Date: 19971127
Docket: IMM-4540-96
BETWEEN:
KATHIRGAMALINGAM CHEHAR
PRIYANKA CHEHAR
ARUNTHATHY CHEHAR
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
WETSTON J.
[1] By order of the Court, dated 20 October 1997, the application for judicial review of the Immigration and Refuge Board's decision to reject the claim of Kathirgamalingam Chehar (the" male applicant") to refugee status was allowed, while the corresponding application of Priyanka Chehar (the"female applicant") was denied. No mention was made concerning the application of Arunthathy Chehar (the "minor applicant").
[2] Counsel for both parties have prepared written submissions concerning the issue of whether the request for judicial review of the Board's decision to reject the claim of the minor applicant for refugee status should be allowed.
[3] Counsel for the minor applicant submits that I should rely upon the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to find that it would be in the best intersts of the applicant to have the Board provide specific consideration of her individual claim. I find it unnecessary to do so. The Board is obliged, under s. 69.1(9) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, to determine whether each person who comes before it is a Convention refugee, and to provide written reasons for its determination (under s. 69.3(7)).
[4] The respondent contends that the Board drew a distinction between the application of the male applicant and the aplications of the female and minor applicants, in making its findings. Because the Board did not err in concluding that the female applicant was not persecuted in Colombo, the minor applicant also does not face a serious chance that she would be persecuted if returned to Colombo.
[5] While the Board did not err in making its findings concerning the female applicant, it nonetheless failed to expressly state why it rejected the claim of the minor applicant. As such, the Board erred, either in failing to consider the minor applicant's individual claim, or in failing to provide specific reasons for why it determined that her claim should be rejected.
[6] The application for judical review shall be allowed. The matter shall be returned for re-hearing by the same Panel that shall rehear the claim of the male applicant, Kathirgamalingam Chehar.
Howard I. Wetston
Judge
Vancouver, British Columbia
November 27, 1997
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
HEARING DATED: September 16, 1997
COURT NO.: IMM-4540-96
| STYLE OF CAUSE: KATHIRGAMALINGAM CHEHAR, PRIYANKA CHEHAR, ARUNTHATHY CHEHAR |
v.
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ON
REASONS FOR ORDER OF WETSTON, J.
dated November 27, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Raoul Boulakia for Applicants
Mr. John Loncar for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Raoul Boulakia for Applicant
Toronto, ON
George Thomson for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada