Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

A-547-80
Mahmoud Saddo (Petitioner)
v.
Immigration Appeal Board, F. Glogowski, R. Tremblay and G. Loiselle (Respondents)
and
Minister of Canada Employment and Immigration and Deputy Attorney General of Canada (Mis -en- cause)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ., Hyde D.J.—Montreal, January 19, 1981.
Judicial review — Immigration — Application.to set aside Immigration Appeal Board's decision that applicant is not a Convention refugee — Refusal by Board to consider newspaper articles as evidence of persecution — Whether Board erred in law — Application allowed — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28 — Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, s. 71.
APPLICATION for judicial review. COUNSEL:
Julius H. Grey for petitioner.
Suzanne Marcoux-Paquette for respondents
and mis -en-cause.
SOLICITORS:
Julius H. Grey, Montreal, for petitioner. Deputy Attorney General of Canada for respondents and mis -en-cause.
The following are the reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: This is a section 28 application to set aside a decision of the Immigration Appeal Board under subsection 71(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, determining that the applicant is not a Convention refugee.
The applicant had submitted newspaper articles in support of his contention that the members of the tribe to which he belonged were persecuted by the Ethiopian authorities. The Board refused to consider those articles on the ground that "the
Board cannot consider newspaper articles as evi dence on which it can base its decision." This statement, in our view, discloses an error of law. Newspaper articles may or may not have probative value according to the circumstances of each case. They may afford reasonable grounds to believe that a refugee claim could be established upon a hearing of the application; they may also be an element in establishing a well-founded fear of per secution. For those reasons, they had to be con sidered and weighed by the Board in making a decision under section 71.
For those reasons, the application will be allowed, the decision under attack will be set aside and the matter will be referred back to the Board for disposition on the basis that the newspaper articles submitted by the applicant must be con sidered and weighed by the Board in reaching its decision.
 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.