contains spoilers. In particular, it discusses the ending of The Boat People by Sharon Bala.
The Boat People tells the story of 503 Tamils who, fleeing Sri Lanka, arrived off the coast of Vancouver Island. They faced rigorous examination of their refugee claims. The book focuses on the story of Mahindan, a mechanic, and his son, Sellian. As the story concludes Mahindan is about to enter an admissibility hearing that will determine if they are allowed to stay in Canada. To my surprise and regret Bala chose not to tell whether they succeeded.
On her website under the link for Contact Bala provides a link to FAQs where she states with regard to the ending:
Mahindan goes into the admissibility hearing ready to face the future head on. But Canada's refugee system is capricious. So much depends on individual adjudicators' good and bad moods, their ignorance and understanding. Maybe Grace is feeling generous. Maybe she's in a foul mood ….
Mahindan's entire life has been a series of unlucky and lucky dice rolls. Stories are partnerships, co-created by writers and readers. I left the dice on the table for you to make the next roll. Put yourself in the adjudicator's uncomfortable shoes. You know what Mahindan's done and his motivations. Does he deserve to stay or be deported? You also know the forces and people working for and against him. You've met Grace and Fred Blair and Gigovaz and Priya. So also ask yourself: what do you think will happen to Mahindan and Sellian? Is it different from the judgement you would have made?
Mahindan's entire life has been a series of unlucky and lucky dice rolls. Stories are partnerships, co-created by writers and readers. I left the dice on the table for you to make the next roll. Put yourself in the adjudicator's uncomfortable shoes. You know what Mahindan's done and his motivations. Does he deserve to stay or be deported? You also know the forces and people working for and against him. You've met Grace and Fred Blair and Gigovaz and Priya. So also ask yourself: what do you think will happen to Mahindan and Sellian? Is it different from the judgement you would have made?
I decided to take up Bala’s challenge utilizing my experience as a litigator. I have written the judgment I believe Grace would have written. I took a look at a number of Immigration and Refugee Board decisions to have a sense of format and content. I took a look at Canadian court decisions on refugee appeals. I looked at international law on refugees. I sought to base the decision on the facts presented in the book and the law of Canada. My decision is condensed. A real decision would have been much longer and would be unlikely to have had case citations. Sharp eyed readers may notice that some of my case authorities were given after the time of the fictional admissibility hearing would have taken place. The principles quoted in my decision were already being considered at the time Grace would have been writing her decision. I have sent this post and my review of the book to Ms. Bala. If she responds and is willing I will post her reply.
****
Between:
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
and
Poonambalan Mahindan and Sellian
Panel - Grace NakamuraCounsel for the Minister - Ms. A. Singh
Counsel for the Persons Concerned - Mr. Gigovaz and Ms. P. Rajakaran
REASONS FOR DECISION
These are the reasons for a decision made under the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) concerning Mr. Mahindan and Sellian.
MINISTER’S POSITION
DECISION
The UNHCR Guidelines, issued two years ago in 2010,
specifically recommend ongoing protection for those persona
with the following profiles: persons suspected of having
links with the LTTE (emphasis added), journalists and other
media professionals, civil society and human rights activists,
women and children with certain profiles, and lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender individuals. As I have found that this
claimant would be suspected of having links with the LTTE on
return to Sri Lanka, I have paid particular attention to risks he
might face.
The full text of the X (Re) decision can be found at:
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2012/2012canlii100150/2012canlii100150.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQARcmVmdWdlZSBTcmkgbGFua2EAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=7
A further consideration involves Sellian. I accept, as found in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] 3 SCR 909, 2015 SCC 61 (CanLII), that Sellian is at risk of discrimination as a young Tamil male if he were returned to Sri Lanka.
Unity of the family is long established in international law. An example of that principle is to be found in the Final Act of the 1951 U.N. Conference of Plentipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, Recommendation B:
B. "THE CONFERENCE,
CONSIDERING that the unity of the family, the natural
and fundamental group unit of society, is an essential right of the
refugee, and that such unity is constantly threatened, and
NOTING with satisfaction that, according to the official commentary of the
ad hoc Committee on Statelessness and Related Problems
(E/1618, p. 40) the rights granted to a refugee are extended to
members of his family
,
,
RECOMMENDS Governments to take the necessary measures
for the protection of the refugee's family, especially with a
view to:
(1) Ensuring that the unity of the refugee's family is maintained particularly in
cases where the head of the family has fulfilled the necessary conditions for
admission to a particular country;
(2) The protection of refugees who are minors, in particular unaccompanied
children and girls, with special reference to guardianship and adoption."
Mr. Mahindan has described the agonizing separation from his son for the many months of his detention. It is time for them to be together again as father and son. I find they are in need of protection and accept their applications as refugees.
Signed by Grace Nakamura
(The Government of Canada did not appeal Ms. Nakamura's decision. Mahindan and Sellian succeeded before the Refugee Board. They are doing well in Canada. Mahindan is working full time as an automotive technician and Sellian is happy in school.)
What a detailed, thoughtful discussion, Bill. And thanks for sharing your legal expertise in this decision. You make strong points here, and it's clear how you arrived at your decision. There's so much to think about when it comes to these questions of who should be admitted as a refugee, and who should not. I think it must be wrenching in real life to be the one to make those decisions.
ReplyDeleteMargot: Thanks for the comment. Such hearings are emotional. I tried as adjudicators try to make an objective decision. I do not envy real life adjudicators.
DeleteOh, what a good decision. I have not read the book, but you lay out the essence of each side's arguments. As someone who supports refugees and migrants who are attempting to enter the U.S. Southern border and facing detention, deportation and family separation, I hardly need convincing that these two characters should be allowed to remain in Canada.
ReplyDeleteI wish this legal system was this fair. The conditions of detention near the border for im/migrants here are horrific, and the separation of families and abusive treatment of detained children makes any sympathetic person here just heartsick every day.
My grandparents fled anti-Jewish pogroms in the Pale of Russia in 1907. They fled and came to the U.S. Later on, prior to WWII and during it, Jewish immigration was very restricted, sending many people to sure deaths.
I will always support refugees and unity of families. So many families were separated during WWII and before that, during the hundreds of years of slavery and taking of Indigenous children.
So I don't need convincing. Your decision should be emulated here in real courts.
Kathy D.: Thanks for the comment. I like our system better than America but we are subject to arbitrary decisions by adjudicators. With too many cases for the adjudicators it is inevitable there will be decisions that hastily done.
Delete