Chirivi et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.008

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Shore, J.
• Citation: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.008,2015 FC 1114
• Date: 16 September 2015

Chirivi v. Can. (M.C.I.), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.008

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for F.T.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

[English language version follows French language version]

[La version anglaise vient à la suite de la version française]

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.008

Alba Argenis Arango Chirivi, Edward Alirio Cortes Fuquene, Valeria Yesica Cuellar Arango et Fernando Diego Cuellar Arango (demandeurs) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration (défendeur)

(IMM-1172-15; 2015 CF 1114; 2015 FC 1114)

Indexed As: Chirivi et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Shore, J.

September 25, 2015.

Summary:

A pre-removal risk assessment officer (PRRA officer) rejected the applicants' pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application on the grounds that the principal applicant and her family would not be subject to risk of persecution, danger of torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they were removed to Colombia. The applicants applied for judicial review, arguing that the PRRA officer erred in her interpretation of s. 113 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) by rejecting new evidence the applicants had provided in support of their PRRA application.

The Federal Court held that the PRRA officer's decision was unreasonable because the new evidence was not sufficiently assessed. The court allowed the appeal and referred the matter to another officer for a de novo analysis. The court stated that "Paragraph 113( a ) of the IRPA 'is based on the premise that a negative refugee determination by the RPD [Refugee Protection Division] must be respected by the PRRA officer, unless there is new evidence of facts that might have affected the outcome of the RPD hearing if the evidence had been presented to the RPD'." The court set out the questions that a PRRA officer had to address to admit new evidence. Here, given the history of several violent deaths in the applicants' family, a more in-depth review of the evidence on record was necessary to determine whether there were indeed risks as set out in ss. 96 and 97 should the applicants return to Columbia. In light of the potential risk to the family, it appeared to the court, as though a number of key issues were not considered and the evidence on record was not sufficiently assessed in relation to these significant unaddressed issues.

Aliens - Topic 1588

Exclusion and expulsion - Pre-removal risk assessment (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ss. 112-116) - Evidence (s. 113) - See paragraphs 35 to 42.

Counsel:

Stewart Istvanffy, for the applicants;

Pavol Janura, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Stewart Istvanffy (Law Firm), Montreal, Quebec, for the applicants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on September 16, 2015, before Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision in Ottawa, Ontario, on September 25, 2015.