Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nagra
|
|
- Ellen Dorsey
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Nagra Between The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, applicant, and Harjinderpal Singh Nagra, respondent [1999] F.C.J. No Court File No. IMM Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division Vancouver, British Columbia Rouleau J. Heard: October 7, Judgment: October 27, (22 paras.) Aliens Admission, refugees Status of refugee in Canada Refugee Division, determination by. Application by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board that Nagra was a Convention refugee. Nagra was a 39-year-old Sikh who, from his student days, had been very active in promoting Sikh rights in India and Canada. He had been detained and tortured in India on a number of occasions, and had served on the executive of an organization that the Minister claimed was involved in crimes against humanity. He arrived in Canada in The Minister argued that high office in an organization involved in violence implied knowledge of that organization's acts, and that the Board had erroneously relied on the fact that Nagra's colleagues had not been convicted of crimes of violence and failed to analyze the alleged violence of the organization. HELD: Application dismissed. The Board's findings were not patently unreasonable. While the Board erred in relying on the fact that Nagra's colleagues had no convictions for crimes of violence, the Board was nevertheless owed a high level of deference. The Court could not revisit the facts or weigh the evidence. Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited: Immigration Act, s Counsel:
2 Helen Park, for the applicant. Christopher Elgin, for the respondent. 1 ROULEAU J. (Reasons for Order): This is an application by the Minister pursuant to section 82.1 of the Immigration Act for leave and judicial review of a decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated October 9, 1998 wherein the Board determined that the respondent was a Convention refugee. 2 The respondent is a 39 year old Sikh from India who had graduated in law and had joined the All India Student Sikh Federation (AISSF) in Between 1978 and 1984, the respondent was actively involved in protesting the treatment of Sikhs and in advocating for greater rights for Sikhs. During that period of time, he organized a number of AISSF branches throughout Rajasthan and conferences in collaboration with the Alkali Dal. 3 The respondent was arrested, detained and tortured on a number of occasions. 4 In 1981, he was made President of the AISSF for Rajasthan State. In September 1983, he took on the position of Organizing Secretary and, in that capacity, became a member of the High Command of the AISSF. In February 1984, he was awarded special recognition by the Head Priest at the Golden Temple. In May 1984, because of his training he was summoned by the President of the AISSF to assist in preparing a legal challenge of the ban of the AISSF. He left the area before the June 1984 confrontation at the Golden Temple. In 1984, he left India and set up the International Sikh Youth Federation (ISYF) on the instructions of both the President of the AISSF and the Head Priest of the Golden Temple. 5 The respondent arrived in Canada in February 1985 and continued to set up branches of the ISYF in various Canadian cities. He remained with the ISYF until February 1986 at which time he expressed his displeasure at the direction in which the organization was heading. He nevertheless continued as religious leader until May 1986, at which time he tendered his resignation. 6 The Board found that the respondent had good grounds to fear persecution should he return to India today and that there were no serious reasons for considering that the respondent had committed crimes against humanity. 7 The issues to be determined are the following: 1. Did the Board err in law in its decision with respect to the exclusionary aspects of the respondent's claim? 2. Did the Board err in law in applying the wrong standard of proof in determining whether leaders of the AISSF in India committed crimes against humanity?
3 3. Did the Board err in law in applying the wrong test in determining whether violent acts committed by the AISSF in India constituted crimes against humanity under the exclusion clause? 4. Did the Board err in law by applying the wrong test in determining whether the respondent was complicit in crimes committed by the AISSF in India or by the ISYF internationally without regard to his high leadership role within these organizations? 8 The applicant submits that the Board erred in law in determining that the acts attributable to his leaders Amrik Singh and Sant Jarnail Bhindranwale did not constitute crimes against humanity; that although the Board acknowledged that the documentary evidence indicated that these individuals were involved in terrible acts of violence, it erroneously relied upon the fact that they had not been convicted of these crimes as proof of lack of responsibility for these acts. 9 The applicant argues that the Board, contrary to the definition in article 1(F) of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, failed to have regard to the most recent international instrument with respect to the definition of crimes against humanity. The relevant portion of article 1(F) reads as follows: The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that: a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect to such crimes. 10 The applicant submits that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, sets out standards concerning crimes against humanity and war crimes which were not properly addressed by the Board. Specifically, the applicant alleges that this instrument clarifies that crimes against humanity need not be both systemic and widespread. The Board did not apply the correct test and thereby erred in law. The applicant adds that the Refugee Division completely failed to analyze the alleged acts of violence of the ISYF in order to determine whether these acts constituted crimes against humanity and, if so, whether the respondent was complicit in these crimes. 11 The applicant argues that the Board erred in law in reaching its conclusion that the respondent was not complicit in any acts of violence; that the Board should have applied the test which was developed in the law for leaders of organizations. The applicant alleges that the law is clear that knowledge of crimes and a common purpose can be inferred from the member's position within the organization; see Sivakumar v. Canada [1994] 1 F.C. 433 at 440. In light of the evidence in the case at bar, particularly since the respondent was a member of the High Command (AISSF), the applicant contends that the respondent had knowledge and purpose. Furthermo re, by failing to
4 analyze the respondent's activities or either the AISSF's or the IYSF's activities, the Board erred in law. 12 The respondent alleges that the Refugee Division properly applied the law with respect to the application of the exclusion clauses and applied the appropriate standard of proof. He contends that there was no evidence to suggest that the respondent himself was involved in any incidents of violence or that the AISSF as an organization was responsible for crimes against humanity. According to the respondent, he could only be excluded from the definition of the Board if there were serious reasons for considering that Amrik Singh and Sant Jarnail Bhindranwale had committed crimes against humanity and if he was complicit in tho se crimes. 13 The respondent argues that it is the Board's responsibility to weigh evidence and make findings of fact. In this case, it made a finding that the various acts of violence could not be attributed to Amrik Singh and Sant Jarnail Bhindra nwale and that the applicant has not provided any proof that the Refugee Division ignored relevant evidence or based its decision on irrelevant considerations. The respondent alleges that the Refugee Division was aware of the proper standard of proof in e xclusion cases and correctly referred to it. 14 The respondent claims that the applicant has misstated the issue regarding complicity. He alleges that if the Board erroneously concluded in this case that amrik Singh and Sant Jarnail Bhindranwale were not responsible for acts of violence, they concluded that the respondent would not have known of these acts; and even if he had known of these acts of violence, there was no evidence before the Board of any shared common purpose between him and those two individuals. If the Board was wrong in its appreciation of the two individuals who were head of AISSF, it was not central to determining the status of the respondent. The Board accepted his evidence that he was not aware of the violence and therefore that he could not be complicit. 15 In Moreno v. Canada (1993), 21 Imm. L.R. (2d) 221, the Federal Court of Appeal established a number of important principles for the analysis of the case at bar. Firstly, it states that a narrow construction of the exclusion clause is favourable in view of the possible persecution awaiting persons who might otherwise be declared Convention refugees. It also determines that in order to invoke the exclusion clause, personal involvement in persecutional acts must be established. Finally, contrary to what the Refugee Division implied, the Court of Appeal affirms that "the applicability of the exclusion clause does not depend on whether a claimant has been charged or convicted of the acts set out in the Convention. The Minister's burden is merely to meet the standard of proof embraced by the term "serious reasons for considering"." 16 The applicant in the Sivakumar case, supra, had a leadership position within a violent organization. The Federal Court of Appeal stated in respect to complicity that "remaining in an organization in a leadership position with knowledge that the organization was responsible for crimes against humanity may constitute complicity". The Court added "In such circumstances, an important factor to consider is
5 evidence that the individual protested against the crime or tried to stop its commission or attempted to withdraw from the organization". 17 Although the Board decided that the evidence before it did not establish that the respondent had personally committed crimes against humanity, it appears it erred by relying upon the fact that Amrik Singh and Sant Jarnail Bhindranwale had not been convicted of these crimes as proof of lack of responsibility for these acts. 18 The Board nevertheless found as a fact that the respondent was not involved while in India with the violence of the leaders and that he was not present during the Golden Temple confrontation. 19 The Board made no determination as to the obligations of the ISYF but were satisfied that he resigned when he became aware of any illegal or terrorist activities. As the Board found, he was even described by his peers as being an agent of the Indian Government. 20 From the outset, the Board wrote: "I find that the claimant's testimony was generally credible". We must remember that the standard of review on the factual findings of an administrative tribunal is an extremely deferent one; see Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825, per La Forest J., at pp. 849 and 852. Courts must not revisit the facts or weigh the evidence. Only where the evidence viewed reasonably is incapable of supporting the tribunal's findings will a fact finding be patently unreasonable. 21 I have not been convinced that the findings of fact made by the Board is patently unreasonable. 22 For these reasons, he application for judicial review is dismissed. ROULEAU J.
Bains v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Bains v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Gurmukh Singh Bains, applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, respondent [1999] F.C.J. No. 536 Court File No. IMM-3698-98
More informationKlinko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.)
Klinko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.) Alexander Klinko, Lyudmyla Klinko, and Andriy Klinko (Appellants) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent) [2000] 3 F.C.
More informationHatami v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Hatami v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Arezo Hatami, applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, respondent [2000] F.C.J. No. 402 Court File No. IMM-2418-98
More informationMOMIN WALIULLAH. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour fédérale Montréal, Quebec, March 21, 2012 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer MOMIN WALIULLAH and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Date: 20120321
More informationEMIR SONMEZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20150116 Docket: IMM-5781-13 Citation: 2015 FC 56 Ottawa, Ontario, January 16, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Boswell BETWEEN: EMIR SONMEZ Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
More informationZUBAIR AFRIDI. and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20151120 Docket: IMM-1217-15 Citation: 2015 FC 1299 Ottawa, Ontario, November 20, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish BETWEEN: ZUBAIR AFRIDI Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC
More informationAhani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002
Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002 SCC 2 Mansour Ahani Appellant v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada Respondents
More informationSingh v. Atty Gen USA
2006 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-4-2006 Singh v. Atty Gen USA Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-4884 Follow this and
More informationCase Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Case Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Andro Rocha, Applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent [2015] F.C.J. No. 1087 2015 FC 1070 Docket:
More informationElastal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Elastal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Mousa Hamed Elastal, applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, respondent [1999] F.C.J. No. 328 Court File No. IMM-3425-97
More informationWORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: Guidance to the Canadian Human Rights Commission from the Federal Court
The Canadian Bar Association 12 th Annual National Administrative Law and Labour & Employment Law CLE Conference November 25 26, 2011 Ottawa, Ontario WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: Guidance to the Canadian
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MALKIT SINGH, Petitioner, No. 02-71594 v. INS No. A72-020-928 IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. OPINION On Petition
More informationKhosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir
Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court
More informationThe Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer RALPH PROPHÈTE. and REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20080312 Docket: IMM-3077-07 Citation: 2008 FC 331 Ottawa, Ontario, March 12, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer BETWEEN: RALPH PROPHÈTE and Applicant THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cal-terra Developments Ltd. v. Hunter, 2017 BCSC 1320 Date: 20170728 Docket: 15-4976 Registry: Victoria Re: Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996,
More informationMIN JUNG KIM JI HOON KIM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20100630 Docket: IMM-5625-09 Citation: 2010 FC 720 Vancouver, British Columbia, June 30, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON
More informationUNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL D APPEL DES NATIONS UNIES
UNITED NATIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL D APPEL DES NATIONS UNIES Case No. 2010-120 Messinger (Appellant) v. Secretary-General of the United Nations (Respondent) JUDGMENT Before: Judgment No.: Judge Sophia
More informationMUTUMBA, Fahad Huthy. and REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT. [1] In a situation of choice wherein one could remove oneself or extricate oneself, yet,
Date: 20090107 Docket: IMM-2668-08 Citation: 2009 FC 19 Ottawa, Ontario, January 7, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: MUTUMBA, Fahad Huthy and Applicant THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationHassan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Ali Abdi Hassan, applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, respondent [1999] F.C.J. No. 1359 Court File No. IMM-5440-98
More informationand THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20081106 Docket: IMM-2397-08 Citation: 2008 FC 1242 Toronto, Ontario, November 6, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: JULIO ESCALONA PEREZ AND DENIS ALEXANDRA PEREZ DE ESCALONA
More informationROZINA GEBREHIWOT TEWELDBRHAN. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION MERHAWIT OKUBU TEWELDBRHAN. and
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20120329 Docket: IMM-5859-11 IMM-5861-11 Citation: 2012 FC 371 Ottawa, Ontario, March 29, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley BETWEEN: ROZINA GEBREHIWOT TEWELDBRHAN
More informationCountry submission: Canada. 20 January 2014
CONSEIL CANADIEN POUR LES RÉFUGIÉS CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES Submission to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for consideration in Guiding Principles on the right of anyone deprived of his
More informationPETER DOERKSEN BUECKERT DUSTIN CALEB BUECKERT. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour fédérale Ottawa, Ontario, September 1, 2011 Date: 20110901 Docket: IMM-975-11 Citation: 2011 FC 1042 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Crampton BETWEEN: PETER DOERKSEN BUECKERT DUSTIN
More informationTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. and A069 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Ottawa, Ontario, April 8, 2014 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and Date: 20140408 Docket: IMM-13216-12 Citation: 2014 FC 341 Applicant
More informationRefugee Hearing Preparation: A Guide for Refugee claimants
Refugee Hearing Preparation: A Guide for Refugee claimants Are you waiting for your Refugee Hearing? This information booklet provides information and suggestions that can help you prepare well for your
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: British Columbia (Ministry of Justice) v. Maddock, 2015 BCSC 746 Date: 20150423 Docket: 14-3365 Registry: Victoria In the matter of the decisions of the
More informationRecent Developments in Refugee Law
Recent Developments in Refugee Law Appellate Cases of Note Banafsheh Sokhansanj, Department of Justice Disclaimer This presentation reflects the views of Banafsheh Sokhansanj only, and not necessarily
More informationSumaida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (C.A.), 2000 CanLII (F.C.A.)
Home > Federal > Federal Court of Appeal > 2000 CanLII 17099 (F.C.A.) Français English Sumaida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (C.A.), 2000 CanLII 17099 (F.C.A.) Date: 2000-01-07 Docket:
More informationGLORIA ARACELI AYALA SOSA, PEDRO LUIS MONGE AYALA SOSA and NELSON EDUARDO LINARES CRUZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ottawa, Ontario, May 6, 2014 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Kane GLORIA ARACELI AYALA SOSA, PEDRO LUIS MONGE AYALA SOSA and NELSON EDUARDO LINARES CRUZ Date: 20140506 Docket: IMM-4079-13
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Cariboo Gur Sikh Temple Society (1979) v. British Columbia (Employment Standards Tribunal), 2016 BCSC 1622 Between: Cariboo Gur Sikh Temple Society (1979)
More informationPermanent Residence Alternatives H and C By Robin Seligman, Barrister & Solicitor and Cheryl Robinson, Barrister and Solicitor
Workshop 3C CLE May 13, 2011 Permanent Residence Alternatives H and C By Robin Seligman, Barrister & Solicitor and Cheryl Robinson, Barrister and Solicitor The application of humanitarian and compassionate
More informationThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Respondents)
A-473-05 2006 FCA 326 Jothiravi Sittampalam (Appellant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Respondents) INDEXED AS: SITTAMPALAM v.
More informationEmilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM ; 2014 FC 1073)
Emilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM-12508-12; 2014 FC 1073) Indexed As: Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationLAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
INTRODUCTION Purpose and currency of checklist. This checklist is designed to be used with the CLIENT IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURE (A-1) checklist. It is intended for use by immigration counsel
More informationInterview with Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court *
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS Interview with Philippe Kirsch, President of the International Criminal Court * Judge Philippe Kirsch (Canada) is president of the International Criminal Court in The Hague
More informationROZAS DEL SOLAR, PAOLA ZEVALLOS ZUNIGA, LUIS ZEVALLOS ROZAS, SOFIA ZEVALLOS ROZAS, MACARENA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION.
Date: 20181114 Docket: IMM-2645-17 Citation: 2018 FC 1145 Toronto, Ontario, November 14, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Diner BETWEEN: ROZAS DEL SOLAR, PAOLA ZEVALLOS ZUNIGA, LUIS ZEVALLOS ROZAS,
More informationLIZ COOPER. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour federal e Date: 20120131 Docket: IMM-3840-11 Citation: 2012 FC 118 Ottawa, Ontario, January 31, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie BETWEEN: LIZ COOPER Applicant and THE
More informationJAIME CARRASCO VARELA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 28, 2009.
Date: 20090506 Docket: A-210-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 145 CORAM: NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: JAIME CARRASCO VARELA Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) - and -
i' - I 1-1 1 YYV,/V 5 i rax!r IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) No. 23801 lv.*&~%, BETWEEN: DONALD AND WILLIAM GLADSTONE - and - Appellants HER MAJESTY
More informationADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW COURSE SYLLABUS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW 372-003 COURSE SYLLABUS Instructor: David E. Gruber, F.C.I.Arb., B.Sc.Arch. (McGill), J.D. (U. of Vic), LL.M (Cantab) Contact: dgruber@mail.ubc.ca; (604) 661-9361 M-F 9:00 a.m. to
More informationAli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.), 2004 FC 1174 (CanLII)
Home > Federal > Federal Court of Canada > 2004 FC 1174 (CanLII) Français English Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.), 2004 FC 1174 (CanLII) Date: 2004-08-26 Docket: IMM-5086-03
More informationRICHARD KWIZERA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20081113 Docket: IMM-2148-08 Citation: 2008 FC 1261 Toronto, Ontario, November 13, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: RICHARD KWIZERA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationGLORIA INES NINO YEPES LUIS HECTOR CUERVO CHAVES (A.K.A. LUIS HECTOR CUERVO CHAVEZ) HECTOR DAVID CUERVO NINO. and
Federal Court Cour fédérale Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes BETWEEN: Date: 20111124 Docket: IMM-2118-11 Citation: 2011 FC 1357 GLORIA INES NINO YEPES LUIS
More informationMahesh Julka v. Attorney General United States
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-6-2016 Mahesh Julka v. Attorney General United States Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationBritish Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law
The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications (Emeriti) 2004 British Columbia's Tobacco Litigation and the Rule of Law Robin Elliot Allard School of Law at the University
More informationTHE NEED TO PROTECT RULE OF LAW: A RESPONSE TO BILL C-24
POLICY BRIEF May 2014 THE NEED TO PROTECT RULE OF LAW: A RESPONSE TO BILL C-24 Andrew S. Thompson Andrew S. Thompson is an adjunct assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo,
More informationGutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Blanca Gutierrez (aka Blanca Gutierez); Ennio Jose Gutierrez Gonzalez and Jenny Isabel Gutierrez by their Litigation Guardian Blanca
More informationCCPR/C/103/D/1819/2008
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CCPR/C/103/D/1819/2008 Distr.: General 19 December 2011 English Original: French Human Rights Committee Communication No. 1819/2008 Decision
More informationChhyumi Gurung v. Attorney General United States
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-17-2014 Chhyumi Gurung v. Attorney General United States Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationCase Name: Lorenzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
1 sur 7 2016-01-28 16:34 Case Name: Lorenzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Arthur Eisma, Lorenzo, Applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent [2016]
More informationFEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA MZYYY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FMCA 34 MIGRATION Application for review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision grounds of application all constituting
More informationERKAN ATES. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR ORDER
Date: 20040927 Docket: IMM-150-04 Citation: 2004 FC 1316 BETWEEN: ERKAN ATES Applicant Respondent HARRINGTON J. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR ORDER [1] Turk, Kurd, Islamist,
More informationAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants. and
CORAM: RICHARD C.J. DESJARDINS J.A. NOËL J.A. Date: 20081217 Docket: A-149-08 Citation: 2008 FCA 401 BETWEEN: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL CANADA and BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION Appellants and
More informationTABLE OF CONTENTS. Foreword xix Preface xxi Introductory Note xxiii CHAPTER 1 THE ROLE OF APPELLATE TRIBUNALS 1
Foreword xix Preface xxi Introductory Note xxiii CHAPTER 1 THE ROLE OF APPELLATE TRIBUNALS 1 PART 1 Why Standards of Review? 2 PART 2 Why Review? 5 (a) The Error Correcting Role 5 (b) The Call for Universality
More informationSubmitted by: Tahir Hussain Khan [represented by counsel]
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE Khan v. Canada Communication No. 15/1994 15 November 1994 CAT/C/13/D/15/1994 VIEWS Submitted by: Tahir Hussain Khan [represented by counsel] Alleged victim: The author State party
More informationCED: An Overview of the Law
Immigration and Refugees Notes for III: Persons Who are Inadmissible to Canada III.1: Security Grounds and Human Rights Violations FN1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 34(1)
More informationIMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL. Before : Mr J Barnes Mr M G Taylor CBE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT. and
H-AS-V1 Heard at Field House On 1 July 2003 SC (Internal Flight Alternative - Police) Russia [2003] UKIAT 00073 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL notified: Delivered orally in Court Date written Determination
More informationRE: The Board s refusal to allow public access to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Hearings
Direct Line: 604-630-9928 Email: Laura@bccla.org BY EMAIL January 20, 2016 Peter Watson, Chair National Energy Board 517 Tenth Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2R 0A8 RE: The Board s refusal to allow public
More informationBill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act
Bill C-11, Balanced Refugee Reform Act NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION LAW SECTION CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION May 2010 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925 toll
More informationFARZANEH KASHEFI. and CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY CS-77788/ JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20161028 Docket: T-536-16 Citation: 2016 FC 1204 Ottawa, Ontario, October 28, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland BETWEEN: FARZANEH KASHEFI Applicant and CANADA BORDER SERVICES
More informationMatter of M-A-F- et al., Respondents
Matter of M-A-F- et al., Respondents Decided August 21, 2015 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Where an applicant has filed an asylum application
More informationGender Persecution and Refugee Law Reform in Canada. The Balanced Refugee Reform Act (BILL C-11) Lobat Sadrehashemi Battered Women s Support Services
Gender Persecution and Refugee Law Reform in Canada I N R E S P O N S E TO The Balanced Refugee Reform Act (BILL C-11) APRIL 2011 W R I T TE N BY FOR Lobat Sadrehashemi Battered Women s Support Services
More informationCBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch
CBABC POSITION PAPER ON THE CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT ACT, 2018 (BILL 22) Prepared by: Canadian Bar Association, BC Branch May 8, 2018 Introduction In April 2012, the government of British Columbia
More informationCitation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown
Citation: R. v. R.C. (P.) Date: 2000308 2000 PESCTD 22 Docket: GSC-17475 Registry: Charlottetown BETWEEN: AND: PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
More informationEtienne v. MPSEP: Constitutional Challenge to the PRRA Bar (s. 112(2)(b.1) of the IRPA) Presented at the CARL Conference, October 16, 2014
Etienne v. MPSEP: Constitutional Challenge to the PRRA Bar (s. 112(2)(b.1) of the IRPA) Presented at the CARL Conference, October 16, 2014 1 The PRRA BAR was Manifestly Unconstitutional The PRRA Bar constitutional
More informationTO JR OR NOT TO JR? A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ASSESSING THE MERITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT. Last updated: November 2012
TO JR OR NOT TO JR? A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ASSESSING THE MERITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT Last updated: November 2012 Warren L. Creates, B.A., LL.B. and Jacqueline J. Bonisteel, M.A.,
More informationGUIDELINES ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
Distr. GENERAL HCR/GIP/03/05 4 September 2003 Original: ENGLISH GUIDELINES ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Origin: Appeal from a decision of the Master of the Court of Queen's Bench, dated June 5, 2013 Date: 20131213 Docket: CI 13-01-81367 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc.
More informationIMM FC 246. Iftikhar Shoaq Jalil (Applicant) 2006 FC 246 (CanLII) The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent)
IMM-735-05 2006 FC 246 Iftikhar Shoaq Jalil (Applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent) INDEXED AS: JALIL v. CANADA (MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION) (F.C.) Federal
More informationSikh-Canadians and the Building of a Nation. Sikh labourers board a train in Vancouver, c (courtesy Sikhmuseum.com)
Resource #1 A prominent politician in Vancouver, Henry H. Stevens, said in 1907, Canada is best left in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon race. As far as Canada is concerned, it shall remain White and our doors
More informationSUPREME COURT OF YUKON
SUPREME COURT OF YUKON Citation: Yukon Human Rights Commission v. Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication, Property Management Agency and Yukon Government, 2009 YKSC 44 Date: 20090501 Docket No.: 08-AP004
More informationJEGATHEESWARAN KULASEKARAM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20150326 Docket: IMM-6847-13 Citation: 2015 FC 384 Ottawa, Ontario, March 26, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan BETWEEN: JEGATHEESWARAN KULASEKARAM Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationNote on the Cancellation of Refugee Status
Note on the Cancellation of Refugee Status Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION 2 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES 3 A. General considerations 3 B. General legal principles 3 C. Opening cancellation
More informationFederal Court Reports Nikolayeva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.) [2003] 3 F.C. 708 OLENA NIKOLAYEVA.
Federal Court Reports Nikolayeva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.) [2003] 3 F.C. 708 Date: 20030226 Docket: IMM-1335-02 Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 246 BETWEEN: OLENA NIKOLAYEVA
More informationOpinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its sixty-ninth session (22 April 1 May 2014)
United Nations General Assembly Distr.: General 23 July 2014 A/HRC/WGAD/2014/15 Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention GE.14-09342 (E) *1409342* Opinions adopted by
More informationFRANCIS OJO OGUNRINDE. and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS; THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Federal Court Cour fédérale Ottawa, Ontario, June 15, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell BETWEEN: FRANCIS OJO OGUNRINDE and Date: 20120615 Docket: IMM-6711-11 Citation: 2012 FC 760 Applicant
More informationSOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL DECISION Appeal Division
Citation: M. E. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2018 SST 579 Tribunal File Number: AD-18-236 BETWEEN: M. E. Applicant and Canada Employment Insurance Commission Respondent SOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL
More informationHeld, the appeal should be allowed. Per Noël J.A. (Richard C.J. concurring): The matter raised herein was a pure vires issue. Therefore the applicable
CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES v. CANADA [2009] 3 F.C.R. A-37-08 2008 FCA 229 Her Majesty The Queen (Appellant) v. Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Page: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: IRAC v. Privacy Commissioner & D.B.S. 2012 PESC 25 Date: 20120831 Docket: S1-GS-23775 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Island Regulatory and Appeal
More informationand REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] This is an application for judicial review by the Minister pursuant to section 72 of the
Date: 20090205 Docket: IMM-5512-07 Citation: 2009 FC 121 Montréal, Quebec, February 5, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Maurice E. Lagacé BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Applicant and
More informationAPPLICATION TO VACATE S Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. December 12, 2011.
Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié Section de la protection des réfugiés RPD File No. / N o de dossier de la SPR : MA8-04454 Private
More informationProf. Dr. Harald Dörig: Current Problems in Asylum and Protection Law: the German Judicial Perspective
Bled 2011 - IARLJ World Conference Prof. Dr. Harald Dörig: Current Problems in Asylum and Protection Law: the German Judicial Perspective 1. General Remarks In Germany the courts have three sources of
More informationTHE LAW OF CANADA IN RELATION TO UNDRIP
THE LAW OF CANADA IN RELATION TO UNDRIP Although the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is not a binding legal instrument and has never been ratified as a treaty would be, the
More informationReasons and Decision Motifs et décision
Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision Motifs et décision Claimant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXX Demandeur(e)(s) d asile XXXX XXXX XXXX Date(s) of Hearing January 16, 2013 Date(s) de l audience Place
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Scott v. British Columbia (The Police Complaint Commissioner), 2017 BCSC 961 Jason Scott Date: 20170609 Docket: S164838 Registry: Vancouver
More informationReasons and Decision Motifs et décision
RPD File No. / N o de dossier de SPR : VA9-05300, VA9-05301, VA9-05302, VB0-02992, VB0-03130 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision Motifs et décision Claimant(s) Demandeur(e)(s) d asile Date(s)
More informationImmigration Status of Population: BC and the KPU Region
Immigration Status of Population: BC and the KPU Region IMMIGRATION STATUS: KPU REGION AND BC 1 In 2016, 41%% of the KPU Region s total population were immigrants, compared to 40% in 2011. In 2016, 28%
More informationTechniques in Crossing the Scientific Witness Jane Clark
Techniques in Crossing the Scientific Witness Jane Clark 2011 CBA Spring Advocacy Program, May 5, 2011 Advocacy for the Courts in Intellectual Property Matters: The Art of Cross-Examination, Ottawa, Techniques
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Thomas Walker. Certified General Accountants of Prince Edward Island
PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Walker v. CGAs of PEI & Ano. 2005 PESCTD 49 Date: 20050930 Docket: S1-GS-20476 Registry: Charlottetown Between: And: Thomas
More informationGAO ILLEGAL ALIENS. INS' Processes for Denying Aliens Entry Into the United States
GAO United States General Accounting Office Testimony Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m.,
More informationThe Frontend Forms and Basis of Claim. Giovanni Rico FCJ Refugee Center February 2013
The Frontend Forms and Basis of Claim Giovanni Rico FCJ Refugee Center February 2013 Applications to file a refugee Generic Application Schedule 12 Schedule A Basis of Claim Form First part is all technical
More informationJESUS ERNESTO PONCE URIBE JUAN EDUARDO PONCE URIBE IVONE MONSIVAIS GONZALEZ JESUS EDUARDO PONCE MONSIVAIS IVONE ARELY PONCE MONSIVAIS.
Federal Court Cour fédérale Vancouver, British Columbia, October 14, 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington BETWEEN: Date: 20111014 Docket: IMM-2288-11 Citation: 2011 FC 1164 JESUS ERNESTO
More informationPurpose, Scope and Law relating to Examination & Cross of Witnesses in Arbitration proceedings 1. S Ravi Shankar 2
Purpose, Scope and Law relating to Examination & Cross of Witnesses in Arbitration proceedings 1 S Ravi Shankar 2 Globally arbitration is becoming popular for various reasons and as per a recent survey
More informationSOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL DECISION Appeal Division
Citation: D. G. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2018 SST 269 Tribunal File Number: AD-17-589 BETWEEN: D. G. Appellant and Minister of Employment and Social Development Respondent SOCIAL
More informationUpdate on Cessation O T T A W A I M M I G R A T I O N L A W C O N F E R E N C E U P D A T E D T O J U N E
Update on Cessation O T T A W A I M M I G R A T I O N L A W C O N F E R E N C E U P D A T E D T O J U N E 2 0 1 5 Cessation (s. 108 IRPA) (a) voluntary re-availment of the protection of the country of
More informationSHELTER FROM THE STORM: A COMMENT ON SURESH V. CANADA (MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION) I. INTRODUCTION
SURESH V. CANADA {MINISTER OF CmZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION) 465 SHELTER FROM THE STORM: A COMMENT ON SURESH V. CANADA (MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION) PETER J. CARVER 0 I. INTRODUCTION When the Supreme
More informationINTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES. Eco Oro Minerals Corp. Republic of Colombia. (ICSID Case No.
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Claimant Republic of Colombia Respondent PROCEDURAL ORDER No. 2 DECISION ON BIFURCATION Members of the Tribunal Mrs.
More informationDecision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, concerning communication No. 621/2014*, ** counsel)
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr.: General 6 June 2018 CAT/C/63/D/621/2014 Original: English Committee against Torture Decision
More informationarticle 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
United Nations CAT/C/52/D/455/2011* Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Committee against Torture Communication No. 455/2011 Decision adopted by the
More informationFEDERAL BRIEFING DOCUMENT 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FEDERAL BRIEFING DOCUMENT 6: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Training of Immigration Officials on Violence Against Women Domestic violence represents a very real danger for immigrant, refugee, and non-status women as
More information