Muhari—considering the totality of evidence and discrimination in refugee case

Muhari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 27 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Scott

Date heard: December 15, 2010

Date decided: January 12, 2011

Counsel for Muhari: Michel Le Brun

Counsel for Minister: Emilie Tremblay

Place of Hearing: Montréal, Quebec

The principal Applicant and his family were of Hungarian ethnicity but Serbian citizenship. They arrived in Canada on visitors visas in January 2008. In February 2008, Kosovo declared independence from Serbia, heightening the Applicants fears of persecution based on their ethnicity (paras. 2-5).

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the Applicants credible but rejected their claim on the basis that they had suffered discrimination, not persecution (para. 7).

Justice Scott reiterated the settled law that the RPD must consider all the evidence on an issue and if rejecting evidence must provide an explanation (paras. 13-15).

In the Applicant’s case, the panel referred to a piece of documentary evidence which, on the whole, supported their case; however, the panel referred only to a part of the document which supported the panel’s conclusions (para. 16). Justice Scott stated that while it was true that the panel did not have to explicitly refer or respond to each piece of documentary evidence, but added “However, where the evidence deals with an element that is crucial to the dispute, the panel’s obligation is quite different. It must refer to that evidence and explain why it did not accept it (Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 485 (CanLII), 2009 FC 485, [2009] FCJ No. 616 (QL) at paragraph 15).”

Justice Scott also found that the panel had failed to consider the cumulative effect of severe discrimination, which may amount to persecution (paras. 23-25).

JUDICIAL REVIEW GRANTED

Hijabs + Soccer = Bad?

Expect a lot of these. Why? Because it's reading week, and even I can only take so much CPAC.

Officially ON NOTICE is the Quebec Soccer Association that lead to this debacle:

Muslim girl ejected from tournament for wearing hijab

...I'm sorry...I can only assume I misheard you...but no, in fact, the girl (from the pic on the CBC site, I'm going to say she's 10-12) was ejected from the game, leading to a walkout of hers and several other teams. The Association claims that "...the ban on hijabs is to protect children from being accidentally strangled." *eyeroll* Right, because that's a common tragedy. K

...although I would hope that the girl was wearing a "sporty" hijab (e.g. the ones available at this Dutch site) i.e. one that involves minimal pins and hopefully velcro.

See also:Hijab Option for London Policewomen; Jewish dad backs headscarf daughters

---

The Beeb reports: Court clears Serbia of genocide (for "Court" read "International Court of Justice").

I'm not 100% sure about this one. I'll have to read the decision itself...but it doesn't jive with anything else I've read of the period. I mean, if ICTY was all set to try the Serbian leader, then there must have been was probably a high level of official collusion, n'est pas?

I suppose the ICJ may have chosen to follow the hilariously restrictive precedent it set in Nicaragua v. United States vis-a-vis finding a state complicit in crimes against humanity. Although oddly enough, this Wikipedia article on the case implies that the ICJ did find the US complicit, which is the polar opposite of what we're taught in Public International Law.

Of course, Serbia did not get off entirely. The ICJ found "...that Belgrade had violated international law by failing to prevent the 1995 massacre at Srebrenica." The ICJ also found that "'Financial compensation is not the appropriate form of reparation...'" That much I agree with. I mean, it would be one thing if there was a concrete damage requiring repair, but otherwise, what's the point? Monetary damages do not prevent this sort of thing. Treaty of Versaille, anyone?