CECIL SEERATTAN Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2023 FC 445

Date: 20230330 Docket: IMM-2425-22 Citation: 2023 FC 445 Ottawa, Ontario, March 30, 2023 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:CECIL SEERATTANApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Mr.

Cecil Seerattan (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Senior Immigration Officer (the “Officer”), refusinghis request for the reconsideration of the refusal of his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) application, made pursuant to section112 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [1] The Applicant is a citizen of Guyana.

He applied for a PRRA in January 2020, while incarcerated at Toronto East Detention Centre.He retained the services of a lawyer to file his PRRA submissions. [2] The application was denied by a decision communicated to the Applicant on July 12, 2021. [3] On September 30, 2021, with the assistance of Counsel, the Applicant applied for reconsideration of the negative decision. Heprovided supplementary material in response to the comments made by the Officer in denying the PRRA application. [4] The reconsideration request was denied in the following terms: Your PRRA application was considered and has been refused.

You were provided with the decision in person on July 12,2021, and your application was concluded. After a review of your reconsideration request, I have exercised my jurisdictionnot to reconsider your application. You have submitted additional evidence related to your claim of risk assessed in the original decision. I note that betweenthe date of initiation of your application and the date of the decision, you had over eighteen months to provide all relevantdocumentation including these [sic] additional evidence. I have considered your explanation and personal circumstancesduring this time.

I note that you had opportunities, over the course of more than a year, to gather documents, contact yourcounsel and seek alternate counsel if necessary. I am not satisfied that your explanation demonstrates an exceptional casewhere a reconsideration is warranted. Furthermore, you have submitted evidence based on a new fact that would be moreappropriately considered in the context of a subsequent PRRA. Therefore, the initial decision to refuse your PRRA application remains unchanged. [5] According to the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Kurukkal, 2010 FCA 230, an officer has discretionin deciding to reopen a claim. That discretion must be exercised reasonably. Such a decision is subject to review on the standard ofreasonableness, following the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 , [2019] 4S.C.R. 653 (S.C.C.). [6] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review ""bears the hallmarks of reasonableness —justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bearon the decision""; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [7] In my opinion, the decision here does not meet the standard.

Contrary to the teaching in Vavilov, supra at paragraphs 80 to 100 andparagraph 183, the reasons for the decision do not show that the Officer considered the personal "“stakes”" of the Applicant. Hispersonal circumstances include a mild intellectual disability. [8] It is not necessary for me to address any other arguments. [9] The application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the Officer will be set aside and the matter remitted to anotherofficer for redetermination. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-2425-22 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and thematter is remitted to another officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification.

“E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2425-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: CECIL SEERATTAN v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 13, 2023 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: MARCH 30, 2023 APPEARANCES : Sumeya Mulla FOR THE APPLICANT Leanne Briscoe FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Waldman & Associates Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT