Date: 20041012
Docket: IMM-8460-04
Citation: 2004 FC 1401
BETWEEN:
GHOLAM REZA SOLTANI REZAGH SARAB
Applicant
- and -
SOLICITOR GENERAL
OF CANADA
Respondent
[1] This matter came before me at Vancouver, British Columbia, on Thursday, October 7, 2004. The Applicant was seeking a stay of a removal order to be effective Tuesday, October 12.
[2] The Applicant had filed two applications for judicial review. The first with respect to a decision of a PRRA officer dated August 30, 2004, in which she had determined there was no risk of removal to Iran; the second challenged the refusal of an H & C request for landing from within Canada dated September 28, 2004.
[3] Decision was reserved. The Court dismissed the application for a stay of deportation on October 11, 2004, and these reasons were issued on October 12. The CRDD decision which denied his claim for refugee status was based on a lack of credibility. The Board had determined that none of the events which he claimed as the basis for his fear arising out of political activities were mentioned in his PIF upon his arrival, and that the events he attempted to bring forth in issue before the CRDD were not even alluded to upon his entry into Canada. He failed to disclose any specific political problems that could have been a basis for his claim.
[4] Counsel for the Applicant suggested that there was a serious issue. She first submitted an apprehension of bias could be inferred because the same officer rendered both negative decisions. The H & C determination; as well, she interviewed and made the PRRA determination in which she found that there was no risk to removal. I find that there is no evidence to support such an allegation.
[5] Counsel then submitted that in light of sections 13.1 to 13.6 of the Inland Processing Immigration Manual, Chapter 5, upon a PRRA officer determining the negative risk assessment, it should be sent to the applicant asking for comments with respect to any errors and omissions, which she failed to do.
[6] The Court has reviewed the entire content of the motion record and it is evident that the Applicant accompanied by his counsel was in attendance when the PRRA decision was tendered to the Applicant on September 28, 2004. Counsel at the time, following the interview, and having had an opportunity to comment, chose to write a letter following the attendance in which no comments were raised with respect to errors or omissions but was concerned primarily with travel arrangements that were to be completed on behalf of the Applicant either by himself or with officials of the Department.
[7] On the issue of risk, it was argued that the Applicant's family had a background as political activists and persecution which were not questioned by the PRRA officer. This may well be the case but there was no credible evidence either before the CRDD or the PRRA officer to support his claim of subjective or objective fear of persecution if he were to be returned to Iran.
[8] Having determined that there was no serious issue nor was the Court convinced that the PRRA officer misinterpreted the facts which could have supported a determination of risk, I need not make a finding on balance of convenience.
[9] The applications were dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Paul Rouleau"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-8460-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: GHOLAM REZA SOLTANI REZAGH SARAB
v. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: October 7, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER: ROULEAU J.
DATED: October 12, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Fiona Begg FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Caroline Christiaens FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Fiona Begg FOR APPLICANT
Barristers & Solicitors
Vancouver, BC
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, ON