Barua—durable change

Barua v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 59

http://canlii.ca/en/ca/fct/doc/2012/2012fc59/2012fc59.html

Judge: Justice Shore; Date heard: January 12, 2012; Date decided: January 17, 2012; Counsel for Barua: Viken G. Artinian; Counsel for Minister: Salima Djerroud; Place of Hearing: Montréal, Quebec.

The Applicant was a practicing Buddhist in Chittagong, Bangladesh. He was involved in the administration of his temple.

The RPD denied his claim on the basis that a change in the government meant he no longer had objective grounds to fear persecution.

The Court noted that while the current government had been elected on a platform of assisting and protecting minorities, many of its election promises had not been kept. The Court notes that

It is established law that for a change of circumstances to be valid, “the change [must] be meaningful and effective enough or substantial, durable and effective enough to make the applicants’ fear unreasonable and thus, without foundation” (Tariq v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 540, 205 FTR 252 at para 31).

The Court cited further authorities for this proposition, including the UNHCR handbook, and decided that the RPD’s failure to conduct the analysis was fatal to its decision.