Docket: IMM-3069-23
Citation: 2024 FC 850
Toronto, Ontario, June 5, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista
BETWEEN: |
SAIDALI GAZIEV |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 5, 2024)
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) decision to cease the Applicant’s refugee protection pursuant to section 108(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The primary issue is whether the RPD reasonably concluded that the Applicant re-availed himself of the protection of his country of persecution, Uzbekistan, by returning on multiple occasions for substantial periods over a number of years, and by renewing his passport twice. For the reasons that follow, I find the decision of the RPD to be reasonable and I therefore dismiss the application.
[2] An issue raised by the Applicant in written argument but not advanced in oral argument is whether the RPD erred by “overly”
relying upon the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (“UN Handbook”). There is no merit to this argument. The RPD clearly acknowledged that the UN Handbook was not binding and appropriately relied on Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal jurisprudence to support its decision.
[3] The Applicant’s main focus is that the RPD’s re-availment analysis is unreasonable. I do not agree. The RPD considered all three legal requirements for re-availment – voluntariness, intention, and actual re-availment – and reasonably found that the Applicant re-availed himself by renewing his passport twice and returning to Uzbekistan on five occasions for substantial periods. The Applicant disputes the weight given to the evidence by the RPD but this does not tip the decision into unreasonableness.
[4] The RPD did not misinterpret jurisprudence; this Court has affirmed, in decisions subsequent to Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Galindo Camayo, 2022 FCA 50, that the use of the wording “exceptional circumstances”
in a panel’s analysis is not unreasonable: Biyikli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1658 at para 30; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Safi, 2022 FC 1125 at paras 49-50.
[5] In the end, the RPD provided adequate justification for its decision.
Email this Content