Docket: IMM-4396-16
Citation:
2017 FC 500
Toronto, Ontario, May 15, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
VICTOR HUGO
CABELLO DUARTE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The present Application concerns a decision of a
Senior Immigration Officer (Officer), dated August 17, 2016, denying the
Applicant’s Pre-Removal-Risk Assessment (PRRA) application.
[2]
The Applicant was born in Canada on September
14, 1972. He acquired Mexican rather than Canadian citizenship at birth because
his father was a Mexican diplomat. He is married to a Canadian citizen, has
three Canadian-born children, and has never been to Mexico. According to his
Counsel, “he was unaware of his lack of Canadian
citizenship and lived in Canada without status, which led to an exclusion order
being made against him…” (Applicant’s Memorandum of Argument, para. 3).
[3]
In support of the PRRA application, Counsel for
the Applicant argued that the Applicant would be at risk to life or of cruel or
inhumane treatment or punishment on a personalized basis if he were to return
to Mexico:
If he were to be sent to Mexico, his life
would be at risk as he has no home, job prospects or relatives he can rely on
for support in Mexico. He would be homeless and extremely vulnerable to the
situation existing in Mexico, at the present time. He would be viewed as a
foreigner having never lived in Mexico and perceived to have money. Therefore,
he would be the target of criminals and other persons who would see him as a
vulnerable human being who could be exploited by them. He would face the
possibility of abduction, kidnapping for ransom and forced disappearance by
criminal elements and others in Mexico.
(Certified Tribunal Record, p. 50)
[4]
In rejecting the Applicant’s PRRA application,
the Officer repeated the Applicant’s submissions above and concluded:
With respect to having no home, job
prospects or relatives he can rely on for support in Mexico are not risks as
define in Section 96 and 97 of the IRPA [sic] (Decision, p. 5).
The evidence before me indicates that the
applicant fears criminals in Mexico. Crime affects every citizen and resident
in Mexico.
[…]
I find that the risk identified by the
applicant is one faced generally by others in Mexico and thus the applicant
does not meet the requirement of the IRPA (Decision, p. 6).
[5]
In support of the present Application, Counsel
for the Applicant argues that the Applicant’s situation is unique because he
has never been to Mexico. As such, he is unable to provide evidence of
personalized risk in the same manner as individuals who have fled a home
country and, with respect to return, fear personalized risk of generalized
crime and violence due to past targeting.
[6]
In response, Counsel for the Respondent argued
that risk of kidnapping and crime in Mexico is generalized, and, therefore,
cannot ground a successful PRRA application.
[7]
The evidence before the Officer raises the issue
of whether unique ineptitude constitutes a personalize risk. That is, the
Applicant’s particular circumstances personalize an otherwise generalized risk
of crime and violence faced by Mexicans, because they render him uniquely
vulnerable and unable to protect himself. I find that the Officer’s failure to
address this issue renders the decision unreasonable.
Email this Content