PETROS GHEBRENGUS ASFAHA Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2019 FC 832

Date: 20190619 Docket: IMM-6305-18 Citation: 2019 FC 832 Winnipeg, Manitoba, June 19, 2019 PRESENT: Madam Justice Heneghan Docket: IMM-6305-18BETWEEN:PETROS GHEBRENGUS ASFAHAApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] Mr. Petros Ghebrengus Asfaha (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of the decision of an Immigration Officer (the "“Officer”")of the High Commission of Canada in Pretoria, South Africa.

In that decision, dated October 19, 2018, the Officer determined that theApplicant is not eligible for a permanent resident visa as a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or as a member of theHumanitarian – Protected Persons Abroad designated class , pursuant to paragraph 139 (1) (

d) of the Immigration and RefugeeProtection SOR/ 2002-227 (the "“Regulations”"). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Eritrea. He has resided in South Africa since 2006 and holds "“formal recognition of refugee status”" inthat country, with access to health care and access to social services. He is employed. [3] The Officer referred to

section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the "“Act”"), that is thedefinition of "“refugee”" in Canadian law, as well as to sections 139 (1) (d), 145 and 147 of the Regulations. Paragraph 139 (1) (

d) andsection 145 of the Regulations are relevant and provide as follow: "139

(1) A permanent resident visa shall beissued to a foreign national in need of refugeeprotection, and their accompanying familymembers, if following an examination it isestablished that " "139

(1) Un visa de résident permanent estdélivré à l’étranger qui a besoin de protectionet aux membres de sa famille quil’accompagnent si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, leséléments suivants sont établis : ""(

d) the foreign national is a person in respectof whom there is no reasonable prospect,within a reasonable period, of a durablesolution in a country other than Canada,namely " "

d) aucune possibilité raisonnable de solutiondurable n’est, à son égard, réalisable dans undélai raisonnable dans un pays autre que leCanada, à savoir: " "(

i) voluntary repatriation or resettlement intheir country of nationality or habitualresidence, or " "(

i) soit le rapatriement volontaire ou laréinstallation dans le pays dont il a lanationalité ou dans lequel il avait sa résidencehabituelle, ""(ii) resettlement or an offer of resettlement inanother country; " "(ii) soit la réinstallation ou une offre deréinstallation dans un autre pays; " [4] In the decision, the Officer said the following: After carefully assessing your application, I have determined that you do not meet these requirements. You currently residein a country that is a signatory to the Geneva Convention on Refugees, South Africa.

You have been able to benefit from theprotection of South Africa and have been able to obtain asylum as a convention refugee as per the documents you submitted.You appear locally integrated, you have access to education and social services, you are employed, you can engage ineconomic activities and you have freedom of movement. [5] The Applicant now argues that the decision is unreasonable, that the Officer erred by failing to assess his personal circumstances andmistakenly concluded that refugee status in South Africa "“is much like a Canadian Permanent Resident Status”". [6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "“Respondent”") submits that the Officer reasonably assessed the evidencesubmitted and reasonably concluded that the Applicant had failed to show that there was no reasonable prospect of a durable solutionavailable to him in South Africa. [7] The within application raises a question of mixed fact and law, that is the assessment of the evidence against statutory criteria.

Such aquestion is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Raza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 2006 FC 1385 , 58 Admin L.R. (4th) 283 (F.C.) at para 12, aff’d. (2007), 2007 FCA 385 , 370 N.R. 344 F.C.A. at para 3. [8] According to the decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard of

reasonableness requires that a decision be transparent, justifiable and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible on the law and the facts. [ 9 ] The decision of the Officer is reasonable. The Applicant failed to discharge his burden of showing that a " “durable solution” " was not available to him in South Africa. [ 10 ] There is no basis for judicial intervention and the application for judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.

ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed, no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6305-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: PETROS GHEBRENGUS ASFAHA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: winnipeg, manitoba DATE OF HEARING: june 17, 2019 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: HENEGHAN J.

DATED: June 19, 2019 APPEARANCES : Bashir Khan For The Applicant Caroline Pellerin FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Bashir Khan Barrister and Solicitor For The Applicant Deputy Attorney General of Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba For the Respondent