Introduction
The main conflict of the case exists between the PRRA Officer and Ms. Ferguson, who lost her status as a permanent resident of Canada. Applying for the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), she was denied (“Ferguson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1067 (CanLII),” n.d.).
Ferguson argues that her submission is denied based on lacking credibility. Her main assertion, in her case, is that she is an open lesbian who will be face persecution in her country of birth, Jamaica. The officer, on the other hand, supposes that her submission lacks evidence of her claims. He considers the statement of her identity to be insufficient in proving her status as a lesbian and connecting it to the presence of sexuality-based violence in Jamaica. The central issue to be resolved, then, is “Was the claim made by Ms. Ferguson and the immigration council denied based on credibility or insufficient evidence?”. “Did the officer fail to pursue an oral hearing?”, can also be noted. Other issues are “Can PRRA decline applications based on the individual’s credibility?” and “What form of evidence is necessary to make an evidence-based claim about one’s sexual orientation?”.
Rules
In the case of such a disagreement, the issues found by clients are not centered on the law, instead being justified by individual cases similar to the one at hand and policies of the Canadian government, such as the PRRA guidelines. However, the ability of the applicant to submit the application and be considered for immigrant protection rests on Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27). According to this act, the well-being and safety of any individuals deported from the country must be considered. Therefore, individuals can argue that the location of their deportation is actively harmful or threatening to their wellness, putting the deportation process on hold. Aside from this law, Buio v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 157 was brought up to highlight the need for the applicant to present necessary evidence.
Analysis
The officer, who presents as the respondent of this case, claims that the documents and papers submitted for the PRRA application were insufficient, remaining unconvinced of the applicant’s status as a lesbian. The connection between Jamaica and violence against lesbians has been sufficiently proven, in his opinion, while the status of the applicant was not. The applicant and the council counter this claim by stating that the officer’s dismissal was based on not finding evidence credible and failing to consider statements such as “Ms. Ferguson is lesbian and is very open about her sexual orientation” to be insufficient. Ultimately, both the court and the officer agree that the burden of bringing sufficient evidence to their application lies on the applicants themselves, as well as their council. For this reason, the unwillingness of the officer to conduct an oral hearing is attributed not to his error but to the inability of the applicant to convince him.
Conclusion
As the conclusion to this case, the applicant’s case was dismissed. While the judge agreed that some of the evidence presented was not properly considered by the PRRA officer, he ultimately decided that the burden of proof should lie on the applicant. The council and Ms. Ferguson should use the best available evidence to support their claims and apply for the PRRA.
References
Ferguson v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1067 (CanLII). (n.d.). CanLII. Web.