Murillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 966

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Shore, J.
• Date: 11 August 2008
• Citation: 2008 FC 966,(2008), 333 F.T.R. 149 (FC)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)

Murillo v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2008), 333 F.T.R. 149 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.029

Leopoldo Quintana Murillo (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-930-08; 2008 FC 966)

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

Federal Court

Shore, J.

August 26, 2008.

Summary:

The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board found that Murillo was excluded from refugee protection based on art. 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Murillo applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 1330.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Disqualifications - Serious non-political crime - Murillo participated in the import, sale and purchase of cocaine and marijuana while living illegally in the U.S. - Murillo entered Canada and claimed refugee protection - He alleged that organized criminals would harm him if he returned to Mexico - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board found that Murillo was excluded from refugee protection based on art. 1F(b) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - Murillo applied for judicial review, arguing that the RPD erred by not balancing aggravating and mitigating factors before determining the seriousness of the crime committed by him - The Federal Court dismissed the application - There was no obligation on the RPD to conduct a balancing exercise to determine whether a claimant was excluded under art. 1F(b) - The court stated that "It is reasonable for the RPD to use as a measurement of a 'serious' crime, the view which Canadian law takes of that offence. Any offence for which a maximum sentence of ten years could be imposed under Canadian law is a 'serious' crime. The focus must be on whether the acts of the claimant could be considered crimes under Canadian law. Canadian courts have consistently held that drug trafficking is a serious non-political crime" - There was also no requirement that the RPD consider a claimant's "good character" under art. 1F(b) - The only consideration that might be salient to the RPD's determination was whether the claimant already served a sentence outside of Canada for the crime in question - The RPD did not err in finding that Murillo was excluded under art. 1F(b).

Cases Noticed:

Jayasekara v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 324 F.T.R. 62; 165 A.C.W.S.(3d) 140; 2008 FC 238, refd to. [para. 1].

Farkas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 150; 155 A.C.W.S.(3d) 914; 2007 FC 277, refd to. [para. 1].

Chan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 4 F.C. 390; 260 N.R. 376; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 128 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Vlad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 108; 155 A.C.W.S.(3d) 387; 2007 FC 172, refd to. [para. 1].

Médina v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 285 F.T.R. 306; 2006 FC 62, refd to. [para. 1].

Bains v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 109 N.R. 239; 21 A.C.W.S.(3d) 405 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Adjei et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 74 F.T.R. 57; 46 A.C.W.S.(3d) 484 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Lai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 332 N.R. 344; 2005 FCA 125, refd to. [para. 22].

Ivanov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 261 F.T.R. 211; 2004 FC 1210, refd to. [para. 22].

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. 22].

Moreno and Sanchez v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 1 F.C. 298; 159 N.R. 210; 107 D.L.R.(4th) 424 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, dist. [para. 29].

Zrig v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) (2003), 307 N.R. 201; 2003 FCA 178, refd to. [para. 31].

Xie v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 1 F.C.R. 304; 325 N.R. 255; 2004 FCA 250, refd to. [para. 34].

Atef v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] 3 F.C. 86; 96 F.T.R. 217; 32 Imm. L.R.(2d) 106 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

Peter Edelmann, for the applicant;

Hilla Aharon, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Peter Edelmann, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on August 11, 2008, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on August 26, 2008.