Tuhin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Tuhin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-01-12
Neutral citation
2006 FC 22
File numbers
IMM-3896-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060112
Docket: IMM-3896-05
Citation: 2006 FC 22
Montréal, Quebec, January 12, 2006
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARTINEAU
BETWEEN:
JUNED AHMED TUHIN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Canada on July 30, 2000. His refugee claim was rejected on May 28, 2002, by the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for lack of credibility. On June 7, 2005, Julie Luneau, Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer (the PRRA Officer), rejected the applicant’s application for protection (PRRA), which gave rise to this application for judicial review.
[2] Regardless of the standard of review applicable in this case (patently unreasonable or reasonableness simpliciter), the applicant has not convinced me that the PRRA Officer made a reviewable error that would warrant setting aside this decision and remitting the matter back for reconsideration by a different officer.
[3] It was reasonable for the PRRA Officer to determine that there was no objective and reliable evidence supporting the applicant’s claims concerning his role with the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and concerning the existence of an arrest warrant against him. Furthermore, the PRRA Officer was able to support her decision with the fact the government in power is no longer the same as when the applicant was in Bangladesh.
[4] The onus is on the applicant to submit evidence from a reliable and objective source, and the PRRA Officer has no obligation before making her decision to bring to the applicant’s attention insufficiencies in the evidence. Moreover, the weight and credibility of the evidence depends exclusively upon the PRRA Officer’s assessment. The reasons given in the decision for excluding the evidence submitted by the applicant or for giving it little probative value are not capricious or arbitrary, and appear to me to be reasonable in the circumstances.
[5] In this case, the application for protection essentially raised the same allegations of risk that were previously raised before the IRB, and the PRRA Officer cannot be reproached for arbitrarily excluding evidence that had already been submitted to the IRB. With regard to the new pieces of evidence introduced by the applicant, the PRRA Officer clearly explained why these were not probative or conclusive in the circumstances. Her finding that there was no possibility of serious risk is based firmly on the documentary evidence and takes into account the changes in the political climate in Bangladesh. The BNP was elected in October 2001, replacing the Awami League (AL), which had been in power since 1996. In addition, the Public Safety Act, under which, according to the applicant, there was a warrant for his arrest, has been repealed. Moreover, the applicant does not explain specifically why the police of the present government would be currently seeking his arrest, and his allegations of fear of assault by AL “goons” seems purely gratuitous in the absence of credible and reliable evidence. Considering the problems of credibility previously raised by the IRB, the PRRA Officer could exclude or grant little value to the new pieces evidence submitted by the applicant, which appear to me to be unreliable and based on hearsay or supplied by non‑independent sources.
[6] For these reasons, this application for judicial review must fail. No question of general importance is involved.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS that application for judicial review be dismissed.
“Luc Martineau”
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Gwen May
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3896-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: JUNED AHMED TUHIN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: January 11, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARTINEAU
DATED: January 12, 2006
APPEARENCES:
Michel Le Brun
FOR THE APPLICANT
Claudia Gagnon
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Le Brun
LaSalle, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Québec
FOR THE RESPONDENT