[2012] 1 F.C.R. D-1
Citizenship and Immigration
Exclusion and Removal
Inadmissible Persons
Judicial review of decision by Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Division (Board) concluding that applicant inadmissible to Canada for membership in terrorist organization pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), s. 34(1)(f), complicity in crimes against humanity pursuant to IRPA, 35(1)(a)—Applicant, citizen of Eritrea, joining Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (Front) in non-combat role—Applicant defecting to Canada after criticizing Front, now official government of Eritrea—Applicant arguing that Irpa, s. 34 should be interpreted in manner congruent with IRPA, s. 35, under which membership simpliciter insufficient to show complicity unless organization in question dedicated to limited brutal purpose—Nothing in language of IRPA, s. 34(1) contemplating complicity analysis in s. 34 inadmissibility case—Parliament not intending for ss. 34, 35 to be interpreted in same way—Board’s finding applicant inadmissible under IRPA, s. 34(1)(f) reasonable—As to IRPA, s. 35(1)(a), Board not erring in finding that Front committing crimes against humanity—Because Board satisfied that Front not organization principally directed to limited, brutal purpose, Board having to examine nature, scope of applicant’s involvement with Front in order to determine complicity—Complicity resting on existence of shared common purpose, knowledge thereof by all parties—Mere membership in organization involved in international offences not sufficient basis for finding of inadmissibility, unless organization principally directed to limited, brutal purpose—Question for Board not whether applicant completely unaware of Front activities in liberation struggle, but whether applicant aware of actions of Front relating to crimes against humanity—Board concluding that because applicant supporting goal of Eritrean liberation, endorsing use of force if necessary, applicant therefore complicit in crimes—Board’s failure to address proper question resulting in its complicity finding being unreasonable—Application allowed.
Hagos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-771-11, 2011 FC 1214, Mactavish J., judgment dated October 24, 2011, 28 pp.)