Ottawa, Ontario, December 16, 2005
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Kaila Paris Romero arrived in Canada in 2002 and claimed refugee protection. She alleged that she was persecuted in her native Panama because of her sexual orientation. A panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board heard and dismissed Ms. Paris Romero's claim in 2004. The Board concluded that Ms. Paris Romero should have sought protection in Costa Rica, where she had been a student from 1994 to 1998.
[2] Ms. Paris Romero argues that the Board made serious errors when it dismissed her claim. She asks me to overturn the Board's decision and order a new hearing. I agree with Ms. Romero's arguments and must, therefore, allow this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
Did the Board's decision correspond with the evidence before it?
II. Analysis
[3] I can overturn the Board's decision only if I find that it was out of keeping with the evidence before it.
[4] Ms. Paris Romero told the Board that she was mistreated in Panama because of her bisexuality. She was suspended from school when authorities learned of her relationship with a classmate named Monica. She was shunned by her family, her friends and her church. She decided to go to university in Costa Rica in 1994 to avoid harassment and discrimination.
[5] Ms. Paris Romero returned to Panama in 1998. In 2001, she reconnected with her friend Monica, but Monica's family strongly disapproved of their relationship. Monica's father, an influential figure in Panama, believed Ms. Paris Romero was a corrupting influence and threatened to kill her. He also attacked her parents. Ms. Paris Romero decided to flee Panama and seek protection in Canada.
[6] The Board, in brief reasons, concluded that Ms. Paris Romero had failed to give a "satisfactory explanation as to why she did not claim refugee status in Costa Rica" which is "the most liberal of the Latin American countries as far as gays and lesbians are concerned". Ms. Paris Romero argues that the events that gave rise to her decision to seek refugee protection in Canada took place several years after she had returned from Costa Rica. She had no status in Costa Rica. She had been there merely as a student in the 1990s.
[7] In my view, the Board failed to address the essence of Ms. Paris Romero's claim for refugee protection and the evidence supporting it. Further, it faulted her for failing to give a satisfactory explanation for not claiming refugee protection in Costa Rica, yet it never put that question to her at the hearing. I must, therefore, allow this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is allowed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL ANDSOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-10440-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: KAILA YASMEIRA PARIS ROMERO v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: December 12, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
APPEARANCES:
Mr. John Guoba FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Angela Marinos FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. John Guoba FOR THE APPLICANT Toronto, Ontario
tOTTT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT