CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Exclusion and Removal
Judicial review of removal order made against applicant by respondent—On September 19, 2002, respondent issuing departure order (DO) against applicant pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 20(1)(a) and Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 6—Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting applicant’s asylum claim—On February 27, 2004, Federal Court refusing application for leave filed by applicant against RPD’s decision—On March 29, 2004, DO becoming deportation order pursuant to Regulations, s. 224(2)—Applicant filing pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application, which was dismissed—Decision to send notice under Regulations, s. 160(3) (i.e. right to apply for PRRA) after time when removal order had become deportation order had major consequences for applicant—Applicant could not return to this country without authorization because of deportation order, although no authorization would be necessary if departure order issued against her were still in place—Purpose of PRRA is to prevent alien whose asylum claim already rejected from being required to return to country of residence or citizenship when situation has changed in that country and he would be exposed to risk of persecution—If interested party voluntarily complies with removal order under Regulations, s. 238 within requisite period, consequences of deportation order may be avoided—However, requiring respondent to issue notice before deportation order comes into force would eliminate main incentive for people to comply voluntarily with removal order prior to PRRA decision—Respondent’s decision to send notice after departure order became deportation order meets requirements of procedural fairness having regard to objective of PRRA process, which is to seve as final “safeguard” before interested party required to leave country—Applicant had until March 29, 2004 to leave Canada before DO became deportation order—Applicant choosing to remain in Canada and file PRRA application, which was refused on ground no personal risk—Applicant given full benefit of all remedies available to her under Act—Nothing inequitable in her asking in future for written authorization to return to Canada since she knew this was consequence of her choice—Applicant failing to demonstrate respondent so erred in law or in fact as to warrant intervention of Court—Application dismissed—Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 20—Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, ss. 6, 160(3)(a), 238.
Revich v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-9283-04, 2005 FC 852, Tremblay-Lamer J., order dated 16/6/05, 22 pp.)