Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Varga, 2015 FC 89

• Judge: Zinn, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 12, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 89;(2015), 470 F.T.R. 318 (FC)

Can. (M.C.I.) v. Varga (2015), 470 F.T.R. 318 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.018

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (applicant) v. Peter Varga (defendant)

(IMM-6661-13; 2015 FC 89)

Indexed As: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Varga

Federal Court

Zinn, J.

January 23, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant, a citizen of Hungary, was granted refugee protection by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter for redetermination by a differently constituted panel of the RPD.

Aliens - Topic 1323.2

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Persecution - Protection of country of nationality or citizenship (internal flight alternative) - [See Aliens - Topic 1326.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 1326.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division - Reasons - Varga, a gay Roma from Hungary, claimed refugee protection - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) granted the claim, finding that "if you are a gay Roma you're a refugee, you need protection" - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review, arguing that the RPD failed to (1) correctly assess the availability of state protection, and (2) conduct an adequate analysis of how it found that the discrimination Varga would experience in Hungary amounted to persecution - The Federal Court allowed the application - The RPD did not truly engage in an analysis of state protection for gay Roma in Hungary - It was likely that the analysis was cursory because the RPD had already decided that all gay Roma in Hungary were in need of protection - An uncompromising finding of that magnitude was not transparent, intelligible and justifiable - It might be that all gay Roma in Hungary met the criteria for refugee protection - However, absent an explanation as to how such a conclusion was reached, the decision was unreasonable and could not stand.

Cases Noticed:

Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 377 N.R. 393; 2008 FCA 94, refd to. [para. 4].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, appld. [para. 7].

Counsel:

Daniel Engel, for the applicant;

Joseph S. Farkas, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Joseph S. Farkas, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 12, 2015, before Zinn, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 23, 2015.