Date: 20080908
Docket: IMM-5188-07
Citation: 2008
FC 1005
Toronto, Ontario, September
8, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
RUDOLFINE HORVATH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The present
Application concerns a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) of a citizen of Hungary who fled Hungary alleging fear of persecution
and risk based upon her ethnicity as Roma. Without a negative credibility
finding, the Applicant’s claim for protection was rejected by the Immigration
and Refugee Board (IRB) on June 13, 2006 on the basis that the Applicant’s
suffering in Hungary as Roma did not amount to persecution but only
discrimination, and, in any event, state protection is available in Hungary.
[2]
In reaching
the decision under review, the PRRA Officer cited the IRB’s opinions but also
found that the “2006 United States Department of State Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for Hungary” constitutes new evidence
with respect the current treatment of Roma in Hungary. Indeed, widespread discrimination
against Roma continues. As a result, it was necessary for the PRRA Officer to
consider this new evidence, together with the Applicant’s evidence of her past
suffering, in reaching a determination of the prospective risk she would face
if she returns. In my opinion, the PRRA Officer failed to discharge this
obligation.
[3]
The
Applicant’s particularized evidence of her past suffering in Hungary is stated in the PRRA
decision as follows:
The applicant made a refugee claim on 30
October 2001. The applicant’s refugee claim was denied by the Immigration and
Refugee Board (IRB) on 13 June 2006. The applicant’s refugee claim is outlined
in the IRB reasons. The applicant alleged that the she is an ethnic Roma and
from early childhood suffered “atrocities” such as having been “ostracized,
hurt and humiliated constantly”. Nobody would hire her and she only found a job
in a Hungarian household. She was also constantly harassed in the building she lived
in with her family. On May 11, 2002, her daughter was beaten, humiliated and
raped by three “large men”. She was taken to the hospital for treatment and the
attack was reported to the police. However, her daughter’s rape had traumatized
her and she feels that the state in Hungary
cannot protect. At the hearing she also stated that Hungarians are “racists”
and that she fears racist elements if she were to return to Hungary now.
(PRRA Decision, p.3)
Whether this evidence did not constitute risk of more than a
mere possibility of persecution or risk of cruel and unusual treatment at the
time of the RPD hearing is not the issue; the issue is whether these criteria
will be met if she returns to Hungary. The only analysis given to
this evidence on the record before the PRRA Officer is as follows:
The documentary evidence indicates
widespread discrimination against Roma. However, it also indicates that the
government is taking positive steps towards improving the situation for Roam in
Hungary. Although I recognize that
the situation for Roma in Hungary is not favourable, I am satisfied that the
applicant would not face risk of persecution, risk to life, danger of torture
or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Hungary.
(PRRA Decision, p.6)
[4]
In my
opinion, the PRRA Officer was required to fully consider the prospective risk
that the Applicant would face should she return to the current conditions in Hungary having regard to the reality
that she is an elderly woman who has been traumatised by her daughter’s rape in
what she perceives to be a racist society. In particular, I find that it was
incumbent on the PRRA Officer to determine whether she faces prospective risk
of cruel and unusual treatment should she return. Indeed, the PRRA Officer’s
analysis is devoid of any weighing of the evidence on this critical issue.
[5]
As a
result, I find that the decision under review is made in reviewable error.
ORDER
ACCORDINGLY, the decision under review is
set aside and the matter is referred back to a different Pre-Removal Risk
Assessment officer for re-determination.
I find no question to certify,
subject to any argument to be supplied by Counsel within 5 days.
“Douglas R. Campbell”
Email this Content