- Reaction score
- 4,988
- Points
- 1,160
Ruling in Fi v. Canada. - an application for judicial review of earlier decision by an immigration officer who rejected an application brought under current immigration protection legislation. The man, a Palestinian, claimed his nationality and political opinion constituted "objective fear" in his home land -specifically land occupied by the Israeli security forces. The officer decided that coming from the West bank did not constitute any demonstable personal risk of torture, or risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
It seems the court found out that the immigration officer "consulted relevant documentary extrinsic evidence found on the Internet, upon which the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment --- in particular, the use of information from the Wikipedia website is highly questionable, as the reliability of its sources has not been demonstrated to the court".
Fi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1125 (CanLII) available at www.canlii.org
First, the PRRA officer violated the applicant’s right to procedural fairness in the determination of his application for protection. The principles mentioned by the Federal Court of Appeal in Mancia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(C.A.), 1998 CanLII 9066 (F.C.A.), [1998] 3 F.C. 461 at para. 27, are applicable here. It is apparent that the PRRA officer consulted relevant documentary extrinsic evidence found on the internet, upon which the applicant was never given an opportunity to comment. Such unilateral use of the internet is unfair (Zamora v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 1414 (CanLII), (2004), 260 F.T.R. 155, 2004 FC 1414 at paras. 17-18).
[9] In particular, the use of information from the Wikipedia website is highly questionable, as the reliability of its sources has not been demonstrated to the Court. Moreover, I note that the number of internet documents consulted by the PRRA officer is important. Of these documents, only the 2005 Amnesty International Country Report and the U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2005, are among the standard documents found in the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) Documentation Centres. (There is also a Country Report from 2004.)
It seems the court found out that the immigration officer "consulted relevant documentary extrinsic evidence found on the Internet, upon which the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment --- in particular, the use of information from the Wikipedia website is highly questionable, as the reliability of its sources has not been demonstrated to the court".
Fi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1125 (CanLII) available at www.canlii.org
First, the PRRA officer violated the applicant’s right to procedural fairness in the determination of his application for protection. The principles mentioned by the Federal Court of Appeal in Mancia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)(C.A.), 1998 CanLII 9066 (F.C.A.), [1998] 3 F.C. 461 at para. 27, are applicable here. It is apparent that the PRRA officer consulted relevant documentary extrinsic evidence found on the internet, upon which the applicant was never given an opportunity to comment. Such unilateral use of the internet is unfair (Zamora v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2004 FC 1414 (CanLII), (2004), 260 F.T.R. 155, 2004 FC 1414 at paras. 17-18).
[9] In particular, the use of information from the Wikipedia website is highly questionable, as the reliability of its sources has not been demonstrated to the Court. Moreover, I note that the number of internet documents consulted by the PRRA officer is important. Of these documents, only the 2005 Amnesty International Country Report and the U.S. Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2005, are among the standard documents found in the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) Documentation Centres. (There is also a Country Report from 2004.)
