Edmonton, Alberta, June 12, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Osman Amaya (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer. In that decision, dated August 18, 2006, the Applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (the “PRRA”) was dismissed. The PRRA Officer determined that the Applicant was not a person in need of protection as defined in section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, as amended (the “Act”).
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of El Salvador. He claims to be at risk in his country of nationality because he is a former gang member. He alleges that he will be targeted for death by the membership of the gang.
[3] The PRRA Officer did not agree with the position put forth by the Applicant and concluded that, on the basis of the evidence presented, there were no substantial grounds to support a finding that he was a person described in paragraphs 97(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.
[4]
The
findings of the PRRA Officer in this case are factually driven and accordingly,
are reviewable on the standard of patent unreasonableness. In this regard, I
refer to the decision in Figurado v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2005] 4 F.C.R. 387. The
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the lack of an oral hearing relate to
procedural fairness and that issue is reviewable on the standard of
correctness.
[5]
I agree
with the submissions of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the
“Respondent”) that the Applicant is essentially challenging the weight given to
the evidence by the PRRA Officer. I am not persuaded that the PRRA Officer
ignored evidence and in particular, that he or she failed to consider the
profile of the Applicant. The conclusions of the PRRA Officer are grounded in
the evidence submitted and take into account the Applicant’s profile.
[6]
I am
equally satisfied that there was no reviewable error arising from the fact that
no oral interview was granted to the Applicant. I agree with the submissions of
the Respondent that the evidence presented by the Applicant did not trigger the
application of section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, SOR/2002-227, as amended (the “Regulations”).
[7] In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
ORDER
This application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising.
“Elizabeth Heneghan”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4647-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Osman Amaya and the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Clifford Luyt |
FOR THE APPLICANT |
Ms. Alexis Singer |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Waldman & Associates Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |