CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Status in Canada |
Convention Refugees |
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lin
A-3-01
2001 FCA 306, Desjardins J.A.
18/10/01
8 pp.
Appeal from Motions Judge's decision determining CRDD made no reviewable error in deciding respondent Convention refugee--Motions Judge certified 2 questions: whether CRDD erred in law in finding minor claimant had well-founded fear of persecution on ground member of particular social group, being minor child of Chinese family expected to provide support for other family members; whether, if answer to first question negative, CRDD erred in law in finding state's inability to protect when minor claimant, alleging persecution by his parents, did not seek state protection--Respondent 17-year-old male citizen of China--Alleging family forced him to leave China illegally, made arrangement through snakeheads for him to go to New York so he could work and send money back to support his family in China--Appeal allowed--As no evidence father knew son would be travelling in container, CRDD's finding that parents, with complicity of snakeheads, had placed him in dangerous situation without foundation--While CRDD found more than mere possibility that respondent, if returned, would be forced by parents to make another attempt, no matter how dangerous, to leave China illegally, respondent made no statement to that effect, and no evidence parents could afford to pay for such trip second time--CRDD did not explain why supporting one's family members amounting to persecution--No evidence respondent considered his parents as agents of persecution--No evidence supporting CRDD's finding that minor children in Chinese family who are expected to provide support for other family members constitute group targeted for persecution by parents or other agents of persecution--No supporting evidence to establish that respondent's fear of persecution "by reason of" his membership in that social group--Respondent's fear of persecution not because under 18 and expected to provide support to family; fear directed at Chinese authorities and stemmed from method chosen to leave China--Issue of state protection never raised during hearing--No evidence of unwillingness on part of respondent to seek state protection which could have been explained by filial piety--First question should be answered in affirmative on basis no evidence respondent had well-founded fear of persecution.