Federal court | Immigration
EXCLUSION AND EXPULSION
Officer’s conclusion on availability of state protection not support by recent evidence
Application for judicial review, under s. 72(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of decision dismissing applicant’s application for pre-removal risk assessment. Applicant was citizen of Iraq. Applicant was Christian. Applicant came to Canada at age of 11 and became permanent resident of Canada in 1981 with his parents, his brothers and sisters. Applicant was inadmissible to Canada due to his 69 criminal convictions. Officer concluded that although applicant’s fear of persecution in Iraq based on his religion was justified, he failed to rebut presumption of state protection. Application granted. Matter was referred to another officer for redetermination. Decision was unreasonable. Officer did not adequately address availability of state protection to applicant. Officer’s conclusion on availability of state protection was not supported by recent past evidence. Occasional exceptions, hopes and intentions were not barometer for true climate of religious tolerance from one of religious persecution.
Touma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (May 29, 2012, F.C., Shore J., File No. IMM-8192-11) 217 A.C.W.S. (3d) 148 (14 pp.).
Officer’s conclusion on availability of state protection not support by recent evidence
Application for judicial review, under s. 72(1) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of decision dismissing applicant’s application for pre-removal risk assessment. Applicant was citizen of Iraq. Applicant was Christian. Applicant came to Canada at age of 11 and became permanent resident of Canada in 1981 with his parents, his brothers and sisters. Applicant was inadmissible to Canada due to his 69 criminal convictions. Officer concluded that although applicant’s fear of persecution in Iraq based on his religion was justified, he failed to rebut presumption of state protection. Application granted. Matter was referred to another officer for redetermination. Decision was unreasonable. Officer did not adequately address availability of state protection to applicant. Officer’s conclusion on availability of state protection was not supported by recent past evidence. Occasional exceptions, hopes and intentions were not barometer for true climate of religious tolerance from one of religious persecution.
Touma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (May 29, 2012, F.C., Shore J., File No. IMM-8192-11) 217 A.C.W.S. (3d) 148 (14 pp.).
