Raza v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2007), 370 N.R. 344 (FCA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. DE.021
Syed Masood Raza, Perveen Masood Raza, Syed Salman Masood Raza and Syed Omair Raza by his litigation guardian Syed Masood Raza (appellants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents)
(A-11-07; 2007 FCA 385)
Indexed As: Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al.
Federal Court of Appeal
Linden, Sharlow and Ryer, JJ.A.
December 6, 2007.
Summary:
The applicants applied for judicial review of a decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer that they would not be at risk in returning to Pakistan because of the availability of state protection. The applicants argued that the officer erred in assessing the risk of persecution they faced in that country and in applying the standards for the reception of new evidence under s. 113(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The Federal Court, in a decision reported 304 F.T.R. 46, dismissed the application. The applicants appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Aliens – Topic 1588
Exclusion and expulsion – Pre-removal risk assessment – Evidence – Section 113(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) dealt with circumstances in which a failed refugee claimant who made a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application could present evidence to the PRRA officer that was not before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board – The Federal Court of Appeal stated that s. 113(a) was based on the premise that a negative refugee determination by the RPD had to be respected by the PRRA officer, unless there was new evidence of facts that might have affected the outcome of the RPD hearing if the evidence had been presented to the RPD – The court stated that s. 113(a) asked a number of questions, some expressly and some by necessary implication, about the proposed new evidence – The court summarized these questions (see paragraph 13) – The court stated that it was not suggesting that the questions had to be asked in any particular order, or that in every case the PRRA officer had to ask each question – What was important was that the PRRA officer had to consider all evidence that was presented, unless it was excluded on the grounds outlined by the court in paragraph 13 – See paragraphs 1 to 21.
Aliens – Topic 1588
Exclusion and expulsion – Pre-removal risk assessment – Evidence (IRPA, s. 113(a)) – The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants’ claim for refugee protection on the basis that adequate state protection was available in Pakistan – A removal order was issued – The applicants applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) and submitted a number of documents in support of their application – All of the documents were created after the rejection of their claim for refugee protection – The PRRA officer concluded that the information in the documents was essentially a repetition of the same information that was before the RPD – The PRRA officer dismissed the application – The applicants applied for judicial review – An applications judge dismissed the application – The applicants appealed – The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal – The court held that the PRRA officer’s conclusion was reasonable – The documents were not capable of establishing that state protection in Pakistan, which had been found by the RPD to be adequate, was no longer adequate as of the date of the PRRA application (i.e., the documents could not prove that the refugee probably would have succeeded if the evidence had been made available to the RPD) – See paragraphs 1 to 21.
Cases Noticed:
Ali (H.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 258 F.T.R. 226; 2004 FC 1153, refd to. [para. 7].
Lakhani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 363; 2006 FC 612, refd to. [para. 7].
Statutes Noticed:
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 113(a) [para. 12].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement, Canada Gazette, Part II, vol. 136, Extra (June 14, 2002), p. 274 [para. 10].
Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement – see Canada, Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement.
Counsel:
Ronald Poulton, for the appellants;
Greg George and Bernard Assan, for the respondents.
Solicitors of Record:
Mamann & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants;
John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on November 29, 2007, before Sharlow, Linden and Ryer, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Sharlow, J.A., on December 6, 2007.
