Akinbowale v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2007) 320 F.T.R. 100 (FC)

• Judge: Blais, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 20, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 320 F.T.R. 100 (FC);2007 FC 1221

Akinbowale v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2007), 320 F.T.R. 100 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.008

Temitope J. Akinbowale and Olaotan Akinbowale (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-1817-07)

Yetunde Folasad Akinbowale and Olaotan Akinbowale (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-1834-07; 2007 FC 1221)

Indexed As: Akinbowale v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Blais, J.

November 26, 2007.

Summary:

A pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) officer denied the applicants' request for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds filed from within Canada. The applicants applied for judicial review of the PRRA officer's decision.

The Federal Court dismissed the applications.

Aliens - Topic 1206

Admission - Immigrants - Upon compassionate or humanitarian grounds - A pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) officer denied the applicants' request for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds filed from within Canada - The applicants applied for judicial review, arguing that the PRRA officer did not sufficiently assess the interests of their children, especially the risk their Canadian born daughter would face of undergoing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) if they returned to Nigeria - The Federal Court dismissed the applications - The PRRA officer had found that the applicants did not provide sufficient proof that their daughter would have to undergo FGM - The PRRA officer's conclusion was reasonable - The court stated, inter alia, that "The evidence was to the effect that without family pressure, the practice was less likely to be performed. The fact that the applicants are alleging that their daughter would have to undergo FGM if they were sent back to Nigeria as a factor for their H&C applications surely indicates that they are against that practice" - See paragraphs 12 to 19.

Aliens - Topic 1206

Admission - Immigrants - Upon compassionate or humanitarian grounds - A pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) officer denied the applicants' request for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds filed from within Canada - The applicants applied for judicial review of the decision - The applicants had alleged that their Canadian born daughter would face female genital mutilation (FGM) in Nigeria - They argued that the PRRA officer applied the wrong burden of proof when he stated that "the applicants have not sufficiently shown how this daughter is seriously at risk of being forced to undergo FGM" and that "the applicants have not presented sufficient evidence that they [sic] would be a serious risk of being forced to have the procedure done to their daughter" - The applicants argued that the PRRA officer should have considered the hardship associated with the return to Nigeria instead of the risk upon return of the applicants' daughter, who was a Canadian citizen and therefore was not subject to the PRRA program - The Federal Court dismissed the applications - The PRRA officer's decision was made in the context of evaluating the relevant factors raised by the applicants and evaluating those factors using the proper threshold applicable in the H&C context, namely that an "unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship" had to be demonstrated - See paragraphs 20 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 10].

Ramirez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 304 F.T.R. 136; 2006 FC 1404, consd. [para. 10].

Bui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 492; 2005 FC 816, refd to. [para. 14].

Irimie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 597 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Liniewska v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 624; 2006 FC 591, refd to. [para. 18].

Pannu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 924; 2006 FC 1356, consd. [para. 21].

Radji et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 555; 2007 FC 836, consd. [para. 22].

El Doukhi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 304 F.T.R. 266; 2006 FC1464, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

(IMM-1817-07)

Nataliya Dzera, for the applicants;

Normand Lemyre, for the respondent.

(IMM-1834-07)

Jean-François Bertrand, for the applicants;

Normand Lemyre , for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

(IMM-1817-07)

Waice Ferdoussi, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicants;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

(IMM-1834-07)

Bertrand, Deslauriers, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicants;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

These applications were heard on November 20, 2007, at Montreal, Quebec, before Blais, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on November 26, 2007.