Date: 20080219
Docket: IMM-1920-07
Citation: 2008 FC 210
Toronto, Ontario, February 19, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
SHATONY
NATANYA SERGEANT
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant is a 22 year old female citizen of St. Vincent. She
arrived in Canada eight years ago under a six month visitor’s visa but
nonetheless has remained in Canada ever since her arrival. A claim was made
for refugee status but was apparently abandoned in May 2003. The Applicant
applied for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) and was notified by a letter
with a decision dated March 30, 2007 that her application had been rejected.
That is the decision under review.
[2]
The
PRRA application was made on the basis that the Applicant while a young
schoolgirl living with her grandmother in St. Vincent was almost
raped on two occasions. On one occasion she fought off her assailant suffering
injuries to herself and kicking the assailant in his privates. No report was
made to the police as they were seen as ineffective.
[3]
The
Applicant also has pending for almost a year an application for permanent
residency bases on a family class sponsorship from within Canada. Her
step-father, a Canadian citizen residing in Canada, is the
sponsor. As of this date this application is still pending.
[4]
It
would not serve the interest of justice to return the Applicant to St. Vincent
where she has no place to go, and run the risk of exposure to sexual assault
when it appears that her sponsored application should soon be reviewed and
completed. The matter will be returned for reconsideration by another PRRA
officer who should await the result of the sponsored application and then, only
if necessary, give further consideration to the matter.
[5]
If
such further consideration is necessary, the PRRA officer is to have regard to
the statement of Shore J. in Streanga v. Canada (MCI), 2007 FC 792 at
paragraph 19:
19 Evidence
of improvement and progress by the state is not evidence that the
current response amounts to adequate, effective protection. As held in the
Federal Court decision of Balogh v. Canada
(MCI), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1080
(QL) at paragraph 37, a state's willingness to provide protection is not
enough:
I
am of the view that the tribunal erred when it suggested a willingness to
address the situation...can be equated to adequate state protection.
JUDGMENT
For the
above Reasons:
THIS COURT ADJUDGES
that:
1. The
application is allowed;
2. The
matter is returned for re-determination by a different PRRA officer who should
await the result of the Applicant’s sponsored application and proceed only if
necessary having in mind the statements of Justice Shore in Streanga v.
Canada (MCI), 2007 FC 792.
3. There
is no question for certification.
4. No
Order as to costs.
“Roger
T. Hughes”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1920-07
STYLE
OF CAUSE: SHATONY
NATANYA SERGEANT v. THE
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO,
ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 19, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: HUGHES J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 19, 2008
APPEARANCES:
|
Shatony
Natanya Sergeant
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
(Self-Represented)
|
|
Leanne Briscoe
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Shatony
Natanya Sergeant
Toronto,
Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
(Self-Represented)
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|