Jegan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Jegan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2016-09-19
Neutral citation
2016 FC 1064
File numbers
IMM-1035-16
Decision Content
Date: 20160919
Docket: IMM-1035-16
Citation: 2016 FC 1064
Toronto, Ontario, September 19, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
ANUSHIYAMINI JEGAN,
AJANTH JEGAN,
ARUNETHRA JEGAN
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Rendered on the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on September 19, 2016)
I. Background and Analysis [1] Upon arrival in Canada, the principal Applicant was a permanent resident of Italy and both of her minor dependants were citizens therein. The Refugee Protection Division of the IRB determined that the Applicants have the possibility of returning to Italy, recognizing that no objective, nor subjective fear was deduced by it in that regard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v Mahdi, December 1, 1995, 32 Imm LR (2d) 1 (FCA)). The determination was based on an analysis of such status as per Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Zeng (FCA, A-275-09.
[2] This judgment is in response to the application for judicial review of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) of a Senior Immigration Officer of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
[3] The principal Applicant and her two children arrived in Canada on August 7, 2014. The Applicants claimed refugee status upon arrival.
[4] The principal Applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, alleges that her family, parents and siblings, in Sri Lanka, had been targeted due to Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam ties; she left Sri Lanka; had a relationship with an Italian gentleman with whom she had two children in Italy. The principal Applicant lived her life with the children in Italy until her relationship with her common law partner disintegrated.
[5] The Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] refused to give refugee status to the Applicants on the basis that the principal Applicant and her two minor children were determined to be persons to whom Article 1E of the Refugee Convention applied.
[6] The onus was on the Applicant to demonstrate a need of protection. For such, evidence must be submitted to support allegations in this regard.
[7] As the principal Applicant is a permanent resident of Italy with her children who are citizens therein, they can return and remain in Italy, recognizing its inherent protection.
[8] For all the above reasons, the decision of the PRRA Officer is reasonable; and, therefore, the judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review be dismissed. There is no serious question of general importance to be certified.
II. Obiter It is presumed, if eventual removal is to be even considered in the case of the Applicants, it would be to Italy; if that were not the case, if, it were to Sri Lanka, a very different set of considerations would appear essential.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-1035-16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
ANUSHIYAMINI JEGAN, AJANTH JEGAN, ARUNETHRA JEGAN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
September 19, 2016
JUDGMENT AND REASONS:
SHORE J.
DATED:
September 19, 2016
APPEARANCES:
Robert I. Blanshay
For The Applicants
Kareena R. Wilding
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Robert I. Blanshay
Barrister & Solicitor
Professional Corporation
Toronto, Ontario
For The Applicants
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
For The Respondent