Puerta v MCI 2010 FC 464 PRRA oral hearing

The Court set aside a decision of the PRRA officer. The applicant had filed an affidavit setting out the basis for his fear. The officer rejected the case finding that the evidence was not credible. The Court found reviewable error holding that the officer erred in not holding an oral hearing: 13 The alleged insufficiencies in the affidavit together with the Officer's finding that the Applicant's failure to claim in the United States showed a lack of subjective fear appear to have animated his overall finding. I conclude that the Officer, in fact, made the decision on credibility grounds; quite simply, the Officer did not believe the Applicant's story and rejected the PRRA application on that basis. 14 A review of this Court's jurisprudence is not particularly helpful as each of these cases turns on its individual facts. However, speaking generally, the case at bar compares more closely with the decisions in L.Y.B. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1167, [2009] F.C.J. No. 1470 (QL) and Prieto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 253, [2010] F.C.J. No. 307 (QL) where the Court allowed the judicial reviews on similar facts. 15 I wish to make it clear that I am not saying that an affidavit will automatically mean that an oral hearing is required. Each case will turn on its facts and what information may or may not be included in the affidavit. Nor should this decision be an invitation for applicants to expect an oral hearing where they can add details and further support. In general, an applicant bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to the Officer and an interview is an exception to the normal written review. However, it is obvious, from the inclusion in IRPA and the Regulations of the possibility of an oral hearing, that cases will arise where credibility can only be assessed after an oral hearing. In my view, this is one of those cases.