Примеры использования Minister's delegate на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
The Court found that, in the deportation decision, the Minister's delegate had erred in two respects.
In counsel's view, the Minister's delegate responsible for taking the decision on protection failed to act in an independent and impartial manner.
As to the claim of a violation of article 7 in the event of a return to Iran,the author notes that it was clear that the form of persecution the Minister's delegate had in mind on 8 February 1995 when approving the refugee claim involved article 7 rights.
The Committee notes that the Minister's delegate concluded in her decision that the complainant personally ran a real risk of torture if he were returned.
The State party replied to this argument by stating that it is not for the Committee to conduct a judicial review of the decisions of the Canadian courts, andthat the Committee should not substitute its own findings for those of the Minister's delegate, except in case of manifest error, abuse of process, bad faith, bias or serious procedural irregularities.
In a decision of 2 December 2003, the Minister's delegate rejected the complainant's application for protection.
With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as required under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes the arguments by the State party that the author failed to make an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and that he failed to appeal to the Federal Court the negative decision of the Immigration Appeal Division of 25 October 2006,as well as the negative PRRA decision of the Minister's Delegate of 23 February 2009.
It contested the conclusion that the Minister's delegate denied the existence of a risk and that the decision was not motivated.
The same day he lodged an application for review of this decision with the RRT,as well as an application with the Department for a bridging visa seeking his release pending determination of the RRT proceedings. On 9 December 2002, a Minister's delegate refused the request for a bridging visa. On 18 December 2002, the Migration Review Tribunal upheld the decision to refuse a bridging visa.
With regard to the alleged clan affiliation, the Minister's Delegate noted that the Somali society is characterized by membership of clan-families and that the author's allegation of absence of such affiliation of his parents was unsupported.
It also notes that on 9 February 2007, the PRRA Officer found that the author would face a risk to life and cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment if removed to Somalia and that,on 23 February 2009, the Minister's Delegate found that the author did not face a personal or individualized risk of serious harm in Somalia and that he posed a danger to the public in Canada.
The Committee notes the complainant's contention that the Minister's delegate, in her decision of 2 December 2003, used irrelevant criteria as grounds for refusing protection, namely that the person constituted a threat to Canada's security.
The revised report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, promised for the end of April 1992, was not finalized until 8 July 1992. On 27 July 1992, the Refugee Council of Australia forwarded a response to the update to the Immigration Department and, on 25 August 1992, the Refugee Status Review Committee once more recommended dismissal of the author's application for refugee status.On 5 December 1992, the Minister's delegate rejected the author's claim.
With regard to the ongoing violence andhumanitarian concerns, the Minister's Delegate noted that these conditions applied indiscriminately to all citizens of Somalia.
He considers that the Minister's delegate found that the author had a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran because of his religion and because his psychological state may bring him to the notice of the authorities which could lead to the deprivation of his liberty under such conditions as to constitute persecution.
On 28 February 2007 the State party informed the Committee that the complainant's tworequests for judicial review, one in respect of the decision of the Minister's delegate rejecting his application for protection and the other in respect of the decision to enforce the removal order, had been rejected by the Federal Court of Canada on 1 February 2007.
In this latter decision, the Minister's delegate had concluded that there was no risk of torture to the complainant and thus it was not necessary to balance the aspect of risk with that of danger to society to determine whether the complainant's situation gave way to"exceptional circumstances" justifying his return despite the risk of torture.
The first author, her daughters and mother-in-law arrived in Australia on 20 April 1998 and applied for a protection visa on 4 June 1998.On 29 June 1998, a Minister's delegate denied their application. On 13 May 1999, the Refugee Review Tribunal(RRT) confirmed the delegates' decision in both the cases of the husband and the rest of the family.
The Commission filed formal submissions on his behalf on 24 March and on 13 April 1991 but, because of new Determination of Refugee Status Committee regulations in force since December 1990, all applications had to be reassessed by Immigration Department desk officers. On 26 April 1991, the Commission was given two weeks to reply to the new assessments; replies were filed on 13 May 1991.On 15 May 1991, the Minister's delegate rejected the author's application.
Furthermore, there were several errors in the decision, for the Minister's delegate had failed to take account of the documents showing that torture was practised in India.
On 2 June 1998, by virtue of his birth in that country and residing there for 10 years, Barry acquired Australian citizenship. On 3 June 1998, Mr. Winata and Ms. Li lodged combined applications for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs(DIMA), based generally upon a claim that they faced persecution in Indonesia owing to their Chinese ethnicity and Catholic religion.On 26 June 1998, the Minister's delegate refused to grant a protection visa.
Concerning the danger the author poses to the public in Canada, the Minister's Delegate noted the author's extensive criminal record, as well as the nature and severity of his offences and the absence of prospect for rehabilitation.
The complainant applied for judicial review of the 2 December 2003 decision of the Minister's delegate. On 11 June 2004, the Federal Court in Toronto noted that, according to Supreme Court case law, in particular the Suresh judgement cited by the complainant, the prohibition of torture was"an emerging peremptory norm of international law" and international law rejected deportation to torture even where national security interests were at stake.
It also notes that,on 23 February 2009, this decision was revised by the Minister's Delegate finding that the author did not face an individualized risk of serious harm and that he posed a danger to the Canadian public.
On 11 May 2006 another decision on protection was handed down by the Minister's delegate, this time finding that, while the complainant might be prosecuted in India for his alleged part in assassination attempts, new legislation had entered into force protecting accused persons from abuses that had been tolerated under the old law.
As to the claim that the State party was involved in the 11 May 2006 decision by the Minister's delegate rejecting the complainant's request for protection, the State party notes that this allegation is based on an e-mail to a CBSA staff member.
In this case, the Committee notes that,in her protection decision of 11 May 2006, the Minister's delegate denied the real, personal threat of torture based on the fresh assessment, and merely accepted that a new law had been adopted in India apparently protecting accused persons from torture, without regard to whether the law would effectively be implemented or how it would affect the complainant's specific situation.
The Committee also takes note of the complainant's argument that,in the decision of 11 May 2006, the Minister's delegate did not take into account the complainant's particular situation, and in denying protection merely cited a supposed improvement in the general conditions in the Punjab.
He argues that,in the 11 May 2006 decision on protection, the Minister's delegate again applied irrelevant considerations to justify the denial of protection to the applicant, in violation of the Convention and of international law.
The State party clarifies the reasons, for which,on 23 February 2009, the Minister's Delegate found that the author did not face a personal or individualized risk of serious harm in Somalia and that the author posed a danger to the Canadian public.