[2017] 3 F.C.R. D-12
Citizenship and Immigration
Immigration Practice
Federal Court directions — Appeal from Federal Court (F.C.) decision (2016 FC 277) allowing respondent’s application for judicial review of decision dismissing application for pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) — Respondent, citizen of Guinea, fleeing from religious persecution — Respondent denied applications for refugee protection, permanent residence, PRRA — In third PRRA application, immigration officer refusing to consider new evidence — F.C. quashing that PRRA decision in unreported decision dated November 20, 2013 (Yansane 3) — Yansane 3 giving directions, instructions in obiter — Officer finding respondent not credible in fourth PRRA application — Deeming it appropriate to meet with applicant to assess credibility of allegations before following most recent F.C. orders — In present matter, F.C. finding officer’s decision “inherently reasonable” but setting it aside for not taking into account findings made by F.C. in previous decisions — Stating that absence of statement “in accordance with [these] reasons” in previous decision not allowing administrative decision maker assigned to redetermine matter to ignore F.C. reasons, findings of fact or directions — Issue: what impact do F.C. directions have on administrative decision maker assigned to redetermine case in absence of specific verdict — Assigned administrative decision maker always having to comply with reasons, findings, directions, instructions specified in F.C. judgment allowing judicial review — Type of instructions F.C. may give depending on circumstances — Abusive or unjustified Court instructions going against Parliament’s desire to give specialized administrative organizations responsibility for ruling on questions requiring expertise lacking in common law panels — Essential to interpret possibility of issuing directions or instructions restrictively — Only instructions explicitly stated in judgment should bind decision maker responsible for re-examining a case — F.C. erring in present case in concluding unreasonable for PRRA officer to ignore findings in Yansane 3 regarding documentary evidence — On other hand, F.C. not responsible for administering evidence supporting PRRA application — F.C. in Yansane 3 merely setting aside PPRA decision, ordering new determination by another officer — Explicitly labelling recommendation as obiter — Under circumstances, clear that PRRA officer not required to comply with wish expressed by F.C. — F.C. in Yansane 3 not determining risk to which respondent exposed if returned to Guinea but specifying type of evidence PRRA officer needing to exclude new evidence submitted by respondent in second PRRA application — Such instructions, departing from very nature of judicial review proceeding, infringing upon expertise of PRRA officers, cannot bind administrative decision maker unless explicitly part of formal judgment — F.C. decision herein set aside, application for judicial review dismissed — Appeal allowed.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Yansane (A-104-16, 2017 FCA 48, de Montigny J.A., judgment dated March 10, 2017, 15 pp.)