submitted an application for a residence visa to the Canadian Embassy in Madrid in March
1993. He received his permanent residency visa and arrived in Canada in August 1993.
In 1995, a report was submitted to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of
Canada pursuant to article 27 of the former Immigration Act, 1 stating that the complainant
should not have been admitted to Canada. The report was submitted to the Canadian
Immigration and Refugee Board for analysis. On 11 July 1996, the Board decided that the
complainant should be expelled from Canada in the light of the fact that he should not have
been admitted to the country; the Minister had found that the complainant had committed
the offences of incitement to murder, hatred and genocide and crimes against humanity, and
had provided false testimony about an important matter in Rwanda. On 6 November 1998,
the Board’s Immigration Appeal Division rejected the complainant’s appeal.
The complainant filed an application for judicial review of the Immigration Appeal
Division’s decision with the Federal Court. On 10 May 2001, the Immigration Appeal
Division rejected the application for judicial review concerning the allegations of
incitement to murder, hatred and genocide but accepted the application for judicial review
of the allegations concerning crimes against humanity and providing false testimony about
an important matter. The complainant then lodged an appeal with the Federal Court of
Appeal. On 8 September 2003, the Federal Court of Appeal agreed to review all the
allegations, thereby setting aside the order for the deportation of the complainant. On 28
June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal on
the grounds that the latter had undertaken a general review of the case rather than a judicial
Seized of the matter by the Canada Border Services Agency, on 24 November 2011
the delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concluded that, pursuant to
article 115 (2) (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the complainant should
not be present in Canada owing to the nature and severity of his past actions. 2 On 22
December, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for leave to have the decision of
the Minister’s delegate submitted for judicial review.
On 29 December 2011, the Canada Border Services Agency confirmed the
complainant’s deportation and scheduled it for 12 January 2012. The complainant asked the
Agency to defer his deportation and to give him a reasonable amount of time to seek legal
admission to another country. On 4 January 2012, the complainant filed a petition with the
Federal Court for leave and judicial review of the Agency’s decision to deport him. Having
received no reply from the Agency, on the same date the complainant petitioned the Federal
Court for a stay of removal until such time as the Court reached a final decision regarding
the petition for leave and judicial review against the decisions of the Minister’s delegate
and the Agency.
On 11 January 2012, the Federal Court denied the complainant’s petition. Since no
appeal could be filed with the Federal Court of Appeal against the enforcement of the
deportation order, all effective domestic remedies had been exhausted.
The complainant claims that the State party violated article 3 of the Convention
against Torture when it returned him to Rwanda, where he ran a real, personal and
foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture because he was considered to be a political
opponent of the Government of Rwanda and an enemy of the State.
The complainant submitted a large number of documents to support his claims,
including a letter dated 9 January 2012 from T., former Prime Minister of the Government
of National Unity that took office after the genocide had occurred. The letter states that the
Now the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Article 115 (2) (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides for the following
exception to the maintenance of refugee status: “on grounds of security, violating human or
international rights or organized criminality if, in the opinion of the Minister, the person should not be
allowed to remain in Canada on the basis of the nature and severity of acts committed or of danger to
the security of Canada”.