Amaya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Amaya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2007-06-12
Neutral citation
2007 FC 629
File numbers
IMM-4647-06
Decision Content
Date: 20070612
Docket: IMM-4647-06
Citation: 2007 FC 629
Edmonton, Alberta, June 12, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
OSMAN AMAYA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
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
DATE OF HEARING: June 7, 2007
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: HENEGHAN J.
DATED: June 12, 2007
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