Date: 20040816
Docket: IMM-5508-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1138
Toronto, Ontario, August 16th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein
BETWEEN:
TEOFILA FLORA MIANA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification)
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) Officer T. Fox that the applicant would not be at risk if returned to the Philippines.
[2] The applicant is a 42 year old citizen of the Philippines. In the mid 1990s while working in Saudi Arabia, she claims to have converted from Christianity to Islam. She alleges that family members blame her parents' subsequent deaths on the shock of hearing about her religious conversion and that they have threatened to kill her if she returns to her home in the Pangasinan region of the Philippines. As a result, if returned to the Philippines, she claims that she would be forced to live in the Muslim Region of Mindanao where she claims to be at risk from both insurgents and government.
[3] The applicant submits that Officer Fox failed to:
a) check off the box regarding new evidence in section 4 of the PRRA decision indicating that post rejection evidence was tendered;
b) did not consider the post rejection evidence (namely a newspaper report dated Oct 12, 2002 evidencing the insurgency and unstable conditions in Mindanao) nor refer to such evidence in his reasons.
[4] While the officer did not specifically refer to the October 2, 2002 article or check off the box in section 4 of his Reasons, he nevertheless stated at two places in his Reasons that he had considered the PRRA application and submissions (pages 5 and 10, Tribunal Record).
[5] He further indicated that he was aware of violent conflict between government forces and certain Muslim groups in Mindanao, (Page 9, Tribunal Record). This is precisely the content of the evidence which the applicant alleges the officer failed to consider.
[6] The PRRA Officer was only obliged to comment on evidence that was significant to the claim, not on every piece of evidence. See Ozdemir v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1646 (C.A.).
[7] The failure to check off the requisite box under these circumstances has to be taken as an administrative oversight rather than a failure to consider relevant evidence.
[8] Accordingly this application cannot succeed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application is dismissed.
"K. von Finckenstein"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Name of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-5508-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: TEOFILA FLORA MIANA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: AUGUST 16, 2004
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: VON FINCKENSTEIN J.
DATED: AUGUST 16, 2004
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Munyonzwe Hamalengwa
FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Martin Anderson
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Munyonzwe Hamalengwa
Barrister & Solicitor
Mississauga, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20040816
Docket: IMM-5508-03
BETWEEN:
TEOFILA FLORA MIANA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER