CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Exclusion and Removal
Removal of Permanent Residents
Judicial review of Minister’s delegate’s decision applicant danger to public in Canada under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 115(2)(a)—Also determining danger applicant posing in Canada outweighing risks of torture applicant facing if returned to country of nationality— Applicant, Sri Lankan, becoming permanent resident after being recognized as Convention refugee—Deportation order issued due to previous criminal conviction—Arrested, detained on grounds danger to public and flight risk— Applicant detained until found at 2002, 2003 detention reviews not to be danger to public on ground police evidence deemed not credible, trustworthy—Minister unsuccessfully challenging those decisions regarding applicant’s release—On appeal from deportation order before Immigration Appeal Division, applicant admitting to lying at detention reviews— Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) preparing ministerial opinion report to substantiate allegation applicant danger to public—Minister’s delegate’s decision based on applicant’s prior criminal convictions, alleged involvement in terrorist group, Velvetiturai (VVT) (Tamil criminal gang alleged to support Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)— Minister must establish applicant is danger to public to maintain detention—Supreme Court of Canada (Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3) establishing that whether substantial risk of torture to person who is danger to public if deported is threshold question to be determined by evidence, consideration of appropriate factors—Fatal flaw in risk analysis made by Minister’s delegate in that not considering specific circum-stances of applicant’s situation, particular risk arising from fact alleged to be leader of VVT—Deriving factual foundation applicant member of VVT and therefore danger to public in Canada from Ministerial documents and reports— Although such documents conflicting with counsel’s submissions, Minister’s delegate giving former more weight without explanation—Minister’s delegate not analysing infirmities in CIC’s evidence, points made by applicant’s counsel— Evidence must show on balance of probabilities applicant danger to public in Canada—Minister must provide written reasons for decision individual danger to public, no substantial grounds to believe individual will be subjected to torture— Evidence in record conflicting, deficient—Required analysis, explanations not provided—Application allowed— Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 115(2)(a).
Thanabalasingham v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM‑3402‑03, 2005 FC 172, Lemieux J., order dated 3/2/05, 35 pp.)