Federal Court


Officer failed to consider relevant, current evidence

Immigration Officer concluded that applicant’s proof of membership in Mouvement pour la Solidarité et la Démocratie (“MSD”) was not sufficient to establish that applicant would be perceived as enemy of Burundian government. Officer dismissed evidence from third party that applicant was on list of MSD members in exile. Officer considered it speculative that government even had such list. Officer ultimately concluded that, despite evidence of government sanctioned human rights abuses, self-imposed exile of MSD members and brief detentions for illegal political meetings, there was insufficient proof of Burundian government imprisoning and torturing members of MSD. Judicial review allowed. Officer failed to consider significant evidence which ran counter to officer›s determination. That evidence was more current and cogent than that relied on by officer. Given failure to consider relevant, current evidence in respect of PRRA application, it was unreasonable to dismiss PRRA application without regard for this evidence.

Bizima v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Jul. 29, 2013, F.C., Michael L. Phelan J., File No. IMM-5952-12) 231 A.C.W.S. (3d) 775.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?