Castaneda v. Canada ( Minister of Employment and Immigration )
A-805-92
Noël J.
19/10/93
5 pp.
Application to review Immigration and Refugee Board decision applicant not Convention refugee -- Applicant citizen of Cuba -- Expelled from USSR, where student, for criticizing existing regime in Cuba -- Upon arrival in Gander, Nfld. claimed refugee status -- Sanction for breach of Cuban exit laws ranging from fines to three years in prison -- Board holding applicant not establishing reasonable fear of persecution as not object of persecution in past, and illegal exit from Cuba not itself basis for well-founded fear of persecution -- Applicant alleging Board misdirecting self in application of Valentin v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] 3 F.C. 390 (C.A.) -- Board's holding (above) prima facie proper application of ratio in Valentin -- Applicant arguing Valentin not deciding whether excessive punishment for illegal exit constituting reasonable basis for fear of persecution -- Alleging breach of Board's duty to ascertain whether punishment herein excessive -- Valentin not distinguishable by reference to nature of punishment per se but Board should have considered argument mistreatment of family by Cuban authorities as result of applicant's defection constituting extra-judicial punishment -- Board not referring to evidence sick father may be assigned to field labour and job held for 30 years jeopardized, and mother demoted as untrustworthy -- Isolated nature of sentence and lack of direct relationship between sentence and offender's political opinion determinative factors in Valentin -- Evidence herein of repercussions over and beyond statutory sentence suggesting element of repetition and relentlessness in treatment of applicant's family by Cuban authorities, as well as direct link between applicant's act of defiance and treatment of his family -- If applicant's family targetted by authorities as alleged, issue arising as to whether actions of Cuban authorities persecutory in nature and if so whether applicant could reasonably fear similar fate -- Board's failure to weigh evidence in assessing applicant's claim reviewable error.