No Second Chances: The Default Exclusion of Refugee Claimants on Grounds of Serious Criminality

• Author: James Billingsley
• Position: Received his JD from the University of Victoria in 2014
• Pages: 99-119

APPEAL VOLUME 20

n

99

CASE COMMENT

NO SECOND CHANCES: THE DEFAULT

EXCLUSION OF REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

ONGROUNDS OF SERIOUS CRIMINALITY

ACASE COMMENT ON FEBLES V CANADA

James Billingsley*

CITED: (2015) 20 Appeal 99

INTRODUCTION.................................................100

I. THE BASIC DEFINITION OF ARTICLE 1FB......................101

II. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF ARTICLE 1FB ........................102

A. Phase One ...................................................102

i. War d .....................................................102

ii. Pushpanathan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

iii. Chan ....................................................103

B. Phase Two ...................................................104

i. Zrig .....................................................104

ii. Xie ......................................................104

iii. Jayasekara .................................................105

iv. Gavrila and Németh .........................................106

C. Phase ree ..................................................106

i. Febles—Facts ..............................................106

ii. Febles—Federal Court........................................107

iii. Febles—Federal Court of Appeal................................108

iv. Febles—Supreme Court of Canada ..............................110

a. Majority................................................110

b. Dissent.................................................112

III. ANALYSIS .....................................................113

A. Febles Overextends the Application of Article 1F(b) ....................113

B. Reinterpreting the Refugee Convention ..............................113

IV. PROCEDURAL BIFURCATION AND BILL C31 ....................117

CONCLUSION ...................................................119

* James Bill ingsley received his JD from the Univer sity of Victoria in 2014. Hewould like to thank

Professor Donald Galloway at th e University of Victoria Facult y of Law for his helpful guidance.

100

n

APPEAL VOLUME 20

INTRODUCTION

Are rehabilitated cri minals deser ving of refugee protection? In the recent case of Febles

v Canada (Citizenship and Immig ration) (“Febles”), a majority of the Supreme Court

of Canada ans wered that question in the neg ative.1 According to the court , an asylum

seeker who has committe d a serious non-political crime outside the c ountry of refuge

is forever barred from obta ining refugee status by operation of Article 1F(b) of the

Convention Relating to t he Status of Refugee s (“Refugee Convention”).2 Such an individual

can never be granted refugee protection, even if the oence is dated and the as ylum

seeker is presently rehabilitated. Prior to the decision, courts str uggled to delineate

the appropriate scope of Article 1F(b) and oered divergent interpretations as to its

application. e majority judgment in Febles set tled the issue: the only factors relevant to

the application of Article 1F(b) are those re lated to the circumstances of the pa st oence.

Post-oence circumstance s, such as the expiation and rehabilitation of the clai mant, are

precluded from consideration.

e case of Febles rai ses the funda mental question of who deserves refugee status and

who does not. If Article 1F(b), like Articles 1F(a) and 1F(c), was conned to crime s of a

grave and heinous nature, t he mandatory exclusion of individuals with a ser ious criminal

past may perhaps be justi able.3 However, Parliament and the courts have adopted a

broad denition of what constitutes a ser ious crime. Under the Immigrati on and Refuge e

Protection Act (“IRPA”), serious crimina lity comprises oence s that, if committed in

Canada, could att ract a term of ten years imprisonment, including, for example, non-

violent propert y oences.4 Combined w ith the recent pronouncement of the Supreme

Court of Canada in Febles, this de nition casts too wide a net, e xcluding individua ls

who, despite their pasts, are de serving of protection. In t his article, I a rgue that the

majority’s interpretation of Article 1F(b) is contrar y to the humanitari an goals that t he

Refugee Convention is purported to adva nce. Individuals who have taken positive steps

to make reparations a nd reintegrate into society are automatically and u nfairly excluded

from refugee stat us.

In support of this arg ument, I rst introduce Ar ticle 1F(b) and situate the exclusion

clause within its st atutory context in the IRPA. I then t race the Canadian jurisprudence

on Article 1F(b) from its early interpretations to its c urrent iteration in Febles. Next, I

critically di scuss the Febles case. I argue for an a lternate interpretation of Article 1F(b) that

considers the present deserv ingness of a refugee clai mant together with the circum stances

of his or her criminal pa st. I conclude by considering the broader implic ations of Febles

with respect to the determ ination of refugee status under the IR PA.

1 Febles v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 SCC 68 (available on CanLII) [Febles].

2 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugee s, 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150 [Refugee

Convention]; Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 31 January 1967, Can TS 1969 No29.

3 Article 1F(a) excludes claimants who have commit ted a crime against peace, a war crime, or

a crime against humanity, and Ar ticle 1F(c) excludes claimants guilty of “serious, sus tained

or systemic violations o f fundamental human rights”: Pushpanathan v Canad a (Minister of

Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 SCR 982 at para 64 (available on CanLII) [Pushpanathan].

4 Immigration and Refugee Protectio n Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]; see, for example, ss 98 , 36(1), 101(2),

112(3), 113(3). These provisions make Ar ticle 1F(b) a more sweeping tool of exclusion than Ar ticles

1F(a) and (c).