Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 SCR 84, 2002 SCC 3 (CanLII)
http://canlii.ca/t/51wk
• Approval of Ribic factors for IAD appeals (Ribic v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] I.A.B.D. No. 4 (QL))
• Onus is on the applicant to establish country of removal on balance of probabilities
• Foreign hardship must be considered once country of removal is established
o Whether IAD had jurisdiction to consider foreign hardship was seen as a jurisdictional question subject to correctness standard of review
• This does not create an alternative refugee system – considerations are very different for non-refugee PRs
• From Khosa, 2009 SCC:
o [7] The majority of the IAD recognized (at para. 12) that its discretionary jurisdiction to grant “special relief” on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under s. 67(1)(c) of the IRPA should be exercised in light of the factors adopted in Ribic v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] I.A.B.D. No. 4 (QL), and endorsed by this Court in Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 3 (CanLII) [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84, at paras. 40, 41 and 90, namely:
(1) the seriousness of the offence leading to the removal order;
(2) the possibility of rehabilitation;
(3) the length of time spent, and the degree to which the individual facing removal is established, in Canada;
(4) the family and community support available to the individual facing removal;
(5) the family in Canada and the dislocation to the family that removal would cause; and
(6) the degree of hardship that would be caused to the individual facing removal to his country of nationality.