Refugee was citizen of Nicaragua who had voluntarily joined youth wing of Frente Sandanista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN) in 1978 or 1979. In 1980 or 1981, refugee joined FSLN’s armed force, Ejercito Popular Sandinista (EPS), and performed activities in conjunction with Military Police Special Forces Branch. Refugee claimed much of her participation was coerced and that she was subjected to several threats and assassination attempts because of her knowledge of EPS’ activities. Refugee came to Canada in 1993 and was determined to be Convention refugee. Immigration officer later determined refugee was inadmissible to Canada because of her past membership in FSLN, which was believed to have engaged in terrorism. Refugee unsuccessfully applied for ministerial relief. Refugee brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. Refugee had not established that she was treated unfairly in ministerial relief process, nor that decision of Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was unreasonable. Refugee had clearly been given meaningful opportunity to participate in minister’s decision-making process and had been provided with multiple extensions of time to respond to draft recommendation of President of Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). There was no evidence that refugee was prejudiced in any way by being forced to provide response to draft recommendation of President of CBSA before she had received response from CBSA with respect to access to information request. At end of day, refugee sought to have court re-weigh evidence that was before minister and come to different result, but that was not role of court sitting in review of ministerial decision.
Steves v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 621, 2017 FC 247, Anne L. Mactavish J. (F.C.).