Jeyarajah v. Canada

Jeyarajah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 7551 (FCA)

• Similar to Fabian and Thanabalasingham, this was the case of a Sri Lankan Convention Refugee who was convicted of a criminal offence and subsequently had a danger opinion issued against him
• In his case, he had been convicted for narcotics importing of a value more than one million dollars
• A letter was sent to him indicating that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration believed he was a danger to the public and would be seeking such an opinion from the Minister. The letter included things that the Minister would consider, such as H & C considerations and risk of returning to Sri Lanka.
• Jeyarajah made no submissions re: risk in Sri Lanka either before the opinion was issued or in the JR of the danger opinion
• Then 7 months after deportation order was issued he sought declaratory relief that the process of deportation without a risk assessment was unconstitutional, and that he faced risks due to his profile
• The FC case here being reviewed here was the refusal to grant interim stay of removal pending the result in his action for declaratory relief
• The Court held that there was no serious issue to be tried in the underlying actions:

o Jeyarajah repeatedly failed to mention any risk despite having multiple opportunities over years to do it, including being specifically invited to do so by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The existence of any risk was not credible.
o Second, the mere existence of a refugee status, especially when such status was granted many years ago, is not, in the absence of evidence of actual risk sufficient to give rise to a serious factual issue.

• Note that one distinguishing feature of this case is that Mr. Jeyarajah had assistance of counsel throughout his interactions with CIC, and thus would have known and understood his opportunity to makes submissions on risk.

Jeyarajah in other case-law:

• See Almrei v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 355 (CanLII), <>:
[39] The Respondents submit that Mr. Almrei was not able to establish that he faced a present and personal risk of torture. The fact that he was previously found to be a Convention refugee is not sufficient to establish present risk. See Jeyarajah v. M.C.I. (1999), 236 N.R. 175; [1999] F.C.J. No. 198, online: QL.