Federal court | Immigration
EXCLUSION AND EXPULSION
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.
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.
