Sherisa Thomas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Sherisa Thomas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2012-04-30
Neutral citation
2012 FC 498
File numbers
IMM-6341-11
Decision Content
Date: 20120430
Docket: IMM-6341-11
Citation: 2012 FC 498
Toronto, Ontario, April 30, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
IYANDA DEANZA SHERISA THOMAS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Ms. Iyanda Deanza Sherisa Thomas (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”) made on August 11, 2011. In that decision the Board determined that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection within the meaning of section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.S. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, sought protection in Canada as a member of a particular social group; presumably single women without family support.
[3] In this application for judicial review the Applicant argues that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by proceeding to hear her claim in the absence of counsel and without explaining to her the nature of the case that she had to establish. As well, she submits that the Board unreasonably concluded that she was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Specifically that the Board’s failure to address abandonment and psychological abuse, as grounds for protection, was a reviewable error.
[4] The issue of a breach of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness; see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at para 43. The findings of the Board as to the well-foundedness of the Applicant’s claim for protection are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paras. 53.
[5] Having regard to the record, there is no claim for finding a breach of procedural fairness. The Applicant attended for her hearing without counsel. She was asked if she was prepared to proceed without counsel and answered in the affirmative. There is nothing in the transcript to suggest that she was unable to meaningful participation in the hearing. In my opinion, there was no breach of procedural fairness.
[6] Likewise, I am satisfied that the Board made a reasonable decision upon the merits of the Applicant’s claim. She was unable to identify an agent of persecution. She clearly stated that her principal reason for wanting to stay in Canada was to access a better life for herself and her Canadian-born son. While this desire may assist in an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the Board did not err in rejecting these grounds in an application for protection pursuant to section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Act.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
“E. Heneghan”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6341-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: IYANDA DEANZA SHERISA THOMAS v. THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 30, 2012
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J.
DATED: April 30, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Richard Odeleye
FOR THE APPLICANT
Leanne Briscoe
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Babalola Odeleye
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT