Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20040601

Docket: IMM-5292-03

Citation: 2004 FC 796

Ottawa, Ontario, this 1st day of June, 2004

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN                              

BETWEEN:

                                               SINNAMMAH VYGTHILINGHAM

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF

CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board ("Board") dated June 9, 2003, which determined that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, for lack of a well-founded fear of persecution.

[2]                At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the respondent, Mr. Jamie Todd, advised the Court, as an officer of the Court, of two recent Federal Court decisions which make the Board's decision erroneous. The Court commends Mr. Todd for executing his duty as an officer of the Court.

[3]                I agree that the Board's conclusion at page 5 of its reasons that "The Courts have found victims of extortion (in the circumstances of the applicant) do not constitute a particular social group (for the purposes of the Refugee Convention)" is an error of law. Madame Justice Mactavish in Nadarajah v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2004] FC 500 and Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson in Packiam et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2004] FC 649 have both held that the extortion of an elderly Tamil may be "persecution" in certain circumstances for the purposes of the Convention. Accordingly, I am of the view that the Board's decision must be redetermined with the direction that extortion in certain circumstances can be persecution with a nexus to Convention refugee ground.

[4]                Since both parties recognized that the matter would need to be sent back for redetermination, neither party proposed any question for certification.


                                                                       ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:

This application is allowed, the decision of the Board is set aside, and the matter remitted to the Board for redetermination by a differently constituted panel.

                                                                 "Michael A. Kelen"                                                                                                    _______________________________

             JUDGE


                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                               IMM-5292-03

STYLE OF CAUSE: SINNAMMAH VYGTHILINGAM

                                                                                                                                              Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:         TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:           MAY 20, 2004

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN

DATED:                                  JUNE 1, 2004

APPEARANCES BY:            

Mr. John Grant

For the Applicant

Mr. Jamie Todd

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          

Mr. John Grant

Toronto, Ontario

For the Applicant

Mr. Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent


                         FEDERAL COURT

                               Date: 20040601

                                 Docket: IMM-5292-03

BETWEEN:

SINNAMMAH VYGTHILINGAM

                                                                  Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                             Respondent

                                                 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER

                                                                                   


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.