A Guyanese family of three was last month sent back here from Canada after an immigration judge dismissed their application for a review of an earlier decision made for them to leave.
Justice James Russell in a ruling, seen by this newspaper, last month ruled that the decision not to grant Premnauth Premnauth and his family refugee status based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds in Canada was not unreasonable and as such there was no need for it to be reviewed.
The family of three entered Canada in 2002 and claimed refugee status based on the claim of attacks and threats experienced by Premnauth, a truck driver, during the course of his work. They had a hearing before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in April of 2004 which was rejected less than two months after since it was found that state protection was available for the family in Guyana.
Even though the negative decision was made the family remained in Canada and did not file an application for judicial review of the decision until 2007 by which time they had established a successful business. This application was denied in January of this year and soon after the family filed for a further review which was rejected by Judge Russell.
According to the judge the H&C decision determined that the family would not suffer unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship if they were returned to Guyana and filed for permanent residence from this country. While the officer had accepted that Premnauth was assaulted by criminals when he refused to follow their orders to deliver a package he still refused the application. According to the judge Premnauth said that when he went to report the assault at the local police station, “he found bandits shooting at the police. Premnauth returned to the police station to report the incident, but was informed by the police that they were unable to investigate due to their limited means. The applicant later received numerous threatening phone calls.”
The judge said when the immigration officer made the decision she considered the conditions in Guyana and noted “…that crime, corruption, and racial tensions are rampant in Guyana. However, she found the applicants had not proven their risk to be personal. The officer conducted independent research into the country conditions and found that the government had adopted numerous measures to combat crime and corruption.” The officer had also recognised that the family had maintained steady employment in Canada and had been financially successful and even established their own business but found that they did not show that they could not achieve similar financial success upon their return to Guyana.
“The officer determined that the risk of loss of assets is common to all who are in Canada without permanent resident status. Furthermore, the applicants assumed this risk when they chose to buy assets prior to obtaining status,” the judge said. The officer was also unconvinced that the family’s stay in Canada was due to “circumstances beyond their control” since they could have left Canada after the denial of their 2005 refugee claim.
In his ruling the judge found that he saw nothing in the officer’s ruling that she had not fully considered the personal circumstances of the family in the context of the general risks and hardships faced by people of East Indian descent in Guyana.
“I can see the situation the applicants find themselves in is very difficult because of what they face in Guyana and because of their establishment and family situation in Canada. I can also see that it is possible to take issue and disagree with the officer’s conclusions. It seems to me that a decision in favour of the applicants would have been reasonable. However, I cannot say that the officer’s decision was incorrect or unreasonable. I have carefully reviewed the concerns and issues raised, and although I have great sympathy for the applicants, I cannot say that the decision falls outside the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law,” Judge Russell said before he dismissed the family’s application.
