Serrano v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2787-98
Sharlow J.
27/4/99
15 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD decision applicants not Convention refugees-Applicants citizens of Mexico-Principal applicant threatened after refusing to rent truck for transportation of illegal drugs-Neither reporting threats to police nor considering moving elsewhere in Mexico because of police corruption-CRDD holding none of applicants member of particular social group-Application dismissed-Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689 setting out three categories of "particular social group"-Applicants claiming to belong to particular social group of "law abiding Mexican citizens"-Arguing quality of being law abiding moral or spiritual value that is innate or unchangeable human characteristic, within first category: group defined by innate or unchangeable characteristic-Alternatively submitting being law abiding high moral standard fundamental to human dignity, within second category: groups whose members voluntarily associate for reasons so fundamental to their human dignity that they should not be forced to forsake association-Any expansion of Ward's categories must respect object of definition, being "underlying themes of the defence of human rights and anti-discrimination that form the basis for the international refugee protection initiative"-Applicants arguing "law abiding citizens" of country additional subset of "particular social group" (assuming country affording no effective protection for law abiding citizens)-Nothing in Ward supporting recognition of new category-International role qualified by built-in limitations, reflecting fact international community not intending to offer haven for all suffering individuals-"Law abiding citizens of Mexico" not "particular social group" within meaning of Convention-Conclusion supported by decisions rejecting idea victims of crime constituting particular social group-Wife, children alternatively claiming fear of persecution based on membership in particular social group, namely family of principal applicant-Family may be a particular social group-In absence of binding authority, necessary to return to principles in Ward to determine whether "family" stand-alone category of "particular social group", or merely derivative of some other recognized category-Ward says "particular social group" generic category that can be expanded to include groups not expressly mentioned in Convention, but not expanded beyond what is needed to reflect "underlying themes of defence of human rights, anti-discrimination forming basis for international refugee protection initiative"-Family connection not attribute requiring Convention protection, in absence of underlying Convention ground for claimed persecution-Wife's, children's claims dismissed-Questions certified: (1) do "law abiding citizens of Mexico" constitute "particular social group" within meaning of Convention; (2) can refugee claim succeed on basis of wellfounded fear of persecution for reason of membership in particular social group that is a family, if family member who is principal target of persecution not subject to persecution for Convention reason?