Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. A049, (2014) 452 F.T.R. 229 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 02, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 452 F.T.R. 229 (FC);2014 FC 344

Can. (M.C.I.) v. A049 (2014), 452 F.T.R. 229 (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: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.029

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (applicant) v. A049 (respondent)

(IMM-8452-12; 2014 FC 344; 2014 CF 344)

Indexed As: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. A049

Federal Court

Russell, J.

April 9, 2014.

Summary:

A049 arrived in Canada from Sri Lanka in October 2009 aboard the MV Ocean Lady. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board accepted A049's claim for refugee protection on the basis that he was a Convention refugee sur place under s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Crown applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 1322

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Grounds - Well-founded fear of persecution - A049 arrived in Canada from Sri Lanka in October 2009 aboard the MV Ocean Lady - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board accepted A049's claim for refugee protection on the basis that he was a Convention refugee sur place under s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - The Federal Court dismissed the Crown's application for judicial review - There was no need to decide the "fraught issue" (argued by the Crown) of whether A049's presence on the ship placed him in a "particular social group" - A049 was granted sur place refugee protection because, if he was returned to Sri Lanka, he would be perceived as a young Tamil male suspected of being a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) - A049's arrival in Canada on the ship was the catalyst that changed his profile - However A049's fear of persecution was characterized, the basis for the RPD's positive sur place finding was that he would face persecution because he would be perceived as a young Tamil male with LTTE connections - The RPD used the term "particular social group", but the only group it was referring to was made up of ethnic Tamils with perceived connections to the LTTE - That was not a group that was defined by its presence on the MV Ocean Lady - However, in this case, presence on the MV Ocean Lady was what created the perception of the LTTE connection - There was no reason to exclude "young Tamil males from Jaffna suspected of being a LTTE member" from s. 96 protection - Further, a finding of a nexus with a Convention ground based on perceived political opinion seemed fully justified and was apparent in the RPD's reasons - See paragraphs 64 to 84.

Aliens - Topic 1323.1

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - "Particular social group" defined - [See Aliens - Topic 1322 ].

Aliens - Topic 1323.7

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee "sur place" - [See Aliens - Topic 1322 ].

Aliens - Topic 1323.8

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - "Political opinion" defined - [See Aliens - Topic 1322 ].

Cases Noticed:

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, refd to. [para. 24].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 24].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. A068 (2013), 443 F.T.R. 46; 2013 FC 1119, refd to. [para. 25].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 26].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 32].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B380 (2012), 421 F.T.R. 138; 2012 FC 1334, refd to. [para. 33].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B472 (2013), 427 F.T.R. 279; 2013 FC 151, refd to. [para. 33].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B451, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 233; 2013 FC 441, refd to. [para. 33].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. A011 (2013), 433 F.T.R. 229; 2013 FC 580, refd to. [para. 33].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B171 et al. (2013), 435 F.T.R. 312; 2013 FC 741, refd to. [para. 33].

B027 et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 234; 2013 FC 485, refd to. [para. 33].

Zefi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 370; 2003 FCT 636, refd to. [para. 35].

Chekhovskiy et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 592; 2009 FC 970, refd to. [para. 36].

Levano v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) (2000), 182 F.T.R. 153 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Ivakhnenko v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 729; 2004 FC 1249, refd to. [para. 38].

Yoli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 226 F.T.R. 48; 2002 FCT 1329, refd to. [para. 38].

Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Baraniroobasingam (2010), 359 F.T.R. 318; 2010 FC 92, refd to. [para. 39].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Fouodji, [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 808; 2005 FC 1327, refd to. [para. 39].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. A032, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 153; 2013 FC 322, refd to. [para. 41].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B420, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 152; 2013 FC 321, refd to. [para. 41].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B377 (2013), 430 F.T.R. 54; 2013 FC 320, refd to. [para. 41].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B399 (2013), 429 F.T.R. 88; 2013 FC 260, refd to. [para. 41].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B323, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 68; 2013 FC 190, refd to. [para. 42].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B459 (2013), 435 F.T.R. 317; 2013 FC 740, refd to. [para. 43].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 43].

Ganeshan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 388; 2013 FC 841, refd to. [para. 44].

B198 v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 441 F.T.R. 259; 2013 FC 1106, refd to. [para. 44].

P.M. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 40; 2013 FC 77, refd to. [para. 45].

S.K. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 41; 2013 FC 78, refd to. [para. 45].

Chan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593; 187 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 50].

Gonsalves v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 391 F.T.R. 22; 2011 FC 648, refd to. [para. 53].

Adjei v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 2 F.C. 680; 132 N.R. 24 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Salibian v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1990), 113 N.R. 123; 11 Imm. L.R.(2d) 165 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Rajudeen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1984), 55 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Cepeda-Gutierrez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 55].

Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 377 N.R. 393; 2008 FCA 94, refd to. [para. 57].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B344, [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 219; 2013 FC 447, refd to. [para. 58].

Fi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 655; 2006 FC 1125, refd to. [para. 60].

Veeravagu v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] F.C.J. No. 468 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Counsel:

Ada Mok and Nimanthika Kaneira, for the applicant;

Robert Israel Blanshay, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Blanshay & Lewis, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 2, 2013, by Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 9, 2014.