Pan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Pan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-11-19 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1366 File numbers IMM-8776-03 Decision Content Date: 20031119 Docket: IMM-8776-03 Citation: 2003 FC 1366 Toronto, Ontario, November 19th, 2003 Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY BETWEEN: PENG FAN PAN Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] Mr. Pan has asked me to stay an order requiring his removal from Canada for his native Taiwan on November 21, 2003. He argues that a serious legal issue arises in his case- namely, whether the officer who assessed the personal risk to him if he were returned to Taiwan adequately considered the evidence before her and properly explained her conclusion that the risk was low. I can find no error in the decision of the officer and, therefore, conclude that the first branch of the test for a stay has not been satisfied: Toth v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1988] F.C.J. No. 587 (QL) (T.D.). I must, therefore, refuse Mr. Pan's request. [2] Mr. Pan argued that he was at risk of mistreatment if returned to Taiwan because he would be forced to perform military service. He believes that new recruits are subjected to considerable abuse and there does appear to be some evidence of that. The officer considered the evidence that Mr. Pan had previously tendered in support of an unsuccessful refugee claim. She also considered ad…
Read full judgment
Pan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-11-19 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1366 File numbers IMM-8776-03 Decision Content Date: 20031119 Docket: IMM-8776-03 Citation: 2003 FC 1366 Toronto, Ontario, November 19th, 2003 Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY BETWEEN: PENG FAN PAN Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] Mr. Pan has asked me to stay an order requiring his removal from Canada for his native Taiwan on November 21, 2003. He argues that a serious legal issue arises in his case- namely, whether the officer who assessed the personal risk to him if he were returned to Taiwan adequately considered the evidence before her and properly explained her conclusion that the risk was low. I can find no error in the decision of the officer and, therefore, conclude that the first branch of the test for a stay has not been satisfied: Toth v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1988] F.C.J. No. 587 (QL) (T.D.). I must, therefore, refuse Mr. Pan's request. [2] Mr. Pan argued that he was at risk of mistreatment if returned to Taiwan because he would be forced to perform military service. He believes that new recruits are subjected to considerable abuse and there does appear to be some evidence of that. The officer considered the evidence that Mr. Pan had previously tendered in support of an unsuccessful refugee claim. She also considered additional documentary evidence that Mr. Pan had supplied, as well as recent reports of country conditions in Taiwan. Those reports suggest that there has been a considerable improvement in the treatment of new recruits in the Taiwanese military. In the end, the officer concluded that there was no more than a mere possibility of personal risk to Mr. Pan. [3] Mr. Pan disputes the officer's emphasis on recent reports of the U.S. Department of State in preference to less favourable reports from other sources. It is clear, though, that the officer considered a variety of sources, including reports that outlined incidents of abuse within the military. In the end, she favoured reports from reliable sources indicating substantial improvement in recent years. I can find no legal error in the officer's approach to the issue before her, her assessment of the evidence or her reasoning. Accordingly, I find no serious issue to be tried in this case. [4] Mr. Pan also argued that he would suffer irreparable harm if he were returned to Taiwan. He suggests, given that the risk assessment in his case was faulty, that he would have to face a risk that had not been evaluated adequately: Ivakhnenko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FCT 517, [2003] F.C.J. No. 713 (QL) (T.D.). This argument is dependent on the success of the foregoing argument and, therefore, it must also fail. ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The motion is dismissed. "James W. O'Reilly" Judge FEDERAL COURT NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8776-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: PENG FAN PAN Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 17, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: O'REILLY J. DATED: NOVEMBER 19, 2003 APPEARANCES: Mr. Mario Bellissimo FOR THE APPLICANT Mr. Robert Bafaro FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ormston, Bellissimo, Younan 900-1000 Finch Avenue West Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT FEDERAL COURT Date: 20031119 Docket: IMM-8776-03 BETWEEN: PENG FAN PAN Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca