Date:
20130405
Docket:
IMM-8086-12
Citation:
2013 FC 345
Ottawa, Ontario,
April 5, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
|
|
ENSHAALLAH ZENDEH PIL
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Enshaallah
Zendeh Pil seeks judicial review of a Pre-removal Risk Assessment that
determined that he would not be at risk in Iran. Mr. Pil asserts that the
officer’s findings with respect to the sufficiency of his evidence of risk
were, in reality, disguised credibility findings. As a consequence, he says
that he was treated unfairly as the PRRA officer made these findings without
first affording him an interview. Mr. Pil also submits that the PRRA officer
erred in ignoring evidence.
[2]
For
the reasons that follow, Mr. Pil has not persuaded me that the PRRA officer
erred as alleged. As a consequence, his application for judicial review will be
dismissed.
Background
[3]
In
order to put the issues raised by Mr. Pil into context, it is necessary to have
some understanding of his immigration history in Canada.
[4]
The
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board accepted that
Mr. Pil had been convicted of plotting a coup d’état in the early 1980’s and
that he had served five years in an Iranian prison before being released from
prison in 1986.
[5]
The
Board also found that Mr. Pil was able to leave the country on three separate
occasions in the ensuing years, returning to Iran each time, and that he had
obtained a visa which would have permitted him to go to the United Kingdom that he chose not to use. In 2004, Mr. Pil was able to obtain an exit visa allowing
him to come to Canada for up to six months. He then left Iran.
[6]
According
to Mr. Pil, he had to post security with the Iranian authorities in order to
secure the exit visa. When he did not return to Iran within six months, and did
not seek an extension to his exit visa, the State realized on the security
posted by Mr. Pil by seizing his home.
[7]
Mr.
Pil claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran, asserting that because he had overstayed his exit visa and because of his past
conviction, he would be perceived as a subversive. As a result, he claimed that
he would be detained and tortured if he were to return to Iran.
[8]
The
Board found that the claim was not well-founded. Insofar as the risk faced by
Mr. Pil based upon the fact that he had overstayed his exit visa was concerned,
the Board concluded that Mr. Pil had not provided sufficient credible or
trustworthy evidence to demonstrate the existence of a well-founded fear of
persecution in this regard.
[9]
Giving
him the benefit of the doubt, the Board did accept that Mr. Pil had been
convicted of anti-regime activity in 1980. However, the Board was not satisfied
that he would be of any ongoing interest to the Iranian authorities. The Board
specifically found Mr. Pil’s claim to have been the subject of on-going
surveillance by the Iranian authorities, and to be a perceived opponent of the
regime not to be credible.
[10]
The
Board found as a fact that Mr. Pil had served his sentence and that he had not
encountered any further problems with the Iranian authorities between the time
of his release from prison in 1986 and his departure for Canada in 2004.
[11]
Finally,
Mr. Pil’s delay in leaving Iran, his repeated reavailment, and his delay in
seeking refugee protection once he was in Canada all led the Board to find that
Mr. Pil did not have a subjective fear of persecution.
[12]
The
Board’s decision was affirmed by this Court: Pil v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1067. The principle argument advanced
by Mr. Pil in his application for judicial review of the Board’s decision was
that the Board had erred in failing to consider the risk implications that
arose from the confiscation of his family home. The Court did not accept this
argument, finding that the Board had not overlooked this issue. The Court
further found that the lack of evidence regarding the relationship between exit
visas and the need to post security meant that the Board’s finding that the
seizure of Mr. Pil’s home carried limited probative weight in determining his
future risk in Iran was reasonable.
[13]
The
Court also did not accept Mr. Pil’s argument that the Iranian regime was
unpredictable, and that the Board should therefore have assumed the worst for
his return. The Court observed that Mr. Pil had the burden of proving that he
faced a real risk of harm in Iran, noting this burden could not be satisfied by
speculating about what the authorities might do.
[14]
Mr.
Pil’s PRRA application was based upon the same risk assertions that had
previously been rejected by the Board, and many of his arguments, such as those
based upon the alleged unpredictability of the Iranian regime have already been
considered and rejected by this Court.
[15]
Mr.
Pil did provide the PRRA officer with new evidence in the form of photocopies
of two subpoenas issued in 2011, which were allegedly delivered to his wife in Iran. The documents seek to compel Mr. Pil’s attendance at the “Boroojerd Intelligence
Bureau of Sepah” in order “To provide some explanations”. According to Mr. Pil,
the documents demonstrate that he continues to be a person of interest to the
Iranian authorities.
[16]
The
subpoenas were specifically considered by the PRRA officer, who clearly had
concerns with respect to the dates of the documents. In this regard, the
officer noted that while Mr. Pil had stated that a number of warrants for his
arrest had been left with his wife in the years after he left Iran because of his failure to return home, the only documents he had provided were the two
subpoenas issued in 2011. No other evidence had been produced by Mr. Pil to
indicate that he was of any interest to the Iranian authorities during the years
between the rejection of his refugee claim and the filing of his PRRA
application. Given the close proximity in time between the dates on the
subpoenas and the filing of the PRRA application, the officer’s concerns were
clearly reasonable.
[17]
The
officer further noted that the fact that the documents were photocopies meant
that their authenticity could not be verified. The officer did note, however,
that one of the documents had an error apparent on its face, and that neither
document provided any details as to the kind of “explanations” being sought
from Mr. Pil or the purpose of the interviews. In the circumstances, the
officer concluded that the subpoenas were insufficient evidence of a risk to
Mr. Pil.
[18]
Mr.
Pil has not persuaded me that this finding was in fact a veiled credibility
finding or that it was unreasonable. The officer’s reasons for finding that the
subpoenas were not sufficient to displace the Board’s finding that Mr. Pil was
not of any ongoing interest to the Iranian authorities are intelligible, and the
decision falls within a range of possible acceptable outcomes which are
defensible in light of the facts and the law: see Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190,
at para. 47, and Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
v. Khosa,
2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at para. 59.
[19]
Moreover,
an interview is not
required when the issue is the sufficiency of the evidence: see Ferguson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1067,
[2008] F.C.J. No. 1308.
[20]
Finally, I
have not been persuaded that the
PRRA officer erred by ignoring evidence. While Mr. Pil’s counsel made a valiant
effort to show how documentary evidence relating to country conditions in Iran
demonstrated that her client was at risk in that country, none of these
submissions had been made to the PRRA officer by Mr. Pil’s former counsel, and
the officer cannot be faulted for failing to consider an argument that had not
been made. More fundamentally, however, Mr. Pil has not demonstrated that he
shares the profile of those identified in the documents as being at risk from
the Iranian authorities, or that he would now be perceived to be an enemy of
the regime.
Conclusion
[21]
For these
reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. I agree with the parties
that the case does not raise a question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. This application for
judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious question of
general importance is certified.
“Anne L. Mactavish”
Email this Content