Rabbani v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-236-96
Noël J.
16/1/97
6 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD decision applicant not Convention refugee-Applicant from Afghanistan-CRDD concluding applicant having well-founded fear of persecution at hands of Jamiat, pro-Islamic government which controls 7 out of 30 provinces, but finding applicant having Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in other parts of country-Also noting decision claimant not having well-founded fear of persecution in Afghanistan outside area of Jamiat control may be seen as based on changed country conditions-Although noting applicant suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, not compelling reason to find applicant Convention refugee in accordance with Immigration Act, s. 2(3)-Application allowed-(1) Applicant not given opportunity to be heard on s. 2(3) issue-Board could not embark upon consideration of s. 2(3) without first finding factual basis upon which could conclude change in country conditions pursuant to s. 2(2)-That in turn required finding applicant establishing reasonable fear of persecution throughout Afghanistan prior to advent of change in country conditions-Prior to embarking upon consideration of changed country conditions, CRDD having duty to notify claimant issue considered relevant to determination of claim-Evidence adduced not such that change of country conditions should have been apparent to claimant as relevant issue-CRDD's decision pursuant to s. 2(2), (3) not mere obiter-Believed decision could be considered as being based on changed country conditions because evidence capable of establishing applicant subject of persecution throughout Afghanistan, but conclusion as to existence of IFA based on opposite conclusion-Both conclusions standing on independent, alternative grounds upon which Board rejecting claim-(2) CRDD's decision not identifying exactly where in Afghanistan applicant could reasonably be expected to find safe haven-Conclusion as to existence of IFA requiring more than identification of approximate area where agent of persecution thought to be in control and general conclusion claimant free to flee elsewhere-Specific geographic location must be identified where conditions such as to make it realistic, attainable safe haven-Requires discussion as to prevailing conditions within identified location-Evidence control over areas referred to by CRDD moving back and forth amongst protagonists with result no definite location identified by CRDD-If area within which IFA existing uncertain, not realistic, reasonably accessible location-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 2(2) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 1), (3) (as am. idem).