Federal court | Immigration
PERSON IN NEED OF PROTECTION
Board focused its attention on matters that were immaterial and irrelevant
Application for judicial review decision of board determining that applicant was neither Convention Refugee nor person in need of protection under ss. 96 and 97 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.). Applicant was citizen of St. Lucia. Applicant claimed that she feared her ex-boyfriend. Board refused applicant’s claim on basis that she lacked credibility. Application granted. Matter was referred back to board for reconsideration before different member. Board’s decision fell outside scope or range of legally permissible outcomes given facts and law and was unreasonable. Notwithstanding concerns about applicant’s credibility, decision failed to substantively analyze claim. Instead of focusing on factual issues that were material to claim for protection, board focused its attention on matters that were immaterial and irrelevant to claim for protection. Board undertook no analysis of principle basis of claim of risk. Board’s determination that applicant lacked credibility was vague and imprecise. Board placed unreasonable emphasis on applicant’s travel documents.
Cooper v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Jan. 31, 2012, F.C., Rennie J., File No. IMM-3840-11) 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1011 (10 pp.).
Board focused its attention on matters that were immaterial and irrelevant
Application for judicial review decision of board determining that applicant was neither Convention Refugee nor person in need of protection under ss. 96 and 97 of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Can.). Applicant was citizen of St. Lucia. Applicant claimed that she feared her ex-boyfriend. Board refused applicant’s claim on basis that she lacked credibility. Application granted. Matter was referred back to board for reconsideration before different member. Board’s decision fell outside scope or range of legally permissible outcomes given facts and law and was unreasonable. Notwithstanding concerns about applicant’s credibility, decision failed to substantively analyze claim. Instead of focusing on factual issues that were material to claim for protection, board focused its attention on matters that were immaterial and irrelevant to claim for protection. Board undertook no analysis of principle basis of claim of risk. Board’s determination that applicant lacked credibility was vague and imprecise. Board placed unreasonable emphasis on applicant’s travel documents.
Cooper v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Jan. 31, 2012, F.C., Rennie J., File No. IMM-3840-11) 212 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1011 (10 pp.).
