Date: 20060719

Docket: IMM-3580-06

Citation: 2006 FC 900

Montréal, Quebec, July 19, 2006

Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux 

BETWEEN:

BOGUI SERGE DAGRI

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION OF CANADA

and

MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA

Respondents

            Motion by the applicant for a stay of a removal order made against the applicant.

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]               Bogui Serge Dagri (the applicant), a citizen of Ivory Coast whose request for a pre‑removal risk assessment (PPRA) was refused on May 26, 2006, is seeking a stay of the removal order until his application for leave and for judicial review of the PPRA is decided.

[2]               His claim for refugee protection was refused on July 14, 2004, and his application for leave was dismissed by this Court.

[3]               The risks identified by Mr. Dagri are as follows:

(a)          the political situation in the Ivory Coast is volatile and violent;

(b)          he is targeted because of his family name and relationship with Henriette Dagri Diabaté. (She is the secretary general of an opposition political party called Rassemblement des Républicains (RDR). She is the Minister of Justice in the national government of reconciliation, which includes representatives of the former party in power and of the RDR);

(c)          He is also allegedly targeted because of his Alladjan ethnicity.

[4]               Counsel for Mr. Dagri submitted that a PRRA officer had decided on November 16, 2004, that his brother, Angelo Dagri, was entitled to refugee protection in Canada because he was at risk of being subject to violence owing to the fact that his family name was Dagri, that he was related to Henriette Dagri Diabaté and that the situation in Ivory Coast was especially dangerous and unstable.

[5]               The PRRA officer (the officer) based his negative decision on the following elements.

[6]               First of all, he was of the opinion that the situation in Ivory Coast had progressed considerably since the publication of the most recent document submitted by Mr. Dagri, that is, document No. 11, dated January 15, 2006. This is why he attached limited weight to the brother’s PRRA, [translation] “which dealt with the special circumstances of an applicant in the context of the Ivorian crisis as the situation was in November 2004 and not as it presently is”

[7]               Secondly, he mentioned that, according to reliable documentary evidence, since April 2006, [translation] “substantial progress has been made toward attaining the objectives of the Marcoussis Agreements, which now provide for the holding of elections in October 2006”. He noted the steps undertaken to give Ivorians national identity cards in anticipation of the elections and mentioned that the government militias and the rebels had begun the first phase in demobilization.  

[8]               Thirdly, he specified that the leaders of both parties wanted to reach a negotiated solution so that the rebel leaders could come back to Ivory Coast after a period of exile. According to this documentary evidence, the President of the Ivory Coast acknowledges that his main adversary is entitled to be a candidate in the elections, as his exclusion was one of the factors triggering the original crisis.

[9]               On this point, he concluded as follows:

[translation]

Although the political climate is still tense and the security situation is still volatile, this situation is a generalized risk to which all Ivorians are subject, rather than a personalized risk involving the applicant. On the basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant, his complete record and the objective documentary evidence about the present situation in Ivory Coast, the applicant did not discharge the burden on him of showing that he is personally exposed to the risks he invoked. I conclude that there is no more than a mere possibility of him being exposed to these risks or to another risk within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Accordingly, this application for protection does not meet the requirements of the common considerations for all grounds of protection. The application is rejected.

[10]           Concerning the applicant’s fear of being targeted because of his family name, the officer wrote the following:

[translation]

I note on this point that the applicant did not report having been targeted as a member of Ms. Diabate’s family while he was in Ivory Coast and the crisis situation was in full swing, and he did not mention that other family members had such problems, either before he left or since his arrival in Canada. Moreover, I note that the family relationship described by the applicant—Ms. Diabaté is allegedly the daughter of his father’s cousin—is relatively tenuous, and he did not submit any evidence to prove this relationship. Before the IRB, the applicant stated having met Ms. Diabaté only once, in 1997, and said that he did not know how to contact her. In light of the preceding, the applicant did not show either that Ms. Diabaté’s family was targeted or that he had the family relationship he alleged with Ms. Diabaté. I conclude that the applicant did not meet the burden of showing that he is personally exposed to a risk resulting from his family relationship with the Minister of Justice of Ivory Coast.

[11]           Finally, the officer was of the opinion that the documentary evidence submitted by Mr. Dagri did not support the existence of a risk of being targeted because of his Alladjan ethnicity.

[12]           This motion for a stay must be dismissed because the applicant did not convince me that there was a serious question, that Mr. Dagri would suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience was in his favour.

[13]           Counsel for Mr. Dagri raised the following serious questions against the PRRA assessment:

(1)          lack of analysis and explanations;

(2)          insufficient reasons, especially concerning the change in the present situation in Ivory Coast and how this change reduces the risks alleged or changes the conclusions of the PRRA officer in the brother’s case; and

(3)          misinterpretation of the evidence with regard to the conclusion that Mr. Dagri was not personally exposed to the identified risks.

[14]           I must reject these claims. I am of the opinion that the officer gave adequate reasons for his conclusions. Anyone reading his assessment will easily understand why the officer made this decision. He acknowledged that the situation in Ivory Coast was difficult and is a generalized risk for all Ivorians. His analysis shows that Mr. Dagri did not submit sufficient evidence to satisfy the officer that he would be subject to the alleged risks.

[15]           I note that, in the brother’s case, the PRRA officer came to the conclusion that he was not a person in need of protection within the meaning of section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; however, because of documentary evidence different from that submitted by Mr. Dagri, his brother was a Convention refugee. 

[16]           The applicant submitted recent documentary evidence showing that Ms. Diabaté and other high-ranking RDR leaders had been violently attacked on returning from a political event. However, this evidence cannot overturn the officer’s conclusion to the effect that Mr. Dagri did not submit sufficient evidence to establish the likelihood of his being targeted because of his family name.

[17]           I also conclude that there is no irreparable harm. The lack of a serious question as submitted by counsel for the Ministers obviously shows that the applicant did not prove there was irreparable harm.

[18]           The judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal in Selliah v. Canada (M.C.I.) [2004] F.C.J. No. 1200 leads me to conclude that the balance of convenience favours the Ministers.

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT this motion for a stay be dismissed.

“François Lemieux”

Certified true translation

Michael Palles

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                          IMM-3580-06

STYLE OF CAUSE:                            BOGUI SERGE DAGRI

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA

and

THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA

Respondents

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                      July 18, 2006

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:         The Honourable Mr. Justice Lemieux

DATED:                                             July 19, 2006

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: