A Guyanese woman’s bid to be granted refugee status in Canada based on allegations she was being persecuted because of her race and the fact that she was a member of the PPP was thwarted recently when a judge agreed with an earlier ruling that she faced no real risk in Guyana.
Forty-nine-year-old Indradei Parrasram Dhrumu arrived in Canada in December 2003 and made a claim for refugee status, but on February 16, 2010 a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) officer denied the request. The woman then moved for a judicial review of the decision and this was heard by Judge Michael A. Kelen, who denied the review as he found nothing wrong with the PRRA officer’s ruling.
According to the ruling, which was issued recently, Dhrumu’s refugee claim was rejected in a decision dated January 18, 2005 by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board). At the time, the board held that the determinative issue was lack of credibility. The board provided a detailed examination of discrepancies and omissions in the applicant’s evidence.
Following this rejection, the woman then submitted a PRRA application which was denied on February 16, 2010, and was the subject of this judicial review application.
According to Judge Kelen, the PRRA officer denied the application because the officer found that the applicant did not “face more than a mere possibility of persecution” nor was it more likely than not that the applicant faced a risk of torture, or a risk to her life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
The officer considered the applicant’s evidence that had not been submitted in the refugee claim, and conducted independent research into country conditions in Guyana as they related to the applicant.
Further, the judge said, the officer considered whether the evidence submitted by the applicant was “new” evidence following evidence that the applicant had submitted which included documentary evidence of risks of criminal attacks faced by the woman on account of her status as a Guyanese returning from abroad and as a woman. The woman, through her counsel, had also submitted affidavits from two friends and the first of these was from a long time acquaintance who stated that she had volunteered with woman during the 1992 elections. She confirmed that there were widespread attacks against people based on race, and stated that Dhrumu received constant threats to her life and on several occasions took refuge at her home before fleeing Guyana. The friend also said she was sure that the woman’s life would be in danger if she returned to Guyana.
The second affidavit from another friend also claimed that Dhrumu faced physical abuse to her person and attacks on her house that caused her to leave Guyana and that her life would be in danger if she returned to this country.
However, the PRRA officer did not find that the affidavits were new evidence and indicated that the claims made were the same ones that were determined by the Immigration Board during its ruling.
The officer found that the applicant’s submissions also failed to reveal any risk developments faced by her that had not been addressed by the board.
The judge said that the officer reviewed research into country conditions in Guyana and found that “Guyana is a functioning democracy in which civil authorities generally maintain effective control of the security forces and in which the government is capable of protecting its citizens.”
The officer recognized, however, that the police forces face significant difficulties, including poor training, poor equipment, budgetary constraints, corruption, staff shortages, and lack of public confidence and cooperation. As a basis for this conclusion the officer cited Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, (1992) 2 S.C.R. 689. The officer also found that the woman had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection that operated in the case.
“It is clear to the court, therefore, that the PRRA officer in this case properly interpreted the requirements of section 113(a) of the Act with regard to the evidence submitted by the applicant on this application,” the judge said in his ruling.
“Accordingly, there is no basis upon which this court can interfere with the PRRA officer’s findings.”
The judge then dismissed the application for judicial review but it is still not clear whether there is any other legal challenge the woman can mount to remain in Canada or if she would immediately be removed from that country.
