A-720-80
Luis Rene Amayo (Eneina) (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Urie and Ryan JJ. and Kelly
D.J.—Toronto, February 26 and 27, 1981.
Judicial review — Immigration — Application to set aside a
decision of the Immigration Appeal Board refusing to allow an
application for redetermination of a claim for refugee status to
proceed — Board appears to have considered that physical
mistreatment was an essential element of persecution
Whether Board erred in law — Application allowed — Federal
Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
John P. Moore for applicant.
M. Thomas for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
John P. Moore, c/o Toronto Community
Legal Assistance Services, Toronto, for
applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
Theffollowing are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
URIE J.: This section 28 application is brought
to review and set aside a decision of the Immigra
tion Appeal Board ("the Board") refusing to allow
the application of the applicant herein for redeter-
mination of his claim for Convention refugee
status, to proceed.
In our view it is implicit from a careful reading
of the whole of the reasons for judgment of the
Board that it considered that physical mistreat
ment is an essential element in a determination of
whether or not a person has, in the past, suffered
from persecution. If that is not a correct reading of
its reasons, then its finding that the applicant was
not persecuted for his political beliefs is against
both the evidence and the weight of evidence.
There is, in our view, ample evidence in the tran
script of the examination under oath before the
Senior Immigration Officer and in the applicant's
declaration filed pursuant to subsection 70(2) of
the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, to
demonstrate that the applicant over a period of
years suffered persecution from various sources at
his place of work and, after his discharge there
from, during his period of unemployment prior to
coming to Canada, all as a result of his former
political activities and beliefs.
In either case, the Board, in our view, erred in
law. The section 28 application, therefore, must
succeed. The determination of the Board dated
October 2, 1980 will be set aside and the matter
will be referred back to the Board for reconsidera
tion in a manner not inconsistent with these
reasons.
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.