Date: 20050511
Citation: 2005 FC 673
Toronto, Ontario, May 11th, 2005
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
ELIZABETH DE JESUS AUGUSTO
Applicant
and
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Ms. Augusto is a citizen of Angola. On May 4, 2004, a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) officer rejected her application for protection. This is an application for judicial review of the PRRA officer's decision. Despite the articulate submissions of counsel for the applicant, I have determined that the application must be dismissed.
[2] Ms. Augusto's claim for protection arises from an allegation that her mother was accused of stealing papers pertaining to a police strategy to defeat the National Union for Total
Independence of Angola (UNITA). The police allegedly came to her mother's home (where Ms. Auguto lived) and forcibly entered the house. They unsuccessfully searched for the documents. Ms. Augusto says that her mother and her male cousin were beaten and her cousin was taken into custody by the police. Five days later, he was found murdered.
[3] Her mother, allegedly, was arrested and imprisoned in Luanda. Ms. Augusto visited her twice before she was transferred to another facility. The police, later, questioned Ms. Augusto about the missing documents and her mother's political activities. Fearing that she would suffer the same fate as her cousin, she claims that she went to live with her mother's boyfriend and he facilitated her departure to Canada. She says that before she left Angola, a neighbour informed her that the Luanda police had come to her mother's house looking for her.
[4] Ms. Augusto claimed refugee protection in Canada. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board dismissed her claim. The RPD determined that she had not provided any credible evidence in support of her claim. It also relied on documentary evidence which stated that the government and UNITA had arrived at a peace accord in April of 2002 and that amnesty was being provided to any person who committed crimes against the state or who was imprisoned during the war.
[5] In support of her PRRA application, Ms. Augusto submitted a copy of a notification, dated December 9, 2003, addressed to her from the National Division of Criminal Investigation at Luanda, a handwritten letter from her friend in Luanda that accompanied the police notification and various news articles regarding conditions and human rights abuses in Angola.
[6] The PRRA officer determined that Ms. Augusto would not be subject to a risk of persecution, danger, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Angola. The officer assigned little weight to the notification and to the letter from Ms. Augusto's friend. The officer was not satisfied that the authorities were still looking for her. Alternatively, the officer stated that, even if the notification were valid, there was no reason why Ms. Augusto would not be provided a pardon. The documentary evidence revealed that an amnesty law had been passed in Angola whereby all crimes against the state were pardoned. Documentation from the UNHCR indicated that there were no cases where a returnee was denied amnesty under this law.
[7] The PRRA officer noted - while political problems, humans rights abuses, and violence against women continued to occur in Angola - the government had taken considerable steps to uphold the 2002 ceasefire agreement, it continued to work to improve the country's human rights record and it had taken many steps in terms of setting up a ministry and passing laws to protect women.
[8] Ms. Augusto initially presented two arguments: the PRRA officer applied the wrong burden of proof with respect to the analysis under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) and, the officer's decision was made without regard to the evidence. In view of the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 329 N.R. 346 (F.C.A.), the first argument, appropriately, was withdrawn. Thus, the sole issue, on this application, is whether the PRRA officer disregarded Ms. Augusto's evidence.
[9] In my view, in substance, this argument goes to the weight the officer assigned to the evidence. In the absence of having failed to consider relevant factors or having relied upon irrelevant ones, the weighing of the evidence lies within the purview of the officer conducting the assessment and does not normally give rise to judicial review. Here, the reasons reveal that the PRRA officer did consider the evidence tendered by Ms. Augusto, but gave it little weight. There was nothing unreasonable about the officer having done so.
[10] The officer's comprehensive, and indeed, exhaustive, review of the documentary evidence is comprised of some five and one-half pages, single-spaced. It was open to the PRRA officer to prefer the contents of the documentary evidence over that submitted by Ms. Augusto. The 2002 ceasefire between the Angolan government and UNITA as well as the passing of the amnesty law and its application were both specifically noted. It was on the basis of that evidence that the officer rejected the notification. Alternatively, the officer determined, on the basis of the same documentary evidence, that there was no reason to believe that Ms. Augusto would not be granted amnesty. Those findings were certainly available to the PRRA officer on the evidence that was before her.
[11] Counsel did not suggest a question for certification and none arises in this matter.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4724-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ELIZABETH DE JESUS AUGUSTO
Applicant
and
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 10, 2005
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: MAY 11, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Jack Martin FOR THE APPLICANT
Janet Chisholm FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jack C. Martin
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims Q.C
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT