Federal court | Immigration
PERSON IN NEED OF PROTECTION
Board committed serious legal error in equating “serious efforts” with “adequacy”
Applicant family was Roma citizens of Czech Republic who claimed refugee status in Canada. Applicants cited numerous instances of being attacked by “skinheads”. Refugee Board found that applicants had been discriminated against because they were Roma. However, board found that this discrimination did not amount to persecution because it was not sustained or systemic violation of their basic human rights that demonstrated failure of state protection. Because they failed to rebut presumption of state protection, applicants were not Convention Refugees. Board also found that applicants were not persons in need of protection. Application for judicial review was allowed. Board committed serious legal error in equating “serious efforts” with “adequacy” and unreasonably failed to address evidence before it on issue of whether, in practice, those efforts have resulted in adequate protection for applicants. Matter was ordered returned for reconsideration.
Koky v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Dec. 2, 2011, F.C., Russell J., File No. IMM-2577-11) 209 A.C.W.S. (3d) 644 (29 pp.).
Board committed serious legal error in equating “serious efforts” with “adequacy”
Applicant family was Roma citizens of Czech Republic who claimed refugee status in Canada. Applicants cited numerous instances of being attacked by “skinheads”. Refugee Board found that applicants had been discriminated against because they were Roma. However, board found that this discrimination did not amount to persecution because it was not sustained or systemic violation of their basic human rights that demonstrated failure of state protection. Because they failed to rebut presumption of state protection, applicants were not Convention Refugees. Board also found that applicants were not persons in need of protection. Application for judicial review was allowed. Board committed serious legal error in equating “serious efforts” with “adequacy” and unreasonably failed to address evidence before it on issue of whether, in practice, those efforts have resulted in adequate protection for applicants. Matter was ordered returned for reconsideration.
Koky v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Dec. 2, 2011, F.C., Russell J., File No. IMM-2577-11) 209 A.C.W.S. (3d) 644 (29 pp.).
