![](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb0x.gif)
![About the IRB](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb01_1-e.gif)
![Organization Chart](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb06_1-e.gif)
![Biographies](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb03_1-e.gif)
![Tribunals](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb04_1-e.gif)
![Transparency and Accountability](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb07b_1-e.gif)
![Employment Opportunities](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb07c_1-e.gif)
![Publications](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb14_1-e.gif)
![Legal and Policy References](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb30ref_4-e.gif)
![Act and Regulations](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtbact_1-e.gif)
![Policy](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtbpolicy_1-e.gif)
![Procedures](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtbproced_1-e.gif)
![Legal References](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtblegal_3-e.gif)
![Media Centre](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb08_1-e.gif)
![News](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb08a_1-e.gif)
![Press Releases](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb09_1-e.gif)
![Information Sheets](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb10_1-e.gif)
![Information Sheets](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtbinfosheets_1-e.gif)
![Research](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb12_1-e.gif)
![Country of Origin Research](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb13_1-e.gif)
![National Documentation Packages](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/ndp_1-e.gif)
![Recent Research](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/recentr_1-e.gif)
![](/web/20061026023219im_/http://www.cisr-irb.gc.ca/images/sidebarnav/vtb00e.gif)
|
|
CHAPTER 8
8. INTERNAL FLIGHT ALTERNATIVE (IFA)
8.1. GENERALLY
The question of whether an IFA
exists is an integral part of the Convention refugee definition.1
It arises when a claimant who otherwise meets all the elements of the
Convention refugee definition in his or her home area of the country nevertheless
is not a Convention refugee because the person has an IFA
elsewhere in that country. The key concepts concerning IFA
come from two cases: Rasaratnam2 and Thirunavukkarasu.3
From these cases it is clear that the test to be applied in determining
whether there is an IFA
is two-pronged.
(1) "
the Board must be satisfied on a balance
of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the claimant
being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA
exists."4
(2) Moreover, conditions in the part of the country
considered to be an IFA
must be such that it would not be unreasonable, in all the circumstances,
including those particular to the claimant, for him to seek refuge there.5
Both prongs must be satisfied for a finding that
the claimant has an IFA.
The Court of Appeal in Kanagaratnam,6
was of the view that the determination of whether a claimant has a well-founded
fear of persecution in his or her home area of the country is not a prerequisite
to the consideration of an IFA.
In an earlier decision,7
the Trial Division considered the issue of the relationship between IFA
and change of circumstances and the applicability of "compelling reasons",
and concluded that where an IFA
applies to a claimant, that person is not and never could have been a
Convention refugee.Accordingly, he or she could not cease to be a Convention
refugee on the basis of a change of circumstances.
8.2. TWO-PRONGED TEST
The second prong of the IFA
test may be stated as follows: would it be unduly harsh to expect the
claimant to move to another, less hostile part of the country before seeking
refugee status abroad8?
The test is an objective one: is it objectively
reasonable to expect the claimant to seek safety in a different part of
the country? Thirunavukkarasu9
sets a very high threshold for what makes an IFA
unreasonable in all the circumstances. The hardship associated with dislocation
and relocation is not the kind of undue hardship that renders an IFA
unreasonable.10
An IFA
cannot be speculative or theoretical only; it must be a realistic, attainable
option. The claimant cannot be required to encounter great physical danger
or to undergo undue hardship in travelling there or staying there.However,
it is not enough for the claimant to say that he or she does not like
the weather there, or that he or she has no friends or relatives there,
or that he or she may not be able to find suitable work there.11
A distinction must be maintained between the reasonableness
of an IFA
and humanitarian and compassionate considerations. The fact that a claimant
might be better off in Canada, physically, economically and emotionally
than in a safe place in his own country is not a factor to consider in
assessing the reasonableness of the IFA.12
8.3. NOTICE - BURDEN OF PROOF
Two other general principles that emerge
from Rasaratnam and Thirunavukkarasu concern notice
and burden of proof.With respect to notice, the issue of IFA
must be raised by the Refugee Claims Officer, the panel or the Minister
(before or during the hearing). It is a breach of natural justice to tell
the claimant that IFA
is not an issue and then, later, make a contrary finding on that issue13.
Extensive questioning during the hearing on the subject of IFA
can be sufficient notice.14 With respect to burden of proof, once the issue is raised,
the onus is on the claimant to show that he or she does not have an IFA.
Even though the burden of proof rests upon the claimant,
the Board cannot base a finding that there is an IFA,
in the absence of sufficient evidence, solely on the basis that the claimant
has not fulfilled the onus of proof.15
A finding of IFA
must be based on a distinct evaluation of a region for that purpose taking
into account the claimant's identity. It cannot be inferred from earlier
findings of fact unconnected to the issue of an IFA.16
There is some debate as to whether a specific location
or region must be identified as the potential IFA.17
8.4. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE TWO-PRONGED TEST
The abundance of case law on the topic of IFA
basically concerns the interpretation and application of the two pronged
test.Some factors are relevant to both prongs of the test, some are relevant
to one or the other prong.Recently, the Trial Division has specifically
addressed the issue of at what point in time IFA
is to be considered.18
8.4.1. Fear of Persecution
On the issue of whether there is a serious possibility
of persecution in the potential IFA,
the considerations are basically the same as when making this determination
with respect to the claimant's home area of the country.However, there
are some specific points concerning this issue and IFA
that are noteworthy:
(a) In determining whether there is an objective basis for
fearing persecution in the IFA,
the Refugee Division must consider the personal circumstances of the claimant,
and not just general evidence concerning other persons who live there.19
(b) The Refugee Division must consider the circumstances
of those persons in the IFA
who are situated similarly to the claimant.20
(c) In assessing the particular circumstances of the claimant,
the Refugee Division may consider the condition of family members who
have sought refuge in the IFA.21
(d) The nature and the agents of the persecution feared ought
to suggest that the persecution would be confined to particular areas
of the country.22
The fact, however, that the agents of persecution are the central authority
in the country does not prevent a finding that there is an IFA.23
(e) If an individual had to remain in hiding to avoid problems,
this would not be evidence of an IFA.24
(f) According to the Trial Division, the presence of close
relatives in the putative IFA,
and the duration of previous residence and past employment there, may
have a bearing on "'whether or not it is 'objectively reasonable' for
the claimant to live in
[the IFA]
without fear of persecution", rather than being matters merely of personal
comfort or convenience.25
(g) There is some lack of clarity concerning how the concept
of cumulative harassment or cumulative grounds applies in the consideration
of IFA.26
In Karthikesu, the Court appears to find that experiences in
the non-IFA
area do not form part of a cumulative assessment when considering the
IFA area.
In Balasubramaniam, however, the Court suggests that depending
on the CRDD's
other findings "
it [the CRDD]
may or may not have to consider the question of the cumulative effect
of all the incidents that occurred
to the applicant at the hands of the Sri Lankan armed forces to determine
whether these, together with the
likelihood of continuing harassment at the hands of the authorities, might
constitute persecution on a cumulative basis."(emphasis added). This statement
seems to suggest that experiences in the non-IFA
area can form part of a cumulative assessment when considering the IFA
area.
(h) Large urban areas cannot be assumed to be an IFA
by virtue of their population size alone.27
(i) A determination regarding nexus is equally important
in the assessment of whether an IFA
exists in a given case.28
8.4.2. Reasonable in All the Circumstances
Regarding the issue of "reasonable in
all the circumstances", the Court of Appeal has stated that the circumstances
must be relevant to the IFA
question: They cannot be catalogued in the abstract. They will vary from
case to case."29
However, whether certain factors are relevant to the determination of
whether a given IFA
would be "objectively reasonable" is an issue that transcends
the particular facts of a given case. Therefore, the appropriate standard
of review is "correctness" in cases where the issue is what
factors the CRDD
considers in assessing an IFA.30
The Federal Court, however, has provided the following general guidance:
(a) The test is a flexible one that takes into account the
particular situation of the claimant and the particular country involved.31
The evidence, before the Refugee Division, of circumstances in the IFA
must be more than general information and must be relevant to the claimant's
specific circumstances.32
(b) There must be some discussion of the regional conditions
which would make an IFA
reasonable.33
(c) The presence or absence of family in the IFA
is a factor in assessing reasonableness,34
especially in the case of minor claimants.35
However, the absence of relatives in an IFA
would have to jeopardize the safety of a claimant before that factor would
make an IFA
unreasonable.36
(d) A destroyed infrastructure and economy in the IFA,
and the stability or instability of the government that is in place there,
are relevant factors.37
Instability alone is not the test of reasonableness,38 nor is a disintegrating infrastructure.39
(e) An IFA
is not reasonable if it requires the perpetuation of human rights abuses.40
(f) Hardship in accessing the IFA
must be assessed.41
(g) There is no onus on a claimant to personally test the
viability of an IFA
before seeking protection in Canada.42
Dealing with specific cases, the Court has indicated
it is appropriate for the CRDD
to consider, in various ways, factors such as: the claimant's age,43
appearance (including gender), religion, political profile,44
the employment situation,45
the type of residence available, the ability to speak the language, the
ability to raise a family,46
the crime rate, the physical and financial barriers,47
the composition of the "family" unit (it appears this may also go to fear
of persecution),48 previous residence in the IFA
area,49
familiarity with the IFA
area, the capacity of the claimant to re-establish him or herself,50 whether there is a similar group located in the
IFA area,
race or ethnicity of the claimant (this may also go to fear of persecution),51
having a registration card, being registered with the police,52
ability to move from one residence to another (e.g.
legal restrictions),53
and the health and financial situation of the claimant.54
Other factors identified by the Court as being relevant
to a determination of this issue include the claimant's business and social
contacts in the potential IFA
area;55
and medical and psychological reports that provide objective evidence
that it would be "unduly harsh" to expect a claimant to move to a potential
IFA area.56
- Abubakar, Fahmey Abdalla Ali v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-572-92), Wetston, September 9,
1993
- Ahmed, Ali v. M.E.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-89-92), Marceau, Desjardins,
Décary, July 14, 1993.Reported: Ahmed v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 156 N.R.
221 (F.C.A.)
- Ahmed, Ishtiaq v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2931-99), Hansen,
March 29, 2000
- Ali, Chaudhary Liaqat v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-1461-92), Noël,
January 20, 1994
- Alvapillai, Ramasethu v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4226-97), Rothstein,
August 14, 1998
- Aramburo, Juan Carlos v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6782-93), Cullen,
December 7, 1994
- Arunachalam, Sinnathamby v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-157-96), MacKay,
August 14, 1996
- Aumbhagavan, Sivasubramaniam v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3619-93), Cullen,
June 6, 1994
- Ayad, Larbi v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2820-95), Tremblay-Lamer,
April 26, 1996
- Badesha, Jagir Singh v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-1544-92), Wetston,
January 19, 1994.Reported: Badesha v.
Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 23 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 190 (F.C.T.D.)
- Balasubramaniam, Veergathy v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1902-93), McKeown,
October 4, 1994
- Brar, Jagjit Singh (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-213-98), Rothstein,
January 11, 1999
- Capitansabapathy, Saraswathy v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-973-94), Wetston,
December 2, 1994
- Cepeda-Guitierrez, Carlos Arturo v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-596-98), Evans, October
6, 1998
- Chauhdry, Mukhtar Ahmed v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3951-97), Wetston,
August 17, 1998
- Chkiaou, Dimitri v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no.IMM-266-94), Cullen, March 7,
1995
- Dhaliwal, Jasbir Singh v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 93-A-364), MacKay, August 9,
1993
- Dhillon, Harbhagwant Singh v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3256-93), Rouleau,
March 17, 1994
- Dhillon, Inderjit Kaur v M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2652-94), McKeown,
February 1, 1995
- Dirshe, Safi Mohamud (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2124-96), Cullen,
July 2, 1997
- Dubravac, Petar v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-839-94), Rothstein,
February 1, 1995.Reported: Dubravac v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 55 (F.C.T.D.)
- Elmi, Mahamud Hussein v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-580-98), McKeown,
March 12, 1999
- Farrah, Sahra Said v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-694-92), Reed, October 5,
1993
- Fernando, Joseph Stanley v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 92-A-6986), McKeown,
May 19, 1993
- Gabriel, Joseph Gnanpragasam v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3776-93), Wetston,
May 25, 1994
- Ganeshan, Annam v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1440-96), MacKay,
February 21, 1997
- Geelle, Abdirisak Duale v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-918-92), Rouleau, July 30,
1993.Reported: Geelle v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 21 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 36 (F.C.T.D.)
- Gomez, Mario Alonso Martinez v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5501-97), Teitelbaum,
December 11, 1998
- Gosal, Pardeep Singh v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2316-97), Reed, March 11,
1998
- Guraya, Balihar Singh v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4058-93), Pinard,
July 8, 1994
- Hashmat, Suhil v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2331-96), Teitelbaum,
May 9, 1997
- Hasnain, Khalid v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-962-92), McKeown, December 14,
1995
- Hassan, Liban v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3634-98), Campbell,
April 14, 1999
- Hazime, Bassam Mohamed v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-7223-93), McKeown,
December 20, 1994
- Ibrahim, Ahmed Mohamed v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-884-92), Jerome, March 8,
1994
- Isa, Sharmarka Ahmed v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1760-94), Reed, February 16,
1995.Reported: Isa v.
Canada (Secretary of State) (1995), 28 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 68 (F.C.T.D.)
- Javed, Mohammad v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-446-94), Reed, July 20,
1994
- Jeyachandran, Senthan v.
S.G.C. (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-799-94), McKeown,
March 30, 1995
- Kachine, Serguei v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1144-94), Noël,
February 7, 1995
- Kahlon, Hari Singh v. S.G.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-532-93), Gibson,
August 5, 1993.Reported: Kahlon v.
Canada (Solicitor General), (1993), 24 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 219 (F.C.T.D.)
- Kaillyapillai, Srivasan v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1263-96), Richard,
February 27, 1997
- Kaler, Minder Singh v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-794-93), Cullen,
February 3, 1994
- Kanagaratnam, Parameswary v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-356-94), Strayer,
Linden, McDonald, January 17, 1996.Reported: Kanagaratnam
v. Canada (Minister of Employment
and Immigration) (1996), 36 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 180 (F.C.A.)
- Kandiah, Nagamma v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3100-93), McKeown,
September 1, 1994
- Karthikesu, Cumariah v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2998-93), Strayer,
May 26, 1994
- Keerthaponrajah, Alfred v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 92-A-7282), Noël,
June 23, 1993
- Khan, Naqui Mohd v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4127-01), Rothstein,
July26, 2002
- Krishnakumar, Nalini v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1527-96), Joyal,
July 7, 1997
- Krishnapillai, Arumugam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5724-93), Reed, December 2,
1994
- Kulanthavelu, Gnanasegaram v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-57-93), Gibson, December 3,
1993
- Malik, Mohammed Azim v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-58-93), McKeown,
June 6, 1994
- Manoharan, Vanajah v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-1156-92), Rouleau,
December 6, 1993
- Megag, Sahra Abdilahi v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-822-92), Rothstein,
December 10, 1993
- Mimica, Milanka v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3014-95), Rothstein,
June 19, 1996
- Moya, Jaime Olvera v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,no. IMM-5436-01),
Beaudry, November 6, 2002
- Nadarajah, Sivasothy Nathan v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4215-93), Simpson,
July 26, 1994
- Nadesalingam, Mahalingam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5711-93), Muldoon,
December 13, 1994
- Naguleswaran, Pathmasilosini (Naguleswaran) v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1116-94), Muldoon,
April 19, 1995
- Nithiananathan, Krishnapillai v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-36-97), Muldoon,
October 21, 1997
- Osman, Yassin Yussuf v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1667-96), Campbell,
April 9, 1997
- Pathmakanthan, Indradevi v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2367-93), Denault,
November 2, 1993.Reported: Pathmakanthan v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 23 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 76 (F.C.T.D.)
- Pathmanathan, Ponnampalam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-233-94), McGillis,
November 17, 1994
- Periyathamby, Thangamma v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6846-93), Rouleau,
January 6, 1995.Reported: Periyathamby v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 26 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 179 (F.C.T.D.)
- Premanathan, Gopalasamy v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4423-96), Simpson,
August 29, 1997
- Rabbani, Sayed Moheyudee v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-236-96), Noël,
January 16, 1997
- Randhawa, Faheem Anwar v.
S.G.C. (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5621-93), Rouleau,
August 12, 1994
- Ranganathan v. Canada
[1999] 4 CF 269, Evans, May 21, 1999
- Ranganathan, Rohini v. M.C.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-348-99), Létourneau,
Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000
- Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister
of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C.
706 (C.A.)
- Rasathurai, Sinnadurai v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4556-93, Denault,
November 25, 1994
- Ratnam, Selvanayagam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1881-94), Richard,
March 31, 1995
- Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon,
January 29, 1996
- Rumb, Serge v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1481-98), Reed, February
12, 1999
- Sabaratnam, Thavakaran v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-536-90), Mahoney, Stone,
Robertson, October 2, 1992
- Sahota, Amrik Singh v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3313-93), McKeown,
June 3, 1994
- Saini, Makhan Singh v. M.E.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-750-91), Mahoney, Stone,
Linden, March 22, 1993.Reported: Saini v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 151 N.R.
239 (F.C.A.)
- Saini, Makhan Singh v. M.E.I.
(S.C.C.,
no. 23619), Lamer, McLachlin,
Major, August 12, 1993.Reported: Saini v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 158 N.R.
300 (S.C.)
- Salibian v. Canada (Minister
of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C.
250 (C.A.)
- Sangha, Karamjit Singh v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1555-98), Reed,
October 28, 1998
- Sanno, Aminata v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2124-95), Tremblay-Lamer,
April 25, 1996
- Selvakumaran, Sivachelam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5103-01), Mckeown,
May 31, 2002
- Sharbdeen: M.E.I.
v. Sharbdeen, Mohammed Faroudeen
(F.C.A.,
no. A-488-93), Mahoney, MacGuigan,
Linden, March 21, 1994.Reported: Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) v.
Sharbdeen (1994), 23 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.A.)
- Sidhu, Jadgish Singh v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 92-A-6540), Muldoon,
May 31, 1993
- Singh, Gurmeet v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-75-95), Richard,
July 4, 1995.Reported: Singh, (Gurmeet) v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 30 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 226 (F.C.T.D.)
- Singh, Sucha v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 93-A-91), Dubé,
June 23, 1993
- Singh, Swarn v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-1409-92), Rothstein,
May 4, 1994
- Sivalingham, Tharini v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3440-93), MacKay,
October 20, 1994
- Soltan, Alexander v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6135-00), Blais,
January 28, 2002
- Somasundaram, Pathmananathan v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-432-95), MacKay,
September 7, 1995
- Somasundaram, Sivapackieswary v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6030-93), Cullen,
September 21, 1994
- Sundralingam, Chandrakala v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6218-93), Cullen,
September 20, 1994
- Suthanthirarajah, Ratnam v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 92-A-6902), Noël,
June 22, 1993.Reported: Suthanthirarajah v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 20 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 269 (F.C.T.D.)
- Taher, Javaid v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-265-98), Rothstein,
November 25, 1998
- Tawfik, Taha Mohammed v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 93-A-311), MacKay, August 23,
1993.Reported: Tawfik v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 26 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 148 (F.C.T.D.)
- Thanabalasingam, Jeyanthini v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-206-94), Rothstein,
October 17, 1994
- Thevasagayam, Ebenezer Thevaraj v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-252-97), Tremblay-Lamer,
October 23, 1997
- Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C.
589 (C.A.)
- Uppal, Jatinder Singh v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-17-93), Wetston, January 19,
1994
- Vidal, Daniel Fernando v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-644-92), Gibson, May 15,
1997
- Vyramuthu, Sanmugarajah v.
S.G.C. (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6277-93), Rouleau,
January 26, 1995
- Yoganathan, Kandasamy v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3588-97), Gibson,
April 20, 1998
- Zetino, Rudys Francisco Mendoza v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6173-93), Cullen,
October 13, 1994.Reported: Zetino v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 25 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.T.D.)
- Rasaratnam v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C.
706 (C.A.), at
710.
- Ibid.
- Thirunavukkarasu v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C.
589 (C.A.).
- Rasaratnam, supra, footnote
1 at 710.
- Ibid., at 709 and 711.
- Kanagaratnam, Parameswary v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-356-94), Strayer, Linden,
McDonald, January 17, 1996.Reported: Kanagaratnam v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1996), 36 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 180 (F.C.A.)
; Arunachalam, Sinnathamby v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-157-96), MacKay,
August 14, 1996. A finding of an IFA
implicitly concedes a well-founded fear of persecution elsewhere in
the country.
- Singh, Gurmeet v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-75-95), Richard,
July 4, 1995.Reported: Singh, (Gurmeet) v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 30 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 226 (F.C.T.D.),
at 4. See also, Sangha, Karamjit Singh v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1555-98), Reed, October 28,
1998.
- Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote
3, at 596-599.
- Ibid.
- Ranganathan, Rohini v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-348-99), Létourneau,
Sexton, Malone, December 21, 2000.
- Thirunavukkarasu, supra, footnote 3,
at 596-599.
- Ranganathan, supra, footnote 10, at
8.
- Moya, Jaime Olvera v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,no.
IMM-5436-01), Beaudry, November 6, 2002.
- Hasnain, Khalid v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-962-92), McKeown, December 14,
1995. There is some debate as to how specific the notice of the region
being considered as an IFA
must be: in Rabbani, Sayed Moheyudee v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-236-96), Noël,
January 16, 1997, the Court said that the CRDD
must identify a specific geographic location; but in Singh, Ranjit
v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-605-92), Reed, July 23,
1996, the Court rejected the claimant's argument that the CRDD
should identify a place within the country as an IFA,
especially in a country as large as India. Vidal, Daniel Fernando
v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-644-92), Gibson, May 15,
1997 no notice was given at outset of hearing, but counsel presented
evidence on IFA.Court
found no prejudice suffered by the claimant as a result of the failure
to give notice.
- Chauhdry, Mukhtar Ahmed v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3951-97), Wetston,
August 17, 1998.
- Selvakumaran, Sivachelam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5103-01), Mckeown,
May 31, 2002.
- Rabbani, supra, f ootnote 14, page 8-3;
and Singh, Ranjit, supra, footnote 14, page 8-3.Similarly,
in Gosal, Pardeep Singh v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2316-97), Reed, March 11,
1998, the Court found that one need not identify a specific location
within the country for an IFA
analysis. Rabbani was distinguished on its facts as in that
case the country concerned was Afghanistan and control over areas considered
safe tended to shift. However, in Ahmed, Ishtiaq v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2931-99), Hansen,
March 29, 2000, the court found the CRDD
had erred in considering Islamabad and Karachi as possible IFAs when
the claimant only had notice that Lahore was being considered as a possible
IFA.
- Dubravac, Petar v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-839-94), Rothstein,
February 1, 1995.Reported: Dubravac v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 55 (F.C.T.D.).,
where the claimant's hometown had been surrounded by opposing Serbian
forces, the Court commented that they "would not be required to go from
their hometown to the safe zone of Croatia, but
from wherever
they were relanded upon being sent back."
- See for example: Abubakar, Fahmey Abdalla
Ali v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-572-92), Wetston, September 9,
1993, at 3-5; Pathmakanthan, Indradevi v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2367-93), Denault,
November 2, 1993.Reported: Pathmakanthan v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 23 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 76 (F.C.T.D.),
at 79-80; Kaler, Minder Singh v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-794-93), Cullen,
February 3, 1994, at 9; Dhillon, Harbhagwant Singh v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3256-93), Rouleau,
March 17, 1994, at 3; Jeyachandran, Senthan v.
S.G.C. (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-799-94), McKeown,
March 30, 1995; Ratnam, Selvanayagam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1881-94), Richard,
March 31, 1995.
- Kahlon, Hari Singh v.
S.G.C (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-532-93), Gibson,
August 5, 1993.Reported: Kahlon v.
Canada (Solicitor General), (1993), 24 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 219 (F.C.T.D.),
at 222-224; Manoharan, Vanajah v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-1156-92), Rouleau,
December 6, 1993, at 7-8; Naguleswaran, Pathmasilosini (Naguleswaran)
v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1116-94), Muldoon,
April 19, 1995, at 6 (however, caution is suggested concerning
interpretation of the phrase, "
solid proof of personal persecution
(either individually or collectively)
" given case law indicating
there is no need for past persecution, individually or collectively,
e.g. see Salibian v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C.
250 (C.A.)).
- See for example Ali, Chaudhary Liaqat v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-1461-92), Noël,
January 20, 1994, at 5-6.
- Ahmed, Ali v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-89-92), Marceau, Desjardins,
Décary, July 14, 1993.Reported: Ahmed v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 156 N.R.
221 (F.C.A.),
at 223-224.See also for example: M.E.I.
v. Sharbdeen, Mohammed Faroudeen
(F.C.A.,
no. A-488-93), Mahoney, MacGuigan,
Linden, March 21, 1994.Reported: Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) v.
Sharbdeen (1994), 23 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.A.)
(although this issue appears to be considered under reasonableness);
Nadarajah, Sivasothy Nathan v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4215-93), Simpson,
July 26, 1994; Randhawa, Faheem Anwar v.
S.G.C. (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5621-93), Rouleau,
August 12, 1994; Zetino, Rudys Francisco Mendoza v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6173-93), Cullen,
October 13, 1994.Reported: Zetino v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 25 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 300 (F.C.T.D.)
(although this issue may be considered under reasonableness); See also
Khan, Naqui Mohd v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4127-01), Rothstein,
July26, 2002, where the court found that the localized nature of the
claimants activities and the region's legal system supported the panel's
finding of an IFA
outside of that region.
- Saini, Makhan Singh v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-750-91), Mahoney, Stone,
Linden, March 22, 1993.Reported: Saini v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 151 N.R.
239 (F.C.A.),
leave to appeal to the S.C.C.
denied: Saini v. M.E.I.
(S.C.C.,
no. 23619), Lamer, McLachlin,
Major), August 12, 1993.Reported: Saini v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 158 N.R.
300 (S.C.).
See also for example: Sidhu, Jadgish Singh v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 92-A-6540), Muldoon,
May 31, 1993; Badesha, Jagir Singh v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-1544-92), Wetston,
January 19, 1994.Reported: Badesha v.
Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 23 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 190 (F.C.T.D.);
Uppal, Jatinder Singh v. S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-17-93), Wetston, January 19,
1994, affirmed: Uppal, Jatinder Singh v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-42-94), Isaac, Hugessen,
Décary, November 1, 1994; Kaler, supra,
footnote 19, at 9; Karthikesu, Cumariah v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2998-93), Strayer,
May 26, 1994; Guraya, Balihar Singh v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4058-93), Pinard,
July 8, 1994; Balasubramaniam, Veergathy v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1902-93), McKeown,
October 4, 1994; Dhillon, Inderjit Kaur v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2652-94), McKeown,
February 1, 1995.
Saini has been distinguished in Singh, Sucha v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 93-A-91), Dubé,
June 23, 1993, where the Court held that the CRDD's
conclusion that an IFA
existed because there was not a nation-wide campaign against the claimant's
ethnic group did not satisfy the criteria for finding an IFA
as established in Rasaratnam , supra, footnote 1.
- See for example: Sabaratnam, Thavakaran v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.A.,
no. A-536-90), Mahoney, Stone,
Robertson, October 2, 1992; Fernando, Joseph Stanley v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 92-A-6986), McKeown,
May 19, 1993, at 1; Pathmakanthan , supra, footnote
19, at 4; Sundralingam, Chandrakala v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6218-93), Cullen,
September 20, 1994, at 6-7; Kachine, Serguei v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1144-94), Noël,
February 7, 1995.
- Kulanthavelu, Gnanasegaram v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-57-93), Gibson, December 3,
1993 , at 5-6.
- Karthikesu, supra, footnote
23; Balasubramaniam, supra, footnote 23.
- Reynoso, Edith Isabel Guardian v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2110-94), Muldoon,
January 29, 1996 ; Sanno, Aminata v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2124-95), Tremblay-Lamer,
April 25, 1996.
- In Gomez, Mario Alonso Martinez v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5501-97), Teitelbaum,
December 11, 1998, the CRDD
found that the claimant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Puerto
Vallarta because of the illegal actions of the police in brutalizing
him, rather than because of his membership in a particular social group
as a result of his homosexuality. In allowing the application for judicial
review, the Court highlighted the fact that, in determining the availability
of an IFA,
the tribunal must first link the claimant's claim to one of the enumerated
grounds in the definition of a Convention refugee.
- Sharbdeen, supra, footnote
22, at 301-2.
- Ranganathan v.
Canada [1999] 4 F.C.
269, Evans, May 21, 1999.
- See for example: Thirunavukkarasu, supra,
footnote 3, at 597; Rasaratnam, supra, footnote 1,
at 711; Fernando, supra, footnote 24, at 1; Abubakar,
supra, footnote 19, at 4-5; Megag, Sahra Abdilahi v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-822-92), Rothstein,
December 10, 1993, at 3; Chkiaou, Dimitri v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no.IMM-266-94), Cullen, March 7,
1995, and Sanno, supra, footnote 27, at 5-8. In Yoganathan,
Kandasamy v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3588-97), Gibson,
April 20, 1998, the Court noted that, in assessing the reasonableness
of the IFA,
the CRDD
must look at the personal circumstances of the claimant and it is insufficient
to simply assess whether the claimant fits the "most at risk profile."
- See for example: Singh, Sucha, supra,
footnote 23; Kahlon; supra, footnote 1 ; Dhaliwal,
Jasbir Singh v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 93-A-364), MacKay, August 9,
1993; Singh, Swarn v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-1409-92), Rothstein,
May 4, 1994. Thevasagayam, Ebenezer Thevaraj v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-252-97), Tremblay-Lamer,
October 23, 1997, evidence of past dentention and torture of claimant
in relation to a Colombo bombing casts doubt on reasonableness of IFA;
Premanathan, Gopalasamy v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4423-96), Simpson,
August 29, 1997 , random roundups and routine reporting requirements
do not make IFA
unreasonable; Kaillyapillai, Srivasan v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1263-96), Richard,
February 27, 1997, where Court found no IFA
in Colombo for a claimant who had been arrested, beaten and released
and told to leave Colombo.
- See for example: Keerthaponrajah, Alfred
v. M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 92-A-7282), Noël,
June 23, 1993, at 3; Suthanthirarajah, Ratnam v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 92-A-6902), Noël,
June 22, 1993.Reported: Suthanthirarajah v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 20 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 269 (F.C.T.D.);
Geelle, Abdirisak Duale v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-918-92), Rouleau, July 30,
1993.Reported: Geelle v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 21 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 36 (F.C.T.D.);
Ibrahim, Ahmed Mohamed v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-884-92), Jerome, March 8,
1994; Isa, Sharmarka Ahmed v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1760-94), Reed, February 16,
1995.Reported: Isa v.
Canada (Secretary of State) (1995), 28 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 68 (F.C.T.D.).,
at 5-6. Ganeshan, Annam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1440-96), MacKay,
February 21, 1997, it was appropriate for panel to consider social
services available and existence of NGOs that support women.
- Ranganathan, supra, footnote
10.More than the mere absence of relatives is needed in order to make
an IFA
unreasonable.
- The absence of family in an IFA
is relevant to determining the unreasonableness of requiring a child
to live there. Elmi, Mahamud Hussein v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-580-98), McKeown,
March 12, 1999. Similarly, in Hassan, Liban v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3634-98), Campbell,
April 14, 1999, the Court found that in the case of a minor, an IFA
cannot be reasonable unless proper settlement arrangements are made.
- Ibid, at 7
- Farrah, Sahra Said v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. A-694-92), Reed, October 5,
1993, at 3.Regarding stability, see also Tawfik, Taha Mohammed v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. 93-A-311), MacKay, August 23,
1993.Reported: Tawfik v.
Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 26 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 148 (F.C.T.D.).
- Megag, supra, footnote 31,
at 3.
- Rumb, Serge v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1481-98), Reed, February
12, 1999.
- Mimica, Milanka v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3014-95), Rothstein,
June 19, 1996, the claimant could only find accommodation in the
IFA
if current residents were expelled because of their ethnicity.
- In Hashmat, Suhil v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2331-96), Teitelbaum,
May 9, 1997, the claimant could only access the IFA
in northern Afghanistan by going through the neighbouring state of Uzbekistan. The
Court found it unreasonable for the panel to conclude, without any evidence,
that the claimant would be allowed to cross the border. The Court also
noted that the Immigration Act would not allow removal to a
country that is not the claimant's country of birth, nationality or
former residence. See also Dirshe, Safi Mohamud (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2124-96), Cullen,
July 2, 1997, where the Court noted that a real possibility of
rape while trying to get to the IFA
makes it an unreasonable option. In fact, in Hashmat, supra,
footnote 41 the Court found there to be undue hardship in reaching the
IFA
because the claimant's wife and child, who were not claimants, would
have to travel with him to reach the IFA
and there was evidence of widespread rape of women and children making
that journey.
- Alvapillai, Ramasethu v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4226-97), Rothstein,
August 14, 1998.
- Gabriel, Joseph Gnanpragasam v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3776-93), Wetston,
May 25, 1994 ; Krishnapillai, Arumugam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5724-93), Reed,
December 2, 1994; Sahota, Amrik Singh v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3313-93), McKeown,
June 3, 1994, the young age of the claimant was held to be a factor
with respect to which the Convention on the Rights of the Child ought
to be considered. See also Osman, Yassin Yussuf v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1667-96), Campbell,
April 9, 1997, where young age (17) of claimant should have been
considered in assessing reasonableness of IFA
where he had no close family; Nithiananathan, Krishnapillai v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-36-97), Muldoon,
October 21, 1997, repeated bribery demands to get out
of detention may make IFA
unduly harsh for an elderly claimant living alone.
- Aramburo, Juan Carlos v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6782-93), Cullen,
December 7, 1994.
- Soltan, Alexander v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6135-00), Blais,
January 28, 2002, a claimant's concern about the possibility of finding
work in the region of the IFA
is not a valid objection. See also Aumbhagavan, Sivasubramaniam
v. S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3619-93), Cullen,
June 6, 1994; Kandiah, Nagamma v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3100-93), McKeown,
September 1, 1994; Thanabalasingam, Jeyanthini v.
S.S.C.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-206-94), Rothstein,
October 17, 1994.
- Javed, Mohammad v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-446-94), Reed, July 20,
1994; Pathmanathan, Ponnampalam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-233-94), McGillis,
November 17, 1994.
- Malik, Mohammed Azim v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-58-93), McKeown,
June 6, 1994.
- Vyramuthu, Sanmugarajah v.
S.G.C. (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6277-93), Rouleau,
January 26, 1995, one of the family members was found not to have
an IFA;
Nadesalingam, Mahalingam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5711-93), Muldoon,
December 13, 1994, a family with young children is more vulnerable
in seeking an IFA.
- Rasathurai, Sinnadurai v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-4556-93, Denault,
November 25, 1994; Krishnapillai, Arumugam v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-5724-93, Reed, December 2,
1994; Hazime, Bassam Mohamed v.
M.E.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-7223-93), McKeown,
December 20, 1994. Krishnakumar, Nalini v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-1527-96), Joyal,
July 7, 1997, a young mother with two children and a history of
brief detentions and releases was held to have an IFA
in Colombo.
- Sivalingham, Tharini v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-3440-93), MacKay,
October 20, 1994; Ayad, Larbi v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-2820-95), Tremblay-Lamer,
April 26, 1996.
- Hasnain, supra, footnote 14;
Somasundaram, Sivapackieswary v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6030-93), Cullen,
September 21, 1994, the Court appears to consider under reasonableness
such factors as extortion, threats, flight of all family members, concern
regarding the police (although these issues are traditionally considered
as going to persecution).
- Capitansabapathy, Saraswathy v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-973-94), Wetston,
December 2, 1994.
- Chkiaou, supra, footnote 31.
- Periyathamby, Thangamma v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-6846-93), Rouleau,
January 6, 1995.Reported: Periyathamby v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 26 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 179 (F.C.T.D.).
- See for example: Somasundaram, Pathmananathan
v. M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-432-95), MacKay,
September 7, 1995, at 4.
- Singh, Gurmeet, supra, footnote
7, at 5. Taher, Javaid v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-265-98), Rothstein,
November 25, 1998, Cepeda-Guitierrez, Carlos Arturo v.
M.C.I.
(F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-596-98), Evans, October
6, 1998; Brar, Jagjit Singh (F.C.T.D.,
no. IMM-213-98), Rothstein,
January 11, 1999.
|