Docket: IMM-5524-15
Citation:
2016 FC 737
Toronto, Ontario, June 29, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JAIME ROLANDO
SERRANO SANCHEZ
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is a judicial review of a decision of an
Immigration Officer of Citizenship and Immigration Canada dated 29 October,
2015 wherein the Applicant’s Pre Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application was
rejected.
[2]
The Applicant is an adult male citizen of
Guatemala. Prior to coming to Canada the Applicant had fled to the United
States in 1991 where he made a claim for refugee protection. The Applicant
concedes that the basis of that claim was false. The Applicant was deported
from the United States on August 2005 but, by a circuitous route, re-entered
the United States in October 2005. In August 2008 the Applicant entered Canada
from the United States, illegally, and made a claim for refugee protection here
on the basis that he feared reprisals in Guatemala since he refused to join a
“special project” sponsored by the Guatemalan army. The Applicant’s claim for
protection in Canada was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in
October 2012, who found that there was no credible basis for his claim.
[3]
The “new” evidence presented to the PRRA Officer
consisted of a death certificate of the Applicant’s father indicating death by
strangulation and gunshots and three “Denunciations” presented by the
Applicant’s brother to Guatemalan police stating that he was being harassed by
unknown persons asking as to the Applicant’s whereabouts. Documents as to
country conditions were also provided some of which were outdated and none of
which were pertinent to risk specific to persons such as the Applicant.
[4]
The principal issue before me is one of lack of
procedural fairness, namely should the PRRA Officer have convoked a hearing
given the new evidence. The standard of review to be applied by the Court is
that of reasonableness. (Thiruchelvam v Canada (MCI), 2015 FC 913 at
para 3; Kulanayagam v Canada (MCI), 2015 FC 101 at para 20; Ibrahim
v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 837 at para 6).
[5]
In the present case the PRRA Officer did not
convoke a hearing. I find that it was reasonable not to do so.
[6]
The Officer found the documents to be vague and
lacking corroboration, they did not support any suggestion that the authorities
were unwilling or unable to act. A denunciation in itself is just an assertion
and not proof of the matters asserted. There is no evidence as to what the
authorities did in respect of the denunciations. This would be the critical
evidence.
[7]
A hearing is not simply an opportunity to cooper
up or fill in missing gaps in the evidence submitted. Here the Applicant,
although personally signing the submissions to the PRRA Officer, clearly had some
professional help in preparing the material whether by a lawyer or an immigration
consultant or otherwise. At some point the Applicant, including those engaged
by the Applicant, bear some responsibility to ensure that the materials filed
are accurate and sufficient. If they are not, the Applicant cannot simply hope
that a hearing would be held or, if not, then complain to the Court that
procedural fairness was denied.
[8]
In the present case the Officer properly held
that the documents presented were insufficient to support an application not to
remove the Applicant. There findings are reasonable. A hearing would do nothing
more in respect of the documents already filed as anything the Applicant could
say would simply be hearsay. It is not a second chance to provide yet further
material that should have been given in the first place.
[9]
The application will be dismissed. No party
requested a certified question.
JUDGMENT
FOR THE REASONS PROVIDED;
THIS COURT ADJUDGES THAT:
1.
The application is dismissed;
2.
No question is certified;
3.
No Order as to costs
“Roger T. Hughes”
Email this Content