ZOHEIR BELAROUI Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2015 FC 863

Date: 20150715 Docket: IMM-8451-14 Citation: 2015 FC 863 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Montréal, Quebec, July 15, 2015 Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN:ZOHEIR BELAROUIApplicantand THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I.

Preliminary [23] A PRRA application is an exceptional measure that should be allowed only where there is new evidence that was not available atthe time of the RPD's decision and only if the new evidence shows a risk for the applicants if they return to their country of origin.[Emphasis in the original.] (Roberto v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 180 , [2009] FCJ 212 at para 23) II.

Introduction [1] This is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c27 (IRPA) of a decision dated October 29, 2014, of a senior immigration officer (officer) rejecting the applicant’s pre-removal riskassessment (PRRA) application. III. Facts [2] The applicant is a citizen of Algeria who alleged a risk of persecution and reprisal by the Algerian authorities because of hispolitical opinions. [3] On October 9, 2001, the Refugee Protection Division denied the applicant’s claim for refugee protection finding him not tobe credible.

The claim was based on a very different story from that of the PRRA application.

Also, in his PRRA application, theapplicant specified that he pleaded guilty to a charge of aiding and abetting shoplifting in Canada. [4] On April 4, 2006, the applicant’s first application for permanent residence, based on humanitarian and compassionateconsiderations, was dismissed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. [5] The applicant then presented a second application for permanent residence, in the spouse and common-law partner class,which was dismissed on March 5, 2012. [6] On May 9, 2012, the applicant filed a PRRA application, supported by new evidence showing his role as an activist and as aspokesperson for the Comité d’action des sans-statut (CASS), an organization that aims to claim immigration status for all Algerianswhose status is irregular in Canada. [7] On October 29, 2014, the officer rejected the applicant’s PRRA application on the ground that the applicant did not establishthat he risks being exposed to torture, persecution or a threat to his life, if he were returned to Algeria.

IV. Statutory provisions [8] The relevant provisions of the IRPA relating to a PRRA application are the following: Application for protection Demande de protection

(1) A person in Canada, other than aperson referred to in subsection 115(1), may,in accordance with the regulations, apply tothe Minister for protection if they are subjectto a removal order that is in force or arenamed in a certificate described in subsection77(1). 112.

(1) La personne se trouvant au Canadaet qui n’est pas visée au paragraphe 115(1)peut, conformément aux règlements,demander la protection au ministre si elle estvisée par une mesure de renvoi ayant priseffet ou nommée au certificat visé auparagraphe 77(1). … […]Consideration of application Examen de la demande113. Consideration of an application forprotection shall be as follows: 113. Il est disposé de la demande comme ilsuit :(

a) an applicant whose claim to refugeeprotection has been rejected may present onlynew evidence that arose after the rejection orwas not reasonably available, or that theapplicant could not reasonably have beenexpected in the circumstances to havepresented, at the time of the rejection;

a) le demandeur d’asile débouté ne peutprésenter que des éléments de preuvesurvenus depuis le rejet ou qui n’étaient alorspas normalement accessibles ou, s’ilsl’étaient, qu’il n’était pas raisonnable, dansles circonstances, de s’attendre à ce qu’il lesait présentés au moment du rejet;(

b) a hearing may be held if the Minister, onthe basis of prescribed factors, is of theopinion that a hearing is required;

b) une audience peut être tenue si le ministrel’estime requis compte tenu des facteursréglementaires;(

c) in the case of an applicant not described insubsection 112(3), consideration shall be onthe basis of sections 96 to 98;

c) s’agissant du demandeur non visé auparagraphe 112(3), sur la base des articles 96à 98;(

d) in the case of an applicant described insubsection 112(3) — other than onedescribed in subparagraph (e)(

i) or (ii) —consideration shall be on the basis of thefactors set out in

section 97 and

d) s’agissant du demandeur visé auparagraphe 112(3) — sauf celui visé au sous-alinéa e)(

i) ou (ii) —, sur la base deséléments mentionnés à l’article 97 et, d’autrepart : (

i) in the case of an applicant forprotection who is inadmissible on grounds ofserious criminality, whether they are a dangerto the public in Canada, or (

i) soit du fait que le demandeur interditde territoire pour grande criminalité constitueun danger pour le public au Canada, (ii) in the case of any other applicant,whether the application should be refusedbecause of the nature and severity of actscommitted by the applicant or because of thedanger that the applicant constitutes to thesecurity of Canada; and (ii) soit, dans le cas de tout autredemandeur, du fait que la demande devraitêtre rejetée en raison de la nature et de lagravité de ses actes passés ou du danger qu’ilconstitue pour la sécurité du Canada; (

e) in the case of the following applicants,consideration shall be on the basis of sections96 to 98 and subparagraph (d)(

i) or (ii), as thecase may be:

e) s’agissant des demandeurs ci-après, sur labase des articles 96 à 98 et, selon le cas, dusous-alinéa d)(

i) ou (ii) : (

i) an applicant who is determined to beinadmissible on grounds of seriouscriminality with respect to a conviction inCanada punishable by a maximum term ofimprisonment of at least 10 years for which aterm of imprisonment of less than two years— or no term of imprisonment — wasimposed, and (

i) celui qui est interdit de territoire pourgrande criminalité pour déclaration deculpabilité au Canada pour une infraction àune loi fédérale punissable d’unemprisonnement maximal d’au moins dix anset pour laquelle soit un emprisonnement demoins de deux ans a été infligé, soit aucunepeine d’emprisonnement n’a été imposée, (ii) an applicant who is determined to beinadmissible on grounds of seriouscriminality with respect to a conviction of anoffence outside Canada that, if committed inCanada, would constitute an offence under anAct of Parliament punishable by a maximumterm of imprisonment of at least 10 years,unless they are found to be a person referredto in

section F of

Article 1 of the RefugeeConvention. (ii) celui qui est interdit de territoire pourgrande criminalité pour déclaration deculpabilité à l’extérieur du Canada pour uneinfraction qui, commise au Canada,constituerait une infraction à une loi fédéralepunissable d’un emprisonnement maximald’au moins dix ans, sauf s’il a été conclu qu’ilest visé à la

section F de l’article premier dela Convention sur les réfugiés. V. Standard of review [9] The standard of review applicable to decisions on PRRA applications is that of reasonableness (Kandel v Canada (Ministerof Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 CF 659 , 2014 FC 659 at para 17; Hamida v Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), 2014 FC 998 at para 36; Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 799 , [2010] FCJ980 at para 11). [10] Therefore, deference must be given to the PRRA officer’s analysis of the evidence in the record, which falls within his

expertise (Aboud v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1019 at para 33; Ferguson v Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1067 , [2008] FCJ 1308 at para 33 (Ferguson)). VI. Analysis [11] The central issue raised by this application is whether the PRRA officer’s decision was reasonable. [12] Within a PRRA application under

section 112 of the IRPA, the burden falls on the applicant to prove, on a balance ofprobabilities, that his fear of persecution and the alleged risk are well-founded (Ferguson, above at para 21; Pareja v Canada (Ministerof Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1333 , [2008] FCJ 1705 at para 23). [13] The applicant argued that the officer’s conclusions relating to his role in the CASS and to the risk he would be exposed to inAlgeria on the ground of his political activism are unreasonable. [14] In his reasons, the officer notes that the evidence does not allow for the conclusion that the applicant has a leadership orspokesperson role within this organization.

Although the name of the applicant is identified in one of the newspaper articles, the officernotes that there is no mention to suggest that he has acted as representative of the CASS. Furthermore, the other newspaper articles andcomments from Internet users submitted into evidence are silent with respect to the applicant’s involvement within the CASS.

Inaddition, the officer notes that the photographs presented by the applicant do not support the conclusion that he assumed a public role orone as spokesperson for the CASS (see also Hernandez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 578 at para 27). [15] Further, with respect to the affidavits of Mohamed Cherfi and Fawzi Hoceini, who confirmed the truthfulness of theapplicant’s account, the officer found that they do not specify the role assumed by the applicant at the CASS and do not identify him ashead of the organization.

In addition, the officer observed the lack of detail relating to the applicant’s political activities. [16] The officer also considered the risk of reprisal faced by the applicant relating to his developing an activist’s conscience and tohis role in denouncing human rights violations in Algeria. Following an assessment of the documentary evidence, the officeracknowledged the occurrence of human rights violations in Algeria by the State, particularly with respect to the freedom of expressionand association.

Therefore, the officer concluded that the applicant did not show that he has the profile of a person who risks becoming avictim of reprisal or arbitrary detention because of his political opinions. [17] In the absence of probative evidence showing a personalized risk, it was up to the officer to conclude that the risks raised bythe applicant if he were to return to Algeria are not supported by the objective and subjective evidence.

As expressed by Justice Yvesde Montigny in Ventura v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 871 , [2010] FCJ 1079 at para 25: … This Court determined, in a number of cases, that the evidence of risk requires independent and credible objective evidence thatprovides a link between the claimant's personal circumstances and the country conditions. In the absence of evidence showingpersonalized risk, country conditions alone are not sufficient for a positive PRRA determination: see, for ex., Alakozai v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 266, [2009] F.C.J.

No. 374, at paras. 35-37; Prophète v. Minister of Citizenship andImmigration, 2008 FC 331, [2008] F.C.J. No. 415 at paras. 16-17; Jarada v. Canada (Minster of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC409, [2005] F.C.J. No. 506, at para. 28. [18] It is clear from the certified tribunal record that the officer considered and weighed all the evidence, including the newevidence filed by the applicant. VII.

Conclusion [19] Given the foregoing, the Court considers that the officer’s decision is reasonable, in accordance with the principles establishedby the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 SCR 190. [20] Therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed. JUDGMENT THE COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of importance to becertified. "Michel M.J. Shore" Judge Certified true translation Catherine Jones, Translator FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-8451-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: ZOHEIR BELAROUI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: JULY 14, 2015 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE j. DATED: JULY 15, 2015 APPEARANCES : Noël Saint-Pierre FOR THE APPLICANT Lynne Lazaroff FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Noël Saint-Pierre Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT