Federal court | Immigration
PERSON IN NEED OF PROTECTION
Applicants presented no evidence that officer failed to identify alleged fear
Applicant received negative pre-removal risk assessment (“PRRA”). Applicant’s request to defer removal was denied. New evidence did not satisfy PRRA officer applicants would be unable to access state protection in country of origin. Applicants were found not to be at risk if removed to country of origin. Removal officer referenced finding in PRRA decision relating to availability of state protection in country of origin. Application for judicial review was dismissed. PRRA officer did not make negative credibility finding. Officer did not impose double standard on applicants by not considering arguments made by counsel with respect to possible errors made by RPD and then finding applicants did not provide satisfactory explanation for inconsistencies in testimony noted by RPD. PRRA officer was correct in refusing to consider arguments directly seeking that RPD decision be reviewed or ignored. Applicants presented no evidence that PRRA officer misconstrued or failed to identify alleged fear. There was nothing in record to indicate police documents or CAS letter were cogent new evidence of that officer failed to consider them.
Forde v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Feb. 3, 2012, F.C., Zinn J., File No. IMM-4421-11; IMM-4532-11) 211 A.C.W.S. (3d) 686 (16 pp.).
Applicants presented no evidence that officer failed to identify alleged fear
Applicant received negative pre-removal risk assessment (“PRRA”). Applicant’s request to defer removal was denied. New evidence did not satisfy PRRA officer applicants would be unable to access state protection in country of origin. Applicants were found not to be at risk if removed to country of origin. Removal officer referenced finding in PRRA decision relating to availability of state protection in country of origin. Application for judicial review was dismissed. PRRA officer did not make negative credibility finding. Officer did not impose double standard on applicants by not considering arguments made by counsel with respect to possible errors made by RPD and then finding applicants did not provide satisfactory explanation for inconsistencies in testimony noted by RPD. PRRA officer was correct in refusing to consider arguments directly seeking that RPD decision be reviewed or ignored. Applicants presented no evidence that PRRA officer misconstrued or failed to identify alleged fear. There was nothing in record to indicate police documents or CAS letter were cogent new evidence of that officer failed to consider them.
Forde v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Feb. 3, 2012, F.C., Zinn J., File No. IMM-4421-11; IMM-4532-11) 211 A.C.W.S. (3d) 686 (16 pp.).
