Yamba v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-4953-97
Muldoon J.
6/11/98
8 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD's decision applicants not Convention refugees-Applicants citizens of former Zaire-Husbands active supporters of Parti lumumbiste unifié (PALU), opposed to new government-Applicants claiming refugee status based on imputed political opinion, membership in social group, i.e. family membership-CRDD narrating continuous incidents of violence, upheaval tantamount to civil war throughout new République démocratique du Congo-Head of state presiding over unruly armed party (AFDL) apparently murderous, savage toward women, girls-CRDD noting three months prior to rendering decision, PALU demonstration suppressed with violence, but holding no reasonable possibility applicants would be persecuted by members of AFDL-Although CRDD based impugned decision on changed country conditions, not appearing to accord attention to Immigration Act, s. 2(2), (3)-S. 2(2)(e) providing person ceasing to be Convention refugee when reasons for fear of persecution in country person left ceasing to exist-S. 2(3) providing person not ceasing to be Convention refugee under s. 2(2)(e) if establishing compelling reasons arising out of any previous persecution for refusing to avail himself of protection of country left by reason of fear of persecution-In Pillai v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1997] E.W.J. No. 293 (C.A.), Lord Woolf, M.R. stating if readily discernible obvious point (i.e. having strong prospect of success) of Convention law favouring applicant, should be applied in applicant's favour even though applicant has not taken it; similarly if obvious point of Convention law favourable to asylum-seeker not appearing in adjudicator's decision, Tribunal should grant leave to appeal; otherwise, danger country in breach of obligations under Convention-CRDD must consider all of ingredients of definition of "Convention refugee" when facts evoking such consideration-Here CRDD not giving that consideration of facts, or grossly misinterpreted facts recited in its decision without apparently considering or understanding them: CRDD's decision patently unreasonable-Evidence demonstrating compelling reasons, on facts, for different decision from that rendered-Question certified: In deciding whether applicant satisfying requirements of definition of Convention refugee in Immigration Act, s. 2, is CRDD obliged to consider requirements of ss. 2(2)(e) and 2(3) in sequence in deciding whether requirements of s. 2(3) apply to applicant in event CRDD determining change in country conditions-Application allowed-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 2(2) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 1), (3) (as am. idem).