Cosgun c. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 400 (2010)

Extrait

---

Cosgun c. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 400 (2010)

Federal Court - Cosgun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Source: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2010/2010fc400/2010fc400.html

Federal Court

Cour fédérale

Date: 20100414

Dockets: IMM-4648-09

IMM-4649-09

Citation: 2010 FC 400

Ottawa , Ontario, April 14, 2010

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Crampton

BETWEEN:

KIRAZ COSGUN

Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1] These reasons for judgment and judgment relate to two applications for judicial review heard consecutively on March 23, 2010.

[2] The first application concerns a decision, dated July 7, 2009, of Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) Officer L. Zucarelli, wherein it was concluded that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “IRPA”), respectively.

[3] The second application concerns a decision, dated July 6, 2009, by the same Officer, wherein the Officer declined to grant the Applicant’s request for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate (“H&C”) grounds .

[4] With respect to the PRRA decision, the Applicant alleges that the Officer erred in law by (i) failing to hold a hearing to provide her with an opportunity to address a number of credibility issues that were raised in the Officer’s assessment; (ii) applying an incorrect test in assessing the availability of state protection for women who are victims of domestic violence in Turkey; and (iii) ignoring important evidence that was supportive of her claim regarding the ineffectiveness of such state protection.

[5] With respect to H&C decision, the Applicant alleges that the Officer applied the wrong test in assessing her H&C application, notwithstanding that the correct test was articulated throughout the decision. More particularly, the Applicant alleges that the Officer either (i) merely recited the ma...

Voir le contenu complet de ce document

---