly, are reviewable on the standard of patent unreasonableness. In this regard, I refer to the decision in Figurado v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2005] 4 F.C.R. 387. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the lack of an oral hearing relate to procedural fairness and that issue is reviewable on the standard of correctness.

[5]               I agree with the submissions of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) that the Applicant is essentially challenging the weight given to the evidence by the PRRA Officer. I am not persuaded that the PRRA Officer ignored evidence and in particular, that he or she failed to consider the profile of the Applicant. The conclusions of the PRRA Officer are grounded in the evidence submitted and take into account the Applicant’s profile.

[6]               I am equally satisfied that there was no reviewable error arising from the fact that no oral interview was granted to the Applicant. I agree with the submissions of the Respondent that the evidence presented by the Applicant did not trigger the application of section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, as amended (the “Regulations”).

[7]               In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.

ORDER

            This application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising.

                                                                                                            “Elizabeth Heneghan”

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-4647-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          Osman Amaya and the

                                                            Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                      June 7, 2007

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER:                                   HENEGHAN J.

DATED:                                             June 12, 2007

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: