Rasheed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Source text
Rasheed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-02-15 Neutral citation 2008 FC 194 File numbers IMM-431-07 Decision Content Date: 20080215 Docket: IMM-431-07 Citation: 2008 FC 194 Ottawa, Ontario, February 15, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan BETWEEN: ABDUL RASHEED Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] This is a judicial review of a PRRA decision where the Officer found that there was no new risk established between the risk examined by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and that alleged in the PRRA. [2] The RPD had rejected the Applicant’s claim based largely upon lack of credibility of his own testimony as well as the existence of an internal flight alternative (in this instance, in Islamabad). No application for leave of the RPD decision was filed. [3] Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of new counsel to rescue the Applicant from the consequences of the RPD’s decision, using the PRRA decision, I am not persuaded. [4] Whatever may be said about the Officer’s analysis (and I do not wish to imply that I agree that it was legally infirmed), the fact remains that no new risk was submitted in the PRRA decision. A PRRA is not to be a collateral attack on the RPD decision. [5] Therefore, this judicial review is dismissed. No question for certification exists. JUDGMENT THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this application for judicial review is…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Rasheed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2008-02-15 Neutral citation 2008 FC 194 File numbers IMM-431-07 Decision Content Date: 20080215 Docket: IMM-431-07 Citation: 2008 FC 194 Ottawa, Ontario, February 15, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan BETWEEN: ABDUL RASHEED Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] This is a judicial review of a PRRA decision where the Officer found that there was no new risk established between the risk examined by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and that alleged in the PRRA. [2] The RPD had rejected the Applicant’s claim based largely upon lack of credibility of his own testimony as well as the existence of an internal flight alternative (in this instance, in Islamabad). No application for leave of the RPD decision was filed. [3] Notwithstanding the valiant efforts of new counsel to rescue the Applicant from the consequences of the RPD’s decision, using the PRRA decision, I am not persuaded. [4] Whatever may be said about the Officer’s analysis (and I do not wish to imply that I agree that it was legally infirmed), the fact remains that no new risk was submitted in the PRRA decision. A PRRA is not to be a collateral attack on the RPD decision. [5] Therefore, this judicial review is dismissed. No question for certification exists. JUDGMENT THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this application for judicial review is dismissed. “Michael L. Phelan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-431-07 STYLE OF CAUSE: ABDUL RASHEED and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: December 12, 2007 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: Phelan J. DATED: February 15, 2008 APPEARANCES: Mr. Micheal Crane FOR THE APPLICANT Mr. John Loncar FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: MR. MICHEAL CRANE Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT MR. JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Klouvi c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 80