Calgary, Alberta, November 16, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOSLEY
BETWEEN:
QIU SHENG GAO
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant is a 45 year-old male citizen of the People's Republic of Chinaand unsuccessful refugee protection claimant. He sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment. At the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated that I would dismiss the application and provided brief oral reasons. These are my reasons, expanded for clarity and to cite authority.
[2] The applicant entered Canada on September 12, 2002 and filed a claim for refugee protection on October 16, 2002 alleging a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of his political opinion. The grounds related to the applicant's involvement in a "China Hui Ling Qi Gong" Health Recovery Centre. The claim was heard by the Refugee Protection Division on June 26, 2003 and dismissed the same date with oral reasons. Leave for judicial review of that decision was denied on June 8, 2004.
[3] An application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) was filed in October 2004 and rejected on February 8th, 2005.
[4] The issue in these proceedings was whether the PRRA officer adequately dealt with new evidence submitted to him, namely written evidence from the applicant's wife that she was confronted in May 2004 by agents of the "Security Bureau" who presented her with a subpoena, took her for questioning and executed a search warrant at her house seizing various documents and equipment. She subsequently was taken away again and questioned, this time by officials from the Prosecutor's Office. This resulted in forgery charges for which she was released on bail.
[5] The PRRA officer accepted that these events occurred. However, he concluded that the new evidence failed to address the question of why the Chinese authorities would have an interest in the applicant or what their specific interest might be. There was no reliable indication in the new evidence that the applicant had been charged with a crime or was being sought for prosecution in relation to any specific matter. The wife's statement did not mention their involvement with the Centre as a possible cause.
[6] Having rejected, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant's evidence that he had been arrested, detained and mistreated by the police and considering the new evidence, the officer concluded that there was insufficient credible and trustworthy evidence to establish that the applicant was a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
[7] Recent judgments of this court with respect to the appropriate standard of review of a PRRA officer's decision favour the application of an overall standard of reasonableness: Covarrubias v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 FC 1193; Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 FC 437; Liyanage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 FC 1045; Figurado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 FC 347.
[8] However, where particular findings of fact are made by a PRRA officer, the Court should not substitute its decision for that of the PRRA officer unless it is demonstrated by the applicant that such findings of fact were made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before the PRRA officer (paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended; Harb v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 238 F.T.R. 194 para. 14). This equates to a standard of patent unreasonableness: Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1501, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1904.
[9] The applicant submits that the PRRA officer failed to consider the new evidence from the applicant's wife or failed to consider its probative value. However, the applicant has been unable to provide any specific illustration of where or how the officer's analysis fails in these respects. I can only conclude that I am simply being asked to substitute my view of the evidence and the appropriate weight to be accorded it for that of the officer. That is not the function of the court on judicial review.
[10] I am satisfied that in this case the officer's extensive reasons demonstrate that he carefully considered the new evidence submitted by the applicant before arriving at his decision. There is nothing on the face of the record to suggest that the decision was made without regard to the evidence. The officer's factual findings are not patently unreasonable. Overall, the decision is reasonable.
[11] Accordingly, this application is dismissed. No question of general significance was proposed and none will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application is dismissed. No question is certified.
"Richard Mosley"
JUDGE
Calgary, Alberta
November 16, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3262-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: QIU SHENG GAO v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: November 16, 2005
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Manjit Walia
|
|
| Mr. Rick Garvin
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Walia Law Office Calgary, Alberta
|
|
| Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
|