Toronto, Ontario, May 16, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The only issue is whether state protection is available to the applicant. I agree with the respondent that the applicant's written arguments constitute nothing more than a disagreement with the weight the PRRA officer assigned to the documentary evidence. No reviewable error has been demonstrated in the written submissions and the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Malaysia. She arrived in Canada in September of 2001 and made a refugee claim. Her claim was declared abandoned after she failed to attend a show cause hearing that was scheduled because she failed to file her personal information form (PIF) within the required time. She applied for a PRRA on February 11, 2005. Her PRRA application was based solely on her alleged fear of persecution at the hands of her violent, former boyfriend. The PRRA officer undertook an extensive analysis of the availability of state protection offered to abused women in Malaysia and concluded that it was adequate. That finding is supported by the documentary evidence.
[3] Neither the applicant nor her counsel appeared at the hearing of this application. When counsel failed to appear, the court asked the registry officer to attempt to contact counsel by telephone. The registry officer reported that he was not able to reach counsel, or anyone else, at counsel's office. The registry officer did leave a voice mail message. The court records indicate that the notice of hearing was forwarded to the applicant's counsel by registered mail on February 24, 2006.
[4] Rule 38 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 as am. provides:
| 38. Where a party fails to appear at a hearing, the Court may proceed in the absence of the party if the Court is satisfied that notice of the hearing was given to that party in accordance with these Rules.
|
38. Lorsqu'une partie ne comparaît pas à une audience, la Cour peut procéder en son absence si elle est convaincue qu'un avis de l'audience lui a été donné en conformité avec les présentes règles.
|
[5] The hearing proceeded in the absence of the applicant or her counsel.
[6] I have, in previous decisions, adopted the pragmatic and functional analysis of my colleague, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer, in Chaves v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 FC 193, regarding a finding of state protection. Accordingly, the applicable standard of review is that of reasonableness.
[7] In the present circumstances, the PRRA officer conducted a detailed and comprehensive review of the documentary evidence and noted that state protection in Malaysia, while not perfect, is adequate. The applicant's written argument, alleging a selective view of the documentary evidence, is without merit. The reasons reveal that the officer considered the system in place, its problems and the improvements that have been made, particularly since 2003.
[8] The applicant, by her own admission, did not seek protection from the police or any other state authority. Nor did she tender any evidence to demonstrate that the police were unlikely or unable to protect her. As the PRRA officer noted, there was insufficient objective evidence that the applicant would not be able to seek police or other protection in Malaysia, should she be threatened by anyone. The applicant feared the actions of one individual.
[9] The PRRA officer's conclusion that the applicant does not face more than a mere possibility of persecution or that it is more likely than not that she would be subjected to torture or risk to life or of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, if she were to return to Malaysia, is unassailable.
[10] Counsel for the respondent did not suggest a question for certification and none arises.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES THAT the application is dismissed.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4985-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: POH CHOO SO v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
AND JUDGMENT: Layden-Stevenson J.
APPEARANCES:
| No appearance
|
|
| Ms. Anshumala Juyal |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Mr. Calvin C. Huong Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario
|
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
|