As the Guidelines indicate, health considerations in addition to medical inadequacies in the country of origin, may be relevant: Inland Processing, s. “ Moreover, in her exclusive focus on whether treatment was available in Sri Lanka, the Officer ignored what the effect of removal from Canada would be on his mental health. Once she accepted that he had post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder, and depression based on his experiences in Sri Lanka, requiring further evidence of the availability of treatment, either in Canada or in Sri Lanka, undermined the diagnosis and had the problematic effect of making it a conditional rather than a significant factor.” (Para 47) “ Having accepted the psychological diagnosis, it is unclear why the Officer would nonetheless have required Jeyakannan Kanthasamy to adduce additional evidence about whether he did or did not seek treatment, whether any was even available, or what treatment was or was not available in Sri Lanka. The dissenting judges stated that the majority opinion erred in giving the phrase “justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations” a broad interpretation as it would lead to a separate freestanding immigration process, which they stated clearly goes against the intention of the parliament. The court set aside the officer’s decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
An applicant need not prove that he or she is personally targeted discrimination against a particular group of which the applicant is a part must be taken into account. The officer also incorrectly concluded that there was no proof of discrimination because the appellant could not demonstrate that he would be personally targeted. The officer ignored the effect deportation would have on his mental health, focusing instead on the availability of treatment in Sri Lanka to justify denying his application. The officer assessing the appellant’s application for permanent residence failed to take into account the appellant’s age, his mental health, and evidence of likely discrimination should he return to Sri Lanka. The best interests of children must be considered in the analysis, both independently and as a factor modifying analysis of the child’s other circumstances. It held that the denial of the appellant’s permanent residence application was unreasonable. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealh Affairs
#KANTHASAMY EXQUICE MR BGM SERIES#
His application for permanent residence was denied on the basis that there was insufficient evidence that his deportation to Sri Lanka would result in unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship.Ī series of appeals in the lower courts resulted in a holding that the denial of the appellant’s application for permanent residence was reasonable.
He was assessed by a psychologist and diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorder stemming from his experiences in Sri Lanka. His application for refugee protection was denied, and he subsequently sought permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. He travelled to Canada to escape threatened violence from the army and police in Sri Lanka, his native country after he was detained and questioned by the Sri Lankan police and army. The appellant was a 17 year old boy who applied for permanent residence from within Canada, having previously landed as a refugee claimant. Notice: Undefined index: exclude_health-rights-blog in /home/dh_oneill_sftp//wp-content/plugins/related-posts-via-taxonomies/includes/display.php on line 64 Notice: Undefined index: exclude_constitutions in /home/dh_oneill_sftp//wp-content/plugins/related-posts-via-taxonomies/includes/display.php on line 64
Notice: Undefined index: exclude_instruments in /home/dh_oneill_sftp//wp-content/plugins/related-posts-via-taxonomies/includes/display.php on line 64
0 kommentar(er)
