Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

[2012] 4 F.C.R. D-2

CitIZENSHIP AND Immigration

Status in Canada

Convention Refugees and Persons in Need of Protection

Judicial review of immigration officer’s decision finding applicant’s refugee claim previously declared ineligible within meaning of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), s. 101(1)(b)—In 1995, when applicant 11 years old, applicant’s father filing refugee claim in Canada—Applicant, applicant’s mother, two brothers included in claim as accompanying family members—Refugee Protection Division of Immigration and Refugee Board rejecting said claim in 1997—In 2011, applicant arriving in Canada accompanied by spouse—Applicant, spouse filing claim for refugee protection—Applicant’s refugee claim deemed ineligible on ground previous claim filed by applicant in 1995, claim refused—Whether respondent erring in interpreting IRPA, s. 101(1)(b)—IRPA, s. 101(1)(b) not distinguishing between whether refugee claim based on same facts resulting in previous rejection or different facts—Applicants prohibited from filing more than one claim, even if facts alleged in support of second claim different from facts relied upon in making first claim—Whether same rationale applying, however, when refugee claimant not person whose first claim rejected but rather son or daughter of person whose claim previously rejected—In light of parliamentary debates surrounding passing of IRPA, s. 101(1)(b) thereof undoubtedly seeking to end abusive claims, abuses relating to possibility of making more than one refugee claim—Applicant’s situation obviously not at all representative, at least at first glance, of type of abuse Parliament attempting to eradicate through s. 101(1)(b)—Immigration officer erring in determining applicant’s refugee claim ineligible simply because applicant’s father’s refugee claim including applicant rejected in 1997—Serious question of general importance certified—Application allowed.

Tobar Toledo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-6395-11, 2012 FC 764, de Montigny J., judgment dated June 15, 2012, 14 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.