Muhammad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2014) 454 F.T.R. 161 (FC)

• Judge: Strickland, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 19, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 454 F.T.R. 161 (FC);2014 FC 448

Muhammad v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2014), 454 F.T.R. 161 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.012

Arshad Muhammad (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-3681-13; 2014 FC 448; 2014 CF 448)

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

Federal Court

Strickland, J.

May 9, 2014.

Summary:

Muhammad, a citizen of Pakistan, claimed refugee status. His claim was denied because of his membership in a terrorist organization banned by the Pakistani government (Articles 1F(a) and (c) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees). A warrant for his removal was issued. Eight years later, he was apprehended after the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) had released his name, photograph, and last known whereabouts on its website. Muhammad's pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application claimed that he was a person in need of protection because of the publicity surrounding his case. The application received a positive assessment from the PRRA officer and the CBSA. A Minister's Delegate rendered a negative decision (first restricted PRRA). Muhammad applied for judicial review of the Delegate's decision. The issues included whether the Delegate breached the principles of natural justice by relying on extrinsic evidence that was not disclosed; and whether the Delegate erred in her assessment of the evidence.

The Federal Court (Boivin, J.), in a decision reported 423 F.T.R. 242, allowed the application. The court concluded that the Minister's Delegate had failed to adequately justify, on the basis of the evidence, why she had concluded that Muhammad would likely not be at risk. There was no breach of procedural fairness. The court remitted the matter to a different Minister's Delegate for redetermination. The Minister's Delegate who conducted the redetermination also found that Muhammad had not established that he would face a risk of torture, a risk to life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment should he be returned to Pakistan (second restricted PRRA). Muhammad applied for judicial review of the second restricted PRRA decision.

The Federal Court allowed the application and set aside the second restricted PRRA decision because it was not reasonable. The matter was remitted to a third Minister's Delegate for a redetermination who was to also take into consideration the prior findings of the Court in the decision of Justice Boivin and in the decision reported below.

Aliens - Topic 1583

Exclusion and expulsion - Pre-removal risk assessment (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ss. 112 - 116) - Application for protection (IRPA, s. 112) (incl. procedure and considerations) - A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) officer determined that Muhammad might face a risk of torture if returned to Pakistan - A Delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, however, found that Muhammad had not established that he would face a risk of torture if returned to Pakistan and, therefore, denied Muhammad's protection application - Muhammad applied for judicial review, arguing that the Delegate was bound by the PRRA Officer's conclusions with respect to risk of return to torture - The Federal Court held that, based upon the applicable legislation and the prior jurisprudence, it was for the Minister's Delegate to make the final decision on the application and the Delegate was not bound by the PRRA Officer's risk assessment - See paragraphs 53 to 84.

Aliens - Topic 1583

Exclusion and expulsion - Pre-removal risk assessment (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ss. 112 - 116) - Application for protection (IRPA, s. 112) (incl. procedure and considerations) - A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) officer determined that Muhammad might face a risk of torture if returned to Pakistan - A Delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, however, found that Muhammad had not established that he would face a risk of torture if returned to Pakistan and, therefore, denied Muhammad's protection application - Muhammad applied for judicial review, arguing a lack of structural independence and impartiality, a lack of independence on the part of the Minister's Delegate and a reasonable apprehension of bias or an abuse of process - The Federal Court rejected Muhammad's arguments - See paragraphs 85 to 156.

Aliens - Topic 1583

Exclusion and expulsion - Pre-removal risk assessment (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ss. 112 - 116) - Application for protection (IRPA, s. 112) (incl. procedure and considerations) - A Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) officer determined that Muhammad might face a risk of torture if returned to Pakistan - A Delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, however, found that Muhammad had not established that he would face a risk of torture if returned to Pakistan and, therefore, denied Muhammad's protection application - Muhammad applied for judicial review, arguing that the decision of the Minister's Delegate that Muhammad would not be at risk if returned to Pakistan was unreasonable - The Federal Court allowed the application - The Delegate's decision was unreasonable because the Delegate's finding on risk was not supported by the record - See paragraphs 157 to 195.

Aliens - Topic 1594

Exclusion and expulsion - Pre-removal risk assessment (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ss. 112 - 116) - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - Following a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, a Delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration denied Muhammad's protection application - Muhammad applied for judicial review, raising a number of issues - The Federal Court discussed the standard of review - See paragraphs 44 to 52.

Civil Rights - Topic 8381

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Administrative law - General - The Federal Court held that the court did not have an obligation to respond to a constitutional question if it was possible to answer the questions posed by applying administrative law principles - See paragraphs 41 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

Placide v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2009), 359 F.T.R. 217; 2009 FC 1056, refd to. [para. 25].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 41].

Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268, refd to. [para. 41].

Tran et al. v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2010), 361 F.T.R. 101; 2010 FC 175, refd to. [para. 41].

Kastrati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 815; 2008 FC 1141, refd to. [para. 44].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 45].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 45].

Sing v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 553; 2011 FC 915, refd to. [para. 46].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 47].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 47].

Florea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2013), 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 50].

Kozak et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] 4 F.C.R. 377; 349 N.R. 309; 2006 FCA 124, refd to. [para. 51].

Geza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - see Kozak et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).

Douglas v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 452 F.T.R. 1; 2014 FC 299, refd to. [para. 51].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884; 306 N.R. 34; 2003 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 51].

Singh (Charanjit) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 488; 2008 FC 669, refd to. [para. 51].

Pavicevic v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 440 F.T.R. 45; 2013 FC 997, refd to. [para. 51].

Acevedo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 93; 2010 FC 167, refd to. [para. 51].

Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 401 N.R. 18; 2010 FCA 75, refd to. [para. 55].

Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2006), 304 F.T.R. 46; 2006 FC 1385, refd to. [para. 55].

Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2005), 272 F.T.R. 62; 2005 FC 437, refd to. [para. 56].

Hassan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 141 N.R. 381 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Delgado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 687; 2011 FC 1131, refd to. [para. 57].

Almrei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2007), 316 F.T.R. 49; 2007 FC 1025, refd to. [para. 58].

Say et al. v. Canada (Solicitor General) (2005), 274 F.T.R. 172; 2005 FC 739, affd. (2005), 345 N.R. 340; 2005 FCA 422, refd to. [para. 61].

Bell v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1983), 149 D.L.R.(3d) 509 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Matsqui Indian Band et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 3; 177 N.R. 325, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 86].

New Brunswick Provincial Court Judges' Association et al. v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 286; 336 N.R. 201; 367 A.R. 300; 346 W.A.C. 300; 201 O.A.C. 293; 288 N.B.R.(2d) 202; 751 A.P.R. 202; 2005 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 86].

Compagnie pétrolière Impériale ltée v. Québec (Ministre de l'Environnement), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 624; 310 N.R. 343; 2003 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 86].

Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193; 2001 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 90].

Bertillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1617 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 95].

Dunova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 367 F.T.R. 89 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 95].

Cervenakova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 381 F.T.R. 74 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 95].

Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Charkaoui, Re, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350; 358 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 97].

Mugesera et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 91; 335 N.R. 220; 2005 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 97].

Manning (E.A.) Ltd. et al. v. Ontario Securities Commission (1995), 80 O.A.C. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Finch v. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (B.C.) (1996), 73 B.C.A.C. 295; 120 W.A.C. 295 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221; 265 N.R. 2; 140 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 98].

Tremblay v. Commission des affaires sociales et autres, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 952; 136 N.R. 5; 47 Q.A.C. 169, refd to. [para. 98].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 99].

Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Quèbec (Procureur général) et autres.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huntley (2010), 375 F.T.R. 250; 2010 FC 1175, refd to. [para. 100].

Mohammad v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 2 F.C. 363; 91 N.R. 121 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

Sheriff et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 1 F.C.R. 3; 350 N.R. 230; 2006 FCA 139, refd to. [para. 109].

2747-3174 Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 125].

Rosenberry v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 374 F.T.R. 116; 2010 FC 882, refd to. [para. 131].

Benitez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 290 F.T.R. 161; 2006 FC 461, refd to. [para. 137].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 139].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 1 F.C. 828; 208 N.R. 21 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 139].

Correa et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 450 F.T.R. 175; 2014 FC 252, refd to. [para. 189].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 112(3) [para. 53]; sect. 112(3)(c) [para. 18]; 114 [para. 53].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.), Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, sect. 172 [para. 53].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Citizenship and Immigration, Operational Manual, c. PP3 [para. 54].

United Kingdom, Border Agency, Pakistan Country of Origin Information (COI) Report (2012), generally [para. 29].

United States of America, Department of State Country, Report on Human Rights Practices (2011), generally [para. 29].

Counsel:

Lorne Waldman and Clarisa Waldman, for the applicant;

Jamie Todd, Sharon Stewart Guthrie and Jane Steward, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on September 19, 2013, at Toronto, Ontario, by Strickland, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 9, 2014.