Docket: IMM-1687-15
Citation:
2015 FC 1154
Vancouver, British Columbia, October 8, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
Applicant
|
And
|
NISREEN AHAMED
MOHAMED NILAM
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
seeks judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the
Immigration and Refugee Board dismissing the Minister’s application for the
cessation of Nisreen Ahamed Mohamed Nilam’s refugee status. The Board rejected
the Minister’s application on the basis that it had not been shown that Mr. Nilam
had voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of his country of
nationality.
[2]
I have concluded that the Board’s findings with
respect to the circumstances relating to Mr. Nilam’s trips to Sri Lanka did
not constitute re-availment of that country’s protection were made without
regard to the evidence. As a result, the Minister’s application for judicial
review will be granted.
I.
Background
[3]
Mr. Nilam is a Muslim citizen of Sri Lanka
who was granted refugee protection in Canada in 2009 based upon his alleged
fear of persecution at the hands of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. He
became a permanent resident of Canada on January 24, 2011.
[4]
In July of 2011, Mr. Nilam renewed his Sri
Lankan passport. Mr. Nilam had previously advised Canadian immigration
officials that the purpose of his upcoming trip to Sri Lanka was to get married
and to visit his mother. However, he testified before the Board that he decided
to return to Sri Lanka because he wanted to visit his mother in Sri Lanka, who
he believed was near death, and his counsel had told him that he could not
obtain a Canadian travel document in order to do so.
[5]
Mr. Nilam travelled to Sri Lanka on August
5, 2011. He says that once he got there, his parents arranged for him to marry
because his mother was anxious to see her son married before she died. Mr. Nilam
met his future wife on September 7, 2011, and the couple was set to marry a few
weeks later. The wedding was delayed, however, because Mr. Nilam’s future
father-in-law was in a serious accident which left him in a coma.
[6]
The wedding ceremony ultimately occurred on
November 10, 2011 and was attended by some 300 people. However, the wedding
reception - an essential component of a Muslim wedding - did not happen because
of his wife’s family’s reluctance to proceed with the reception while his
wife’s father was still seriously ill.
[7]
During the course of his trip to Sri Lanka, Mr. Nilam
travelled to India on his Sri Lankan passport to undergo a hair transplant. He
also attended medical appointments in Sri Lanka to receive treatment for a
pre-existing knee injury. Mr. Nilam returned to Canada on December 2, 2011.
[8]
Mr. Nilam had planned to return to Sri
Lanka for the wedding reception in July of 2012, but the reception was
postponed because of his wife’s father’s death on July 15, 2012. Mr. Nilam
returned to Sri Lanka on December 5, 2012, once again travelling on his Sri
Lankan passport. The wedding reception was held a week later and was attended
by approximately 200 people.
[9]
Mr. Nilam testified that he had only intended
to stay in Sri Lanka for 10 days, but that his mother-in-law asked him to stay
longer because his wife was suffering from depression after the loss of her
father. Mr. Nilam’s return to Canada was further delayed when his wife’s
depression worsened as a result of a miscarriage and her subsequent surgery.
[10]
During his second trip to Sri Lanka, Mr. Nilam
attended at several medical clinics for treatment of his knee injury. He also
applied for and received a “Schengen” visa from
the Swiss Embassy in Colombo before returning to Canada on May 1, 2013.
[11]
In 2014, Mr. Nilam used his Sri Lankan
passport to travel to Australia and Malaysia, once again submitting himself to
the diplomatic protection of Sri Lanka.
[12]
By Notice dated September 25, 2013, the Minister
of Public Safety advised Mr. Nilam that he had commenced cessation
proceedings before the Refugee Protection Division. The grounds cited for the
Minister’s application were that Mr. Nilam had voluntarily re-availed
himself of the protection of his country of nationality.
II.
The Board’s Decision
[13]
The Board began by noting that paragraph
108(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.
27, provides that a person shall cease to be a refugee where that person has
voluntarily re-availed themselves of the protection of their country of
nationality. After reviewing the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for
Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol
relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/1P/4/Eng/REV.1, Geneva, January
1992 (Refugee Handbook), the Board observed that the cessation
provisions of the Refugee Convention established three criteria to be
used in determining whether cessation had occurred.
[14]
These are:
1.
Voluntariness: The refugee must have acted
voluntarily;
2.
Intention: The refugee must have intended by his
or her actions to re-avail him or herself of the protection of the country of
nationality; and
3.
Re-availment: The refugee must actually obtain
state protection.
[15]
The Board observed that applications for
cessation are to be judged on their own facts. It further noted that where a
refugee obtains or renews a passport from his or her country of nationality, it
will be presumed that the refugee intends to re-avail themselves of the state’s
protection. This presumption may, however, be rebutted by the refugee with
evidence to the contrary.
[16]
The Board reviewed some of the evidence that had
been presented and found, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Nilam
had rebutted the presumption of voluntary re-availment. In coming to this
conclusion, the Board found Mr. Nilam to be a credible witness and
accepted his testimony without reservation, noting that Mr. Nilam’s
testimony was supported by documentary evidence.
[17]
In finding that Mr. Nilam had rebutted the
presumption that he had re-availed himself of Sri Lanka’s protection as a
result of his renewal of his Sri Lankan passport, the Board found that Mr. Nilam’s
actions were not voluntary, but were constrained by circumstances outside his
control. Insofar as his first trip was concerned, this was the poor health of
his mother, while Mr. Nilam’s second trip was necessary to fulfill the
cultural and religious requirements necessary to complete the formalities
associated with his marriage.
[18]
The Board further found that Mr. Nilam did
not intend by his actions to re-avail himself of Sri Lanka’s protection, as he
did not intend to seek the state’s protection during his visits. In addition,
the Board found that Mr. Nilam did not actually re-avail himself of Sri
Lanka’s protection. In coming to this conclusion, the Board rejected the
Minister’s argument that Mr. Nilam did not keep a low profile while he was
in Sri Lanka. Rather, the Board found that Mr. Nilam had attempted to
mitigate his risk of persecution during his time in Sri Lanka by confining
himself mostly to his family’s home, avoiding contact with neighbours and
government officials, and utilizing smaller health clinics rather than
hospitals.
[19]
In light of these findings, the Board concluded
that the Minister had failed to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 108(1)(a)
of IRPA and dismissed the application for the cessation of Mr. Nilam’s
refugee status.
III.
The Issue
[20]
The parties agree that the only issue for
determination is whether the Board erred in finding on the facts of this case
that Mr. Nilam did not act voluntarily or intentionally in
re-availing himself of the protection of Sri Lanka and that he had not
actually re-availed himself of that protection.
[21]
The Minister does not take issue with the legal
principles applied by the Board. What the Minister takes issue with is the
Board’s evaluation of the evidence and its determination that the Minister had
not demonstrated that Mr. Nilam had in fact re-availed himself of the
protection of Sri Lanka. The parties agree that the Board’s findings on these
questions are to be reviewed against the standard of reasonableness.
IV.
Analysis
[22]
Article 1C of the Refugee Convention
provides that an individual may lose his or her refugee protection where that
individual’s actions indicate that they no longer have a well‑founded
fear of persecution in their country of nationality, or that the surrogate
protection of another country is no longer required.
[23]
This principle is reflected in paragraph
108(1)(a) of IRPA, which provides that:
108. (1) A claim for refugee protection shall be rejected, and a
person is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, in any
of the following circumstances:
|
108. (1) Est rejetée la demande d’asile et le demandeur
n’a pas qualité de réfugié ou de personne à protéger dans tel des cas
suivants:
|
(a)
the person has voluntarily re-availed themself of the protection of their
country of nationality;
|
a) il se réclame de nouveau et
volontairement de la protection du pays dont il a la nationalité;
|
[24]
Section 108 of IRPA further provides
that, on application brought by the Minister, the RPD may determine that
refugee protection has ceased because of the individual’s re-availment of the
protection of their country of nationality. In such cases, the refugee claim of
the person will be deemed to have been rejected.
[25]
If a refugee applies for and obtains a passport
from his or her country of nationality, it will be presumed that the individual
intends to re-avail him- or herself of the diplomatic protection of that
country: Refugee Handbook, at para. 121. This presumption is
particularly strong where the individual actually uses the passport to travel
to his or her country of nationality. Indeed, some have gone so far as to
suggest that it is conclusive: Guy Goodwin-Gill and Jane McAdam, The
Refugee in International Law, 3rd ed., at p. 136.
[26]
The prevailing view is, however, that the presumption
of re-availment may be rebutted with evidence to the contrary: Refugee
Handbook, at para. 122. That said, it will only be in “exceptional circumstances” that travel by a refugee
to his or her country of nationality on a passport issued by that country will
not constitute termination of his or her refugee status: Refugee Handbook,
at para. 124. The onus is on the refugee to adduce sufficient evidence to rebut
the presumption of re-availment: Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2015 FC 459 at para. 42, [2015] F.C.J. No. 448.
[27]
In this case, Mr. Nilam used his Sri Lankan
passport to enter and leave Sri Lanka on several occasions. I note that Mr. Nilam
gave inconsistent evidence with respect to the purpose of the first trip,
claiming at one point that the trip was for the purpose of getting married and
visiting his mother, and later claiming that it was because of his mother’s
illness. In contrast, Mr. Nilam’s wife referred to one of his trips as
being Mr. Nilam’s “vacation period”. These
inconsistencies were never addressed by the Board.
[28]
Mr. Nilam has pointed to paragraph 125 of the Refugee
Handbook as support for his claim that visiting a sick relative has been
recognized internationally as an “exceptional
circumstance” that can rebut the presumption of re-availment. It is,
however, important to note that the comment made in paragraph 125 of the Refugee
Handbook relates to an individual who travels to his or her country of
nationality on a travel document issued by his or her country of refuge. That
is not the case here: Mr. Nilam admittedly traveled to Sri Lanka on a Sri
Lankan passport, thus submitting himself to the diplomatic protection of the
Sri Lankan government.
[29]
Even if Mr. Nilam subjectively felt it
necessary to return to Sri Lanka on the first occasion because of his mother’s
illness, and on the second to complete the formalities of his marriage, the
Board’s finding that Mr. Nilam did not intend by his actions to re-avail
himself of Sri Lanka’s protection was not reasonable.
[30]
A central issue in a cessation case is whether
the refugee continues to have a subjective fear of persecution in his or her
country of nationality, and thereby continues to require the surrogate
protection refugee status provides. There was a great deal of evidence before
the Board that suggested that Mr. Nilam lived openly while he was Sri Lanka in
a manner that belied any subjective fear on his part. In other words, there was
evidence before the Board that Mr. Nilam’s conduct suggested that he believed that
the state of Sri Lanka could protect him as he went about his day-to-day life.
The Board failed to really come to grips with this evidence.
[31]
In particular, the Board’s finding that Mr. Nilam
had attempted to mitigate his risk of persecution during his time in Sri Lanka
by confining himself mostly to his family’s home, avoiding contact with
neighbours and government officials, and utilizing smaller health clinics
rather than hospitals was made without regard to the evidence that was before
the Board and was thus unreasonable.
[32]
For example, the Board accepted Mr. Nilam’s
evidence that he mitigated his risk in Sri Lanka by avoiding government
officials. Yet according to Mr. Nilam’s own evidence, he used his Sri
Lankan passport to enter Sri Lanka from Canada and to return to Canada on two
separate occasions. This would have required him to pass through Sri Lankan
airports and to submit himself to airport security and passport control.
[33]
Moreover, during his first trip to Sri Lanka, Mr. Nilam
also used his Sri Lankan passport to travel to India from Sri Lanka for the
purposes of obtaining a hair transplant – something that could hardly have been
considered to have been compelling under any definition of the term. To do
this, Mr. Nilam would have once again have had to travel through a Sri
Lankan airport or ferry terminal, coming into contact with both the general
public and government officials.
[34]
Mr. Nilam’s trips to Sri Lanka were also
neither brief nor clandestine. He was there for a total of nine months. Contrary
to the Board’s finding that Mr. Nilam had attempted to mitigate his risk
during his time in Sri Lanka by confining himself mostly to his family’s home, Mr. Nilam’s
own evidence was that he and his fiancée ate in restaurants, went to the beach
and to a movie, and went shopping together. He also traveled to Colombo so that
he could apply for a “Schengen” visa at the
Swiss Embassy.
[35]
Mr. Nilam also testified that he attended
wedding events that were attended by hundreds of individuals, raising questions
about his claim to have mitigated his risk by avoiding contact with neighbours
and others. Mr. Nilam also attended appointments at medical clinics to
attend to a non-life threatening injury, and conducted business affairs,
meeting with a notary to deal with the transfer of his business interests.
[36]
All of this evidence raised concerns as to
whether Mr. Nilam had an ongoing fear of persecution in Sri Lanka and all
of it suggested that Mr. Nilam was entrusting the defence of his interests
to the state of Sri Lanka. This evidence is thus central to the question of
whether Mr. Nilam had re-availed himself of the protection of Sri Lanka,
and all of it arguably undermines the Board’s finding on this point. The
Board’s failure to come to grips with any of this evidence renders its decision
unreasonable: Cepeda Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35 at paras. 14-17, [1998] F.C.J. No.
1425.
V.
Conclusion
[37]
For these reasons, the application for judicial
review is granted. I agree with the parties that the case is fact-specific, and
does not raise a question for certification.