Akpataku v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Akpataku v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

The extension of time was denied because the applicant failed the Hennelly requirement that the underlying application have some merit: the Refugee Board's adverse credibility findings and the negative PRRA (with no new reliable evidence) meant there was no arguable case of serious risk engaging s.7, and the asserted procedural fairness breach lacked merit under prevailing authority regarding PRRA proceedings.

Citation
2004 FC 698
Parties
Applicant: Austyn Ehireme Akpataku; Respondent: Solicitor General
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave and Judicial Review of a Pre Removal Risk Assessment (prra) Decision / Motion for Extension of Time and Stay of Removal (extension Denied)
Outcome
Application to extend time to file for leave and judicial review dismissed; style of cause amended to substitute the Solicitor General for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Legal Topics
Pre Removal Risk Assessment (prra), Extension of Time, Leave for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Risk of Torture / S.7 Charter, Credibility Findings, Stay of Removal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Pre Removal Risk Assessment (prra) Extension of Time Leave for Judicial Review Procedural Fairness +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Austyn Ehireme Akpataku

Applicant

Solicitor General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave and Judicial Review of a Pre Removal Risk Assessment (prra) Decision / Motion for Extension of Time and Stay of Removal (extension Denied)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time under the Hennelly test
  2. 2 Whether the PRRA decision was perverse or capricious and therefore had merit for judicial review
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a prima facie s.7 Charter risk of torture on removal

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was denied because the applicant failed the Hennelly requirement that the underlying application have some merit: the Refugee Board's adverse credibility findings and the negative PRRA (with no new reliable evidence) meant there was no arguable case of serious risk engaging s.7, and the asserted procedural fairness breach lacked merit under prevailing authority regarding PRRA proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time to file for leave and judicial review dismissed; style of cause amended to substitute the Solicitor General for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Orders

  • The application to extend time to file the application for leave and for judicial review of the decision of the PRRA officer is dismissed.
  • The style of cause is amended to remove the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and to add the Solicitor General as the respondent.