A Guyana family of four recently lost their bid to remain in Canada through the refugee route when a federal court found that while they may be at a risk of becoming victims of crime in Guyana they would not find themselves in an unusual situation.
According to the decision seen by this newspaper, and issued by Justice Sean Harrington, Balwaan Chand, his wife and two of his three children, fled Guyana in order to seek refuge in Canada as they were victims of a home invasion and there were two incidents in nearby villages where more than a score were murdered. “…crime is widespread and they may be targeted more than others because of their Indo-Guyanese ethnicity and relative wealth,” the decision said.
It was noted that although they were found to be credible, their refugee claim was dismissed and their pre-removal assessment was negative.
They then applied for permanent status from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds, which was an exception to the regulations which require applicants to apply from outside of Canada. The application was however allowed but later denied, and they requested a judicial review which was done by Justice Harrington.
For the review the Chands submitted that there had been three reviewable errors, one being that the best interest of their children, one of whom was born in Canada, had not been properly taken into account; the psychological report by a doctor with respect to both the children and their parents was either ignored, dismissed or considered on irrelevant grounds; and the officer assessed their likely situation should they return to Guyana on the basis of risk, rather than hardship.
“Although it is quite understandable in the circumstances that the Chands would prefer to remain in Canada and while there is no reason to believe that they would not make a positive contribution to our society, I cannot find that the officer’s decision that there would be no unusual, underserved or disproportionate hardship if the Chands were to apply for a permanent resident visa from outside of Canada be unreasonable. Their Canadian-born child is a citizen and of course, is not subject to a removal order,” the judge said.
The Chands were in Canada for two years before the judgement and their two older children began their schooling in Guyana; the judge noted that it was obviously in the best interest of the infant child to remain with his parents. According to the judge in considering the best interests of the children, the officer not only took into account the doctor’s opinion but also country conditions.
“He accepted that both children and the parents might suffer trauma if returned to Guyana and are acutely afraid about their future. However, the point the officer made, which was quite reasonable, was that there were a great many victims of crime in Guyana and if, as country reports indicate, abuses are rampant in the schools, the Chands would not find themselves in an unusual situation. They should not be in a better position because they left Guyana; while others had to stay behind… it is not enough to be a likely victim of generalised crime. There must be something more,” the judge said.
He concluded that the officer did balance establishment in Canada against hardship in Guyana, not risk. He said while another officer might have come to a different conclusion on the same facts, the standard of review is reasonableness.
He then refused the judicial review and as such the Chands were forced to leave the country.
