CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Status in Canada |
Convention Refugees |
Sabirova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-3748-00
2001 FCT 367, Nadon J.
20/4/01
5 pp.
Judicial review of Board's decision applicants not Convention refugees--Applicants, citizens of Kirghizistan, alleging well-founded fear of persecution by reason of imputed political opinions, membership in particular social group i.e. Uygurs--In 1998 applicant spoke in public against view advocated by three men that armed force required to liberate Uygurs in Turkestan, China--Those three men later arrested, extradited to China, executed--Mr. Sabirov suspected of being police informer--Evidence that families of three men seeking revenge, state could not protect applicants--Board holding Mr. Sabirov's political opinion one of denouncing internal policies of China--That opinion unrelated to persecution resulting from suspicion Mr. Sabirov informer--Question whether acts of violence against Mr. Sabirov's son, resulting from suspicion Mr. Sabirov informer, constituting persecution on Convention refugee grounds--Board not addressing this question, which ought to have been addressed--Board of view that because opinion not concerning his country, i.e. opinion in respect of China, alleged persecution not within Convention grounds--Board confused with respect to nexus required between alleged persecution, grounds upon which Convention protection may be given--Claimant must show well-founded fear of persecution, fear based on one of grounds prescribed by Convention--Because of view "acts of violence" resulted from desire for revenge, Board concluding acts not constituting persecution--Specific reason for "acts of violence" not relevant--Whether acts of revenge amounting to persecution and, if so, whether can be linked to Convention ground what matters--Board erred in finding applicants' country could adequately protect them--Evidence led by applicants that police had no intention of protecting them--Information given to applicants by lawyer retained by them--As Board made no adverse finding regarding applicants' credibility, had to assess state protection in light of evidence before it--Did not do so--Application allowed.