A bid by a family of four for permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was recently denied when a judge refused a judicial review of an earlier decision denying the request.
According to the decision, Jagdesh Soorujbhan Singh (the principal applicant in the matter), Ramiza Singh, Hemwantie Singh and Satrohan Singh are citizens of Guyana who left for Canada in September 2005. Prior to their departure, the applicants had been victims of robberies and assaults in Guyana.
Upon their arrival in Canada, they immediately claimed refugee status and alleged risk of harm and persecution because of Jagesh Singh’s membership in the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), because of their Indo-Guyanese race, and because of the generally high crime rate in Guyana.
The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) held a hearing in February 2006 and denied their refugee claim in March 2006.
The four then submitted an application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in April 2006. The application alleged the same risks as their refugee claim, and was also based on their establishment in Canada. They applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, which was denied in March 2010. On March 4, 2010, the application was refused.
Judge D. G Near stated that the officer who heard the case concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish personalised risk to the applicants such that their removal to Guyana would constitute an unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship. The officer further concluded that the four had failed to demonstrate significant establishment that would lead to unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship if they were removed to Guyana.
Judicial review
In their attempt to have a judicial review, the family raised three issues in their submissions, two of which are characterised as errors of fact and the third as an error of law.
Judge Near noted that with respect to their position, all of the issues raised go to whether the officer’s conclusions can be supported by the evidence in the record, which is a question of fact.
During their hearing, the four argued that the officer ignored evidence about crime and police protection, reached a perverse conclusion in finding that they had not demonstrated personalised risk, and failed to give due weight to medical reports. They provided considerable evidence about the high crime rate in Guyana, mostly in the form of news articles about specific incidents that did not involve them; they also submitted a Travel Report about Guyana from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and a 2007 report from the United States Department of State (the USDOS report). These government reports noted the high crime rate in Guyana.
In addition to the generally high crime rate in Guyana, they also claimed to be at risk because they are Indo-Guyanese. The judge said that certain news articles provided by the four dealt with racial tensions in Guyana.
However, after considering the evidence submitted, the officer found that they had not provided sufficient evidence that they would be targeted if they were returned to Guyana. The officer went on to state, “While I accept that crime and corruption is [sic] rampant in Guyana and that the racial tension is existent [sic], the evidence presented does not satisfy me that the risks alleged by the applicants are personal.”
The officer noted that Guyana has a functioning police force, and that the government is attempting to combat crime and corruption.
But the applicants said the officer ignored evidence about the efficacy of the Guyanese police force. They argued that the evidence they submitted shows that the Guyanese police face a shortage of resources and are ineffectual and corrupt.
Further, they said that the officer unduly discounted the medical reports of their assault in Guyana because of the statement that the reports were based on information relayed to the physician by them. However, the judge found that the officer did not dispute the family’s claim that they were assaulted in Guyana.
He said the officer did consider the medical reports and did not dispute the injuries suffered by the applicants, but merely noted that the cause of those injuries was relayed to the reporting physician and was not witnessed directly. The officer ultimately accepted that the applicants had been assaulted in Guyana, and there is no reason to disturb these findings.
The judge found that the applicants challenged the officer’s weighing of their medical evidence and of the evidence of crime in Guyana, but they have failed to demonstrate grounds for his Court’s intervention.
“Although the conditions in Canada are certainly favourable to those in Guyana, the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicants would not face unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship if they were returned to Guyana is reasonable.
The decision is supported by the material in the record, and the Applicants have not established a basis for setting it aside,” the judge said.
Judge Near then dismissed the family’s application for a judicial review. It is unclear if the family can mount another challenge or whether they would be removed from that country.
