Category: Persecution

The Court set aside a decision that the applicant was not at risk in China due to her activity with the Falun Gan. The Court found that the finding the Applicant could practise her religion was unreasonable.

The Court set out the test for sur place claims: 27 A refugee sur place is defined in the literature: The Convention refugee definition does not distinguish between persons who flee their country in order to avoid the prospect of persecution and those who, while already abroad, determine that they cannot or will not return by reason of the risk of persecution in their state of nationality or origin... In addition to claims grounded in either new circumstances or a dramatic intensification of pre-existing conditions in the country of origin, a sur place claim to refugee status may also be based on the activities of the refugee claimant since leaving her country. International law recognizes that if while abroad an individual expresses views or engages in activities which jeopardize the possibility of safe return to her state, she may be considered a Convention refugee. The key issues are whether the activities abroad are likely to have come to the attention of the authorities in the claimant's country of origin.... (The Law of Refugee Status, James Hathaway, Butterworths, 1991.) 28 The standard to be applied by the Board in assessing sur place claims has been stated by the Federal Court, in Ejtehadian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 158, [2007] F.C.J. No. 214 (QL). Justice Edmond Blanchard held: [11] The IRB's articulation of the test in a sur-place claim is incorrect. In a refugee sur-place claim, credible evidence of a claimant's activities while in Canada that are likely to substantiate any potential harm upon return must be expressly considered by the IRB even if the motivation behind the activities is non-genuine:

The Court set aside a PRRA decision. The court discusses the concept of conscientious objection and also holds that being sent to a country where there is a risk of imprisonment in inhumane conditions can be a ground for risk under section 97.

The court set aside a refusal of a claim for refugee status. The applicant a lesbian had alleged she would suffer persecution as a soldier due to her sexual orientation. The Court set aside the decision holding the tribunal erred in its assessment of the expert evidence; in the manner in which it dealt with the issue of prosecution vs persecution and in the manner in which the tribunal took judicil notice.

The Court set aside a decision rejecting a claim for refugee protection holding the tribunal failed to consider whether or not the person was at risk due to her religion:The Panel does not appear to have made a finding as to the Applicant’s Christian practices in China or as to her Christian convictions in Canada. The Panel does not appear to have carried out an analysis regarding these matters or made findings as to the whether the Applicant might encounter religious persecution if sent back to China.

The Court found that when assessing state protection the fact that the applicant would be required to give up a business was not sufficient to find no state protection unless there was evidence he could not earn a living otherwise.

The Court held that the risk that a persons conversion to Christianity might come to the attention of the authorities was sufficient to warrant a positive determination on a claim for refugee protection.