Ameeri et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2013) 430 F.T.R. 294 (FC)

JudgeGleason, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 09, 2013
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2013), 430 F.T.R. 294 (FC);2013 FC 373

Ameeri v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2013), 430 F.T.R. 294 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.017

Ameeri, Jasim Ghulam Redha, Nazari-Nafouti, Najares and Ameeri, Maryam Jasim Ghulam Redha (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-5229-12; 2013 FC 373; 2013 CF 373)

Indexed As: Ameeri et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Gleason, J.

April 12, 2013.

Summary:

A family of Shia Muslims who had been living in Bahrain applied for refugee protection. The father and daughter were citizens of Bahrain and the mother was a citizen of Iran. The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their application. The family applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the Board's decision, and remitted the refugee claims for re-determination by a differently constituted panel of the Board.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Aliens - Topic 4091 ].

Aliens - Topic 1322

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Grounds - Well-founded fear of persecution - [See both Aliens - Topic 1323.4 and Aliens - Topic 1326.6 ].

Aliens - Topic 1322.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Considerations - Family unity - [See first Aliens - Topic 1323.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Credible basis for claim - A family of Shia Muslims who had been living in Bahrain applied for refugee protection - The father and daughter were Bahraini citizens and the mother was an Iranian citizen - The family claimed that they would be permanently separated if removed from Canada because the mother could not return to Bahrain as an Iranian citizen, and the father and daughter could not live in Iran as Bahraini citizens - The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their application - The Board concluded that the possibility that the mother would be separated from her family did not constitute persecution, and more importantly, there was no evidence that the father and daughter could not return to Iran - The family applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board erred in failing to find that the daughter and mother would be subject to persecution or cruel and unusual treatment by reason of their permanent separation - The Federal Court found that there was no evidentiary basis for this argument as the family failed to lead any credible evidence that they would be permanently separated - There was no indication that the family had made contact with the appropriate authorities to determine whether they could live together in Iran - There was no need for the Board to consider theoretical issues that did not arise on the facts before it - See paragraphs 13 to 15.

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Credible basis for claim - A family of Shia Muslims who had been living in Bahrain applied for refugee protection - The father and daughter were Bahraini citizens and the mother was an Iranian citizen - The family claimed that they would be permanently separated if removed from Canada because the mother could not return to Bahrain as an Iranian citizen, and the father and daughter could not live in Iran as Bahraini citizens - The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their application - The family had not demonstrated that their separation was inevitable - The family applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board erred in rejecting the mother's claim that being returned to Iran would contravene her rights under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act due to restrictions placed on women in that country - The Federal Court found that this argument had not been made before the Board and there was no evidentiary basis for it - The basis of the mother's claim had centred on the belief that she would be permanently separated from her family - The Board was not required to consider a theoretical issue that did not arise on the facts of the case - See paragraphs 16 and 17.

Aliens - Topic 1326.6

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division - Duties of - A family of Shia Muslims who had been living in Bahrain applied for refugee protection - The father and daughter were Bahraini citizens and the mother was an Iranian citizen - The family claimed that they were at risk due to the turbulent situation for Shias in Bahrain, and that the father would be harmed by the Bahraini head of state security if he returned - The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their application - The Board did not believe that the father faced a threat from the head of state security - The family applied for judicial review, arguing that the Board failed to address the risk that the father and daughter faced as Shia Muslims in Bahrain - The Federal Court allowed the application - There was substantial evidence before the Board regarding the risk to Shias in Bahrain - The country documentation revealed a picture of religious tension that had recently intensified - There were numerous references to the arbitrary arrest, detention and torture of male Shia, apparently motivated simply by their ethnicity and religious beliefs - The Board failed in its duty to fully assess the risks raised by the family's profile and circumstances - See paragraphs 18 to 21.

Aliens - Topic 1331

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Evidence - [See both Aliens - Topic 1323.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 4091

Practice - Hearings - Questioning by board - A family of Shia Muslims who had been living in Bahrain applied for refugee protection - The father and daughter were Bahraini citizens and the mother was an Iranian citizen - The Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their application - The family applied for judicial review, alleging that they were denied procedural fairness - They pointed to three exchanges with the Board Member which they alleged prevented them from putting forward their case - The Federal Court found that none of the exchanges amounted to a denial of procedural fairness - In one exchange, the transcript demonstrated that the father's testimony was hard to follow and that he wandered in answering questions - Thus, intervention by the Board Member was both required and reasonable in order to focus the father's answers - The Board Member did not limit the father's testimony - The other two exchanges centred on the mother's claim that she could not return to Bahrain because she was an Iranian citizen - The Board accepted her evidence on this point - Accordingly there was no basis for intervention - See paragraphs 7 to 12.

Cases Noticed:

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 6].

Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 6].

Amri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 402; 2012 FC 713, refd to. [para. 6].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 6].

Kulasingam et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 245; 2012 FC 543, refd to. [para. 6].

Saim et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) (1998), 148 F.T.R. 219 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Adan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 391 F.T.R. 33; 2011 FC 655, refd to. [para. 20].

Viafara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 880; 2006 FC 1526, refd to. [para. 20].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 20].

Cunningham v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2010), 370 F.T.R. 157; 2010 FC 636, refd to. [para. 21].

Kunkel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 398 N.R. 271; 2009 FCA 347, refd to. [para. 24].

Zazai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 318 N.R. 365; 2004 FCA 89, refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

Mehran Youssefi, for the applicants;

Alison Engel-Yan, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Mehran Youssefi, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

William F. Pentney, Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2013, before Gleason, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons for judgment on April 12, 2013.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Jama v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 668
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 28 d1 Abril d1 2014
    ...[2013] F.T.R. Uned. 229; 2013 FC 494, refd to. [para. 14]. Ameeri et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 430 F.T.R. 294; 2013 FC 373, refd to. [para. A.B. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 316; 2008 FC 394, refd to. [para. 1......
  • Al-Hafidhi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 315
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 20 d2 Março d2 2018
    ...applicable to a decision-maker’s failure to address an issue that must be addressed per Ameeri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 373[Ameeri] per Gleason J, as she was then, at para 20: [21] Thus, the Board’s failure to consider the risks facing Mr. Ameeri and Maryam in Bahrain......
  • Vangor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 866
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 27 d4 Junho d4 2019
    ...may justify a claim to a well founded fear of persecution” at para 42); Ameeri v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 373, per then Gleason J at para 20; Bledy v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 210, per Scott J at para 34; Balogh v Canada (Mini......
  • Aissa et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 534
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 1 d1 Dezembro d1 2014
    ...96 of the IRPA or "cruel treatment" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA ( Ghulam Redha v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 373, at paragraph 16), the numerous inconsistencies in the female applicant's testimony indicate that this is not such a case. Furthermore, the de......
4 cases
  • Jama v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 668
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 28 d1 Abril d1 2014
    ...[2013] F.T.R. Uned. 229; 2013 FC 494, refd to. [para. 14]. Ameeri et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 430 F.T.R. 294; 2013 FC 373, refd to. [para. A.B. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 316; 2008 FC 394, refd to. [para. 1......
  • Al-Hafidhi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 315
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 20 d2 Março d2 2018
    ...applicable to a decision-maker’s failure to address an issue that must be addressed per Ameeri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 373[Ameeri] per Gleason J, as she was then, at para 20: [21] Thus, the Board’s failure to consider the risks facing Mr. Ameeri and Maryam in Bahrain......
  • Vangor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 866
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • 27 d4 Junho d4 2019
    ...may justify a claim to a well founded fear of persecution” at para 42); Ameeri v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 373, per then Gleason J at para 20; Bledy v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 210, per Scott J at para 34; Balogh v Canada (Mini......
  • Aissa et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 534
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 1 d1 Dezembro d1 2014
    ...96 of the IRPA or "cruel treatment" within the meaning of section 97 of the IRPA ( Ghulam Redha v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 373, at paragraph 16), the numerous inconsistencies in the female applicant's testimony indicate that this is not such a case. Furthermore, the de......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT