IYANDA DEANZA SHERISA THOMAS Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, 2012 FC 498

Date: 20120430 Docket: IMM-6341-11 Citation: 2012 FC 498 Toronto, Ontario, April 30, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: IYANDA DEANZA SHERISA THOMAS Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] Ms. Iyanda Deanza Sherisa Thomas (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and RefugeeBoard, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”) made on August 11, 2011. In that decision the Board determined that the Applicant isneither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection within the meaning of

section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, ofthe Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.S. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [2] The Applicant, a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, sought protection in Canada as a member of a particular socialgroup; presumably single women without family support. [3] In this application for judicial review the Applicant argues that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness byproceeding to hear her claim in the absence of counsel and without explaining to her the nature of the case that she had to establish.

Aswell, she submits that the Board unreasonably concluded that she was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.Specifically that the Board’s failure to address abandonment and psychological abuse, as grounds for protection, was a reviewable error. [4] The issue of a breach of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness; see Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at para 43.

The findings of the Board as to the well-foundednessof the Applicant’s claim for protection are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paras. 53. [5] Having regard to the record, there is no claim for finding a breach of procedural fairness. The Applicant attended for herhearing without counsel. She was asked if she was prepared to proceed without counsel and answered in the affirmative. There is nothingin the transcript to suggest that she was unable to meaningful participation in the hearing.

In my opinion, there was no breach ofprocedural fairness.

[ 6 ] Likewise, I am satisfied that the Board made a reasonable decision upon the merits of the Applicant’s claim. She was unable to identify an agent of persecution. She clearly stated that her principal reason for wanting to stay in Canada was to access a better life for herself and her Canadian-born son. While this desire may assist in an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the Board did not err in rejecting these grounds in an application for protection pursuant to

section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Act. ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6341-11 STYLE OF CAUSE: IYANDA DEANZA SHERISA THOMAS v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: April 30, 2012 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J. DATED: April 30, 2012 APPEARANCES :

Richard Odeleye FOR THE APPLICANT Leanne Briscoe FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Babalola Odeleye Barrister & Solicitor Toronto , Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto , Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT