Ottawa, Ontario, July 26, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
PALMIRA DE FATIMA MOTA LUZANGA
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Jose Melo Luzanga claims that he was persecuted in Angola on political and ethnic grounds. He sought refugee protection in Canada but a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board turned him down. He then requested a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) and that, too, was dismissed by an immigration officer. Mr. Luzanga argues that the officer failed to consider important evidence showing that he risked being imprisoned under intolerable conditions if he is returned to Angola. He asks to order a re-assessment of his PRRA by a different officer.
[2] I agree that Mr. Luzanga is entitled to a re-assessment of his PRRA and, therefore, will grant this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
[3] Did the PRRA officer fail to consider evidence showing that Mr. Luzanga will likely be tortured or subjected to cruel and unusual treatment if he returns to Angola?
II. Analysis
[4] I can overturn the officer's decision only if I find that important evidence was not considered.
[5] In support of his claim, Mr. Luzanga presented two arrest warrants signed by the Deputy Minister of Justice. Based on this evidence, the PRRA officer accepted Mr. Luzanga's claim that he would be arrested if he returned to Angola. However, the officer did not believe that Mr. Luzanga was wanted in Angola for political reasons. Therefore, the officer concluded that Mr. Luzanga would not be subjected to torture or cruel and unusual treatment while in detention.
[6] Mr. Luzanga presented to the officer an expert opinion from Mr. Joao de Almeida Domingos, a former Angolan journalist. Mr. Domingos believed that Mr. Luzanga was likely to be detained on his return to Angola. He then stated: "Moreover, people detained in Angola for political reason[s], as Mr. Luzanga would be, are at risk of being tortured, subjected to cruel and unusual treatment and/or being killed". Given that the officer did not believe that Mr. Luzanga was wanted for political reasons, he concluded, citing Mr. Domingos' opinion, that Mr. Luzanga was not at risk of serious mistreatment.
[7] However, the evidence before the officer indicated that even those persons who are imprisoned in Angola for non-political reasons are subjected to mistreatment. For example, the 2004 United States Department of State report on Angola states: "Prison conditions were harsh and life-threatening. During the year, human rights activists reported that prison officials routinely beat and tortured detainees". This assessment was confirmed in the 2004 United Kingdom Home Office Report on Angola.
[8] In my view, the officer should have considered the evidence relating to the treatment that Mr. Luzanga could expect to receive if arrested and detained on his return to Angola, even for non-political reasons. In the circumstances, I must accept Mr. Luzanga's argument that a proper risk assessment has not been carried out and allow this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S ORDER IS that:
1. This application for judicial review is allowed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL ANDSOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6881-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: LUZANGA, ET AL. v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 19, 2006
APPEARANCES:
| Michael Bossin |
|
| Lynn Marchildon
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES Ottawa, ON |
|
| JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, ON
|